56062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

1The Department is treating Vinh Hoan, Van Duc 

Food Export Joint Company (‘‘Van Duc’’) and Van 

Duc Tien Giang (‘‘VD TG’’) as a single entity. Section 

351.401(f) of the Department’s regulations define 

single entities as those affiliated producers who 

have production facilities for similar or identical 

products that would not require substantial 

retooling of either facility in order to restructure 

manufacturing priorities and the Secretary 

concludes that there is a significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or production. For further 

analysis, see Affiliations and Collapsing section 

below. 

LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT

ASSISTANCE—Continued 

[7/29/2010 through 9/8/2010] 

Firm name Address 

Date accepted for 

investigation 

Products 

Buffelen Woodworking Company.1901 Taylor Way, Tacoma, 

WA 98421.

9/7/2010 The firm manufactures wooden doors. 

C-Thru Ruler Company ............ 6 Britton Drive, Bloomfield, CT 

06002.

9/7/2010 The firm manufacturers various stencils, vinyl lettering and oil 

board lettering. The firm also manufactures rulers, drafting 

supplies, plastic rulers and various templates. 

Custom Machine, LLC .............. 30 Nashua Street, Woburn, 

MA 01801.

8/27/2010 The firm manufactures precision commercial, medical and alternative energy components and assemblies. 

ES Products, LLC ..................... 280 Franklin Street, Bristol, RI 

02809.

8/31/2010 The firm manufactures roofing fasteners for the attachment of 

an initial layer of a multi-layer membrane system to low 

slope, low density roof decks. 

Exotic Rubber & Plastics Corporation, dba Exotic Automation & Supply.34700 Grand River Avenue, 

Farmington Hills, MI 48335.

9/7/2010 The firm manufactures rubber and plastic molded parts and 

gaskets. The firm also distributes power units, cylinders, 

valves, servo controls, and fittings. 

Fiber-Line, Inc ........................... 3050 Campus Drive #200, Hatfield, PA 19440.9/7/2010 The firm manufactures coated fibers and FRP rods. 

Heli Modified, Inc ...................... P.O. Box 63820 Industrial 

Way, Cornish, ME 04020.

9/7/2010 The firm manufacturers ergonomically correct replacement 

motorcycle handlebar and risers. 

NBC Solid Surfaces, Inc ........... 200 Clinton Street, Springfield, 

VT 05156.

9/8/2010 The firm manufactures counter tops made with granite, corian, 

quartz, marble and wood. 

OptiPro Systems, LLC .............. 6368 Dean Parkway, Ontario, 

NY 14519.

9/3/2010 The firm manufactures optical grinding, polishing and measuring machines and performs government research. The 

firm also distributes machine tools, CAS/CAM software, and 

measuring systems. 

Pacific Trail Manufacturing, Inc 6532 SE. Crosswhite Way, 

Portland, OR 97206.

9/3/2010 The firm fabricates specialized chain saws that cut full units of 

various wood products and paper rolls to shorter lengths 

than the originals. 

Parlec, Inc ................................. 101 Perinton Parkway, 

Fairport, NY 14450.

7/29/2010 The firm manufactures machine tool accessories including tool 

holders, boring systems, tapping systems, and tool 

presetters, 

Porta-Nails, Inc ......................... 4235 Hwy 421 N, Currie, NC 

28435.

9/1/2010 The firm produces manual and pneumatic nail and staple 

guns. 

Roylco, Inc ................................ P.O. Box 13409, 3251 Abbeville Highway, Anderson, SC 

29624.

9/7/2010 The firm produces educational and hobby/craft kits. 

Any party having a substantial 

interest in these proceedings may 

request a public hearing on the matter. 

A written request for a hearing must be 

submitted to the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance for Firms Division, Room 

7106, Economic Development 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no 

later than ten (10) calendar days 

following publication of this notice. 

Please follow the requirements set 

forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR 

315.9 for procedures to request a public 

hearing. The Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance official number 

and title for the program under which 

these petitions are submitted is 11.313, 

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. 

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

Miriam J. Kearse, 

Program Team Lead. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22956 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Sixth Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Sixth 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review and new shipper 

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’’). The Department has 

preliminarily determined that Vinh 

Hoan Corporation (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’),1 Vinh 

Quang Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh 

Quang’’) and CUU Long Fish Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘CL-Fish’’) sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) during the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’), August 1, 2008, through July 

31, 2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe or Javier 

Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

9, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56063 

2Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. 

catfish processors, America’s Catch, Consolidated 

Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country Select Catfish, 

Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest Select Catfish, 

Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, Pride of the Pond, 

and Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc. 

3These companies include: (1) An Giang 

Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company 

(aka Agifish or; AnGiang Fisheries Import and 

Export); (2) Anvifish Co., Ltd.; (3) Anvifish Joint 

Stock Company (‘‘Anvifish JSC’’); (4) Asia 

Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company (aka 

Acomfish JSC) (‘‘Acomfish’’); (5) Binh An Seafood 

Joint Stock Co. (‘‘Binh An’’); (6) Cadovimex II 

Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock 

Company; (aka Cadovimex II) (‘‘Cadovimex II’’); (7) 

CL–Fish; (8) East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability 

Company (formerly known as East Sea Seafoods 

Joint Venture Co., Ltd.) (‘‘ESS LLC’’); (9) East Sea 

Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd. (‘‘ESS JVC’’); (10) 

Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Co. (‘‘Hiep 

Thanh’’); (11) Nam Viet Company Limited (aka 

NAVICO) (‘‘NAVICO’’); (12) NTSF Seafoods Joint 

Stock Company (aka NTSF) (‘‘NTSF’’); (13) Panga 

Mekong Co., Ltd. (‘‘Panga Mekong’’); (14) QVD Food 

Company, Ltd. (‘‘QVD’’); (15) QVD Dong Thap Food 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘QVD DT’’); (16) Saigon-Mekong Fishery 

Co., Ltd. (aka SAMEFICO) (‘‘SAMEFICO’’); (17) 

Southern Fishery Industries Company, Ltd. (aka 

South Vina); (18) Thien Ma Seafood Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Thien Ma’’); (19) Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (aka 

THUFICO) (‘‘Thuan Hung’’); (20) Vinh Hoan 

Corporation; (21) Vinh Hoan Company, Ltd.; and 

(22) Vinh Quang. 

4These companies include: (1) Cadovimex II; (2) 

CL-Fish; (3) Hiep Thanh; (4) NAVICO; (5) NTSF; (6) 

Panga Mekong; (7) QVD; (8) SAMEFICO; (9) Thien 

Ma; (10) Thuan Hung; (11) Vinh Quang; (12) QVD 

DT, and; (13) Anvifish Co., Ltd. However, the 

Department continued the administrative review 

with respect to Vinh Quang as this company was 

chosen as a voluntary respondent. See Second 

Respondent Selection Memo. 

5These companies include: (1) Cadovimex II; (2) 

CL-Fish; (3) Hiep Thanh; (4) NAVICO; (5) NTSF; (6) 

Panga Mekong; (7) QVD; (8) SAMEFICO; (9) Thien 

Ma; (10) Thuan Hung; (11) Vinh Quang; (12) QVD 

DT; and (13) Anvifish Co., Ltd. 

6Although the Department noted on January 8, 

2010, Anvifish JSC withdrew its request for an 

administrative review, in the Partial Rescission 

Notice, the Department stated there was no 

information on the record indicating Anvifish JSC 

was assigned a separate rate. 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0219 or 

(202) 482–2243, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On July 31, 2009, pursuant to section 

19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department 

received a new shipper review request 

from CL-Fish. On August 3, 2009, the 

Department published a notice of an 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the Order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity To Request Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 38397 (August 3, 2009). 

By August 31, 2009, the Department 

received review requests for 22 

companies from Petitioners 2 and certain 

individual companies. 

On September 22, 2009, the 

Department initiated an antidumping 

duty administrative review on frozen 

fish fillets from Vietnam covering the 

period, August 1, 2008, through July 31, 

2009. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 48224 (September 22, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The Department 

initiated this review with respect to 22 

companies.3

On September 25, 2009, the 

Department initiated the sixth 

antidumping duty new shipper review 

covering the same period as the 

administrative review. For this POR, the 

company to be reviewed is CL-Fish. See 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation 

of New Shipper Review, 74 FR 48908, 

(September 25, 2009). 

On November 10, 2009, the 

Department issued a letter to all 

interested parties informing them of its 

decision to select as mandatory 

respondents QVD and Vinh Hoan, the 

two largest exporters of subject 

merchandise during the POR, based on 

U.S. Customs and Borders Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) import data. See Memorandum 

to the File from Javier Barrientos, Senior 

Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’): 

Selection of Respondents for Individual 

Review (‘‘First Respondent Selection 

Memo’’), dated November 10, 2009. On 

January 7, 2010, QVD withdrew its 

request for an administrative review. On 

January 8, 2010, Anvifish JSC withdrew 

its request for an administrative review. 

On January 8, 2010, Petitioners partially 

withdrew their August 31, 2009, request 

for an administrative review for 13 

companies including QVD.4 On January 

29, 2010, the Department determined to 

individually examine the voluntary 

respondent, Vinh Quang. See 

Memorandum to the File from Emeka 

Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’): Replacement of Mandatory 

Respondent (‘‘Second Respondent 

Selection Memo’’), dated January 29, 

2010. 

Between October 13, 2009, and 

August 12, 2010, new shipper, CL-Fish, 

submitted responses to the original 

sections A, C, and D questionnaire and 

supplemental sections A, C, and D 

questionnaire. Between November 24, 

2009, and August 12, 2010, Vinh Quang 

submitted responses to the original 

sections A, C, and D questionnaires and 

supplemental sections A, C, and D 

questionnaires. Between December 4, 

2009, and August 12, 2010, Vinh Hoan 

submitted responses to the original 

sections A, C, and D questionnaires and 

supplemental sections A, C, and D 

questionnaires. 

On January 29, 2010, the Department 

extended the deadline for parties to file 

surrogate country comments and 

surrogate value data. See Memorandum 

to the File, from Emeka Chukwudebe, 

Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Extension Request for Surrogate Country 

Selection Comments and Surrogate 

Value Submissions, dated January 29, 

2010. On February 12, 2010, the 

Department tolled all administrative 

deadlines, including these reviews, by 

one calendar week. See Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm, dated February 12, 

2010, (‘‘Tolling Memo’’). On March 9, 

2010, the Department aligned the sixth 

new shipper review with the sixth 

administrative review. See 

Memorandum to the File, from Javier 

Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Alignment of 6th New Shipper Review 

of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam with the 

6th Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, dated March 9, 

2010. Between April 2, 2010, and July 

9, 2010, the Department received 

surrogate country and value comments 

and rebuttal comments from interested 

parties. On April 22, 2010, the 

Department partially extended the 

deadline for the preliminary results in 

these reviews. See Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of the 6th 

Antidumping Duty Administrative and 

6th New Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 20983 

(April 22, 2010). 

On May 27, 2010, the Department 

partially rescinded the administrative 

review with respect to 13 companies.5

See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Partial Rescission of the Sixth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 29726 (May 27, 2010) 

(‘‘Partial Rescission Notice’’). Therefore, 

nine companies remain in this 

administrative review: (1) Agifish; (2) 

Acomfish; (3) Anvifish JSC; 6 (4) Binh 

An; (5) East Sea Seafoods Limited 

Liability Company (formerly known as 

East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

Ltd.); (6) Hiep Thanh; (7) South Vina; 

(8) Vinh Hoan; and (9) Vinh Quang. 

On July 16, 2010, Anvifish JSC placed 

information on the record identifying its 

name change in the fourth 

administrative review from Anvifish 

Co., Ltd. to Anvifish JSC. On July 30, 

2010, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a second notice fully 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results in these reviews. 

See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of the 6th Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and 6th New Shipper 

Reviews, 75 FR 44938 (July 30, 2010). 

The preliminary results are currently 

due on September 7, 2010, (inclusive of 

the seven day extension per the Tolling 

Memo). 

Vietnam-Wide Entity 

As discussed above, in this 

administrative review we limited the 

selection of respondents using CBP 

import data. See First Respondent 

Selection Memo at Attachment I. In this 

case, we made available to the 

companies who were not selected, the 

separate rates application and 

certification, which were put on the 

Department’s Web site. See Initiation 

Notice. Those companies which did not 

apply for separate rates will continue to 

be part of the Vietnam-wide entity. 

Because some parties for which a review 

was requested did not apply for separate 

rate status, the Vietnam-wide entity is 

considered to be part of this review. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

Acomfish and Binh An 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that Acomfish and Binh An 

made no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR of this 

administrative review. On October, 13, 

2009, the Department received noshipment certifications from Acomfish 

and Binh An. However, according to 

entry statistics obtained from CBP, and 

placed on the record, Binh An had an 

entry of subject merchandise during the 

POR. In the partial rescission of review 

notice, the Department stated that it 

would address this claim and any 

possible rescission in the preliminary 

results. See Partial Rescission Notice. 

On January 13, 2010, the Department 

issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP 

requesting any information for 

merchandise manufactured and shipped 

by either Acomfish or Binh An during 

the POR. The Department did not 

receive any response from CBP, thus 

indicating that there were no entries of 

subject merchandise into the United 

States exported by these companies. On 

May 26, 2010, the Department issued a 

request for the complete entry package 

document for the shipment made by 

Binh An during the POR. In addition, on 

July 9, 2010, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Binh An 

requesting additional information 

regarding the subject merchandise 

entered during the POR. On July 15, 

2010, Binh An submitted a response 

stating that the shipment was for 

sampling purposes only. Furthermore, 

our analysis of the CBP entry package 

was consistent with Binh An’s 

explanation. The Department therefore 

found no record evidence indicating 

that Binh An received financial 

consideration for this transaction. Id. 

Consequently, as Acomfish did not 

export subject merchandise during the 

POR, and Binh An’s transaction was not 

considered a sale because it was a 

sample transaction for no financial 

consideration, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review, in part, with 

respect to Acomfish and Binh An. 

Separate Rates 

Agifish, Anvifish Co., Ltd., Vinh Hoan, 

QVD, South Vina, and CL-Fish 

A designation as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) remains in effect 

until it is revoked by the Department. 

See section 771(18)(C) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘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, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by the 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’’). 

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. 

Although the Department has 

previously assigned a separate rate to all 

of the companies eligible for a separate 

rate in the instant proceeding, it is the 

Department’s policy to evaluate separate 

rates questionnaire responses each time 

a respondent makes a separate rates 

claim, regardless of whether the 

respondent received a separate rate in 

the past. 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). 

In this review, Agifish, Anvifish Co., 

Ltd., Vinh Hoan, QVD, and South Vina 

submitted complete separate rate 

certifications and applications. CL-Fish 

provided separate rate information in its 

new shipper review questionnaire 

responses. The evidence submitted by 

these companies includes government 

laws and regulations on corporate 

ownership, business licenses, and 

narrative information regarding the 

companies’ operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

these companies supports a finding of a 

de jure absence of government control 

over their export activities, 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 respondents. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports is based on whether 

the respondent: (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; 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). 

In this review, Agifish, Anvifish Co., 

Ltd., Vinh Hoan, QVD, South Vina, and 

CL-Fish submitted evidence indicating 

an absence of de facto government 

control over their export activities. 

Specifically, this evidence indicates 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56065 

7See First Respondent Selection Memo at 

attachment I. 

8See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 12726 (March 17, 2010) 

(‘‘5th AR and 4th NSR Final’’). 

9East Sea Seafoods LLC, v. United States and 

Catfish Farmers of America, Court No. 10–00102, 

Slip Op. 10–62 at 10 (CIT May 27, 2010). ESS LLC 

has filed a notice of appeal in that case. 

10See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008)). 

11See Id. 

that: (1) Each company sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) each 

company retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) each company 

has a general manager, branch manager 

or division manager with the authority 

to negotiate and bind the company in an 

agreement; (4) the general managers are 

selected by the board of directors or 

company employees, and the general 

managers appoint the deputy managers 

and the manager of each department; 

and (5) there is no restriction on any of 

the companies’ use of export revenues. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Agifish, Anvifish Co., Ltd., 

Vinh Hoan, QVD, and South Vina have 

established that they qualify for separate 

rates under the criteria established by 

Silicon Carbide and Sparklers. 

ESS LLC and ESS JVC 

ESS LLC requested an administrative 

review of its entries and on November 

24, 2009, submitted a separate rates 

questionnaire response. A review of 

CBP data indicated that ESS LLC had no 

entries during the POR under its own 

name; instead all of the entries came in 

under ESS JVC.7

In the prior administrative review, 

ESS LLC claimed it was a successor-ininterest to ESS JVC. In that review, the 

Department found that ESS LLC was not 

the successor-in-interest to ESS JVC, 

and as such, was not entitled to ESS 

JVC’s rate.8 This determination was 

upheld by the Court of International 

Trade.9 The Department also found that 

ESS JVC ceased to exist on July 31, 

2008. 

In response to a supplemental 

questionnaire issued by the Department, 

ESS LLC explained that although its 

name does not appear on the CBP entry 

documents as the exporter, it is the 

entity that made those sales to the 

United Stated during the POR. 

Specifically, ESS LLC argues that the 

sales documents (e.g., invoices, 

payment, etc.) were issued on behalf of 

ESS LLC during the POR. See ESS LLC’s 

July 14, 2010 Submissions at 3, Exhibits 

6–7. Therefore, record evidence 

supports a finding that the POR entries 

under ESS JVC’s name were, in fact, ESS 

LLC sales and we will treat them 

accordingly. 

Based on the same analysis described 

above for the other companies and ESS 

LLC’s separate rate response, we 

preliminarily find that ESS LLC is 

entitled to a separate rate in this review. 

Furthermore, we intend to refer the 

issue of ESS LLC’s claim that the ESS 

JVC entries are in fact ESS LLC’s entries 

during the POR to CBP for further 

consideration. 

Use of Facts Available 

Vinh Quang 

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

1930, as amended (‘‘the 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. 

On July 13, 2010, in response to a 

supplemental questionnaire from the 

Department, Vinh Quang explained that 

it could not provide certain sales to the 

last unaffiliated U.S. customer because 

the affiliated U.S. customer stated that 

it did not have the records available to 

report the data for these U.S. sales. 

Although Vinh Quang attempted to 

collect the information on these sales, it 

notes that the volume of these sales was 

less than one percent of total U.S. sales 

during the POR through that affiliate. 

For these preliminary results, in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act, we have determined that the 

use of neutral facts available (‘‘FA’’) is 

warranted for Vinh Quang because, even 

though it did not report these very 

limited downstream sales from its 

affiliate, the affiliate provided an 

explanation of why it wasn’t able to link 

these very limited sales to purchases by 

the unaffiliated U.S. customers (i.e., 

walk-in grocery store customers). See 

Vinh Quang’s July 13, 2010, submission 

at 11–12. As partial neutral FA, we will 

use the weighted-average margin from 

the rest of the sales used to calculate the 

dumping margin as the margin for the 

sales observations in question. See 

Analysis of the Preliminary Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation 

(‘‘Vinh Quang’’) dated September 7, 

2010. 

Rate for Non-Selected Companies 

In this review there are three 

companies that are not presently 

selected for individual examination, 

ESS LLC, South Vina, and Agifish. The 

statute and the Department’s regulations 

do not address the establishment of a 

rate to be applied to individual 

companies not selected for examination 

where the Department limited its 

examination in an administrative review 

pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the 

Act. Generally, we have looked to 

section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 

provides instructions for calculating the 

all-others rate in an investigation, for 

guidance when calculating the rate for 

respondents we did not examine in an 

administrative review. For the exporters 

subject to this review that were 

determined to be eligible for separate 

rate status, but were not selected as 

mandatory respondents, the Department 

generally weight-averages the rates 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, excluding any rates that 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on FA.10

For this administrative review, the 

Department has calculated positive 

margins for both the single mandatory 

respondent, Vinh Hoan, and the 

voluntary respondent, Vinh Quang. 

However, it is the Department’s practice 

to only include the rates calculated for 

the mandatory respondents when 

calculating the separate rate for 

exporters determined to be eligible for 

separate rate status.11 Accordingly, 

consistent with our practice for these 

preliminary results, the Department has 

preliminarily established a margin for 

the separate rate respondents based on 

the rate calculated for the single 

mandatory respondent, Vinh Hoan. The 

rate established for the separate rate 

respondents is a per-unit rate of $4.22 

dollars per kilogram. Entities receiving 

this rate are identified by name in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this Order is 

frozen fish fillets, including regular, 

shank, and strip fillets and portions 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

12Until July 1, 2004, these products were 

classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 

(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish 

Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater 

Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) 

of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these 

products were classifiable under tariff article code 

0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species 

Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. 

13See Memorandum from Kelley Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: 

Request for a list of Surrogate Countries for a New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

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

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated October 15, 

2009. 

14See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 11847 

(March 12, 2010), unchanged for the final 

determination, 75 FR 45468 (August 2, 2010). 

15U.N. Comtrade data from 2006 and 2007 are the 

only years in which all countries have data for 

comparison. 2008 and 2009 data contains gaps 

preventing the Department from making 

appropriate comparisons. World Trade Atlas data 

shares a similar problem. See Surrogate Value 

Memo at Attachment I. 

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, 1604.19.5000, 

0305.59.4000, 0304.29.6033 (Frozen 

Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius 

including basa and tra) of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).12 This Order 

covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the 

above specification, regardless of tariff 

classification. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of the Order is 

dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 

has been treated as a NME country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

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

that a foreign country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See Notice of Final Results of 

Administrative Review: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 73 FR 15479 (March 17, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (‘‘3rd AR Final 

Results’’). None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On December 18, 2009, the 

Department sent interested parties a 

letter setting a deadline to submit 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’). 

Between April, 8, 2010, and August 16, 

2010, Vinh Hoan, CL-Fish, the Vietnam 

Association of Seafood Exporters and 

Producers (‘‘VASEP’’), and/or Petitioners 

submitted surrogate country comments, 

surrogate value data and rebuttal 

comments. 

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 Department determined that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

the Philippines and Indonesia are 

countries comparable to Vietnam in 

terms of economic development.13

As we have stated in prior 

administrative review determinations, 

there is no world production data of 

Pangasius frozen fish fillets available on 

the record with which the Department 

can identify producers of identical 

merchandise. Therefore, absent world 

production data, the Department’s 

practice is to compare, wherever 

possible, data for comparable 

merchandise and establish whether any 

economically comparable country was a 

significant producer.14 In this case, we 

have determined to use the broader 

category of frozen fish fillets data as the 

basis for identifying producers of 

comparable merchandise. Therefore, 

consistent with cases that have similar 

circumstances as are present here, we 

obtained export data for each country 

identified in the surrogate country list. 

Based on export data from U.N. 

Comtrade in 2007,15 Bangladesh, the 

Philippines, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, 

and Pakistan are exporters of frozen fish 

fillets, and, thus, significant producers. 

After applying the first two selection 

criteria, if more than one country 

remains, it is the Department’s practice 

to select an appropriate surrogate 

country based on the availability and 

reliability of data from those countries. 

See Department Policy Bulletin No. 

04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 

Country Selection Process (March 1, 

2004) (‘‘Surrogate Country Policy 

Bulletin’’). In this case, the whole fish 

input is the most significant input 

because it accounts for the largest 

percentage of normal value (‘‘NV’’) as 

fish fillets are produced directly from 

the whole live fish. As such, we must 

consider the availability and reliability 

of the surrogate values for whole fish on 

the record. This record does not contain 

any data for whole live fish for 

Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, and 

Pakistan. Therefore, these countries will 

not be considered for primary surrogate 

country purposes at this time. However, 

this record does contain whole fish 

surrogate value data from both 

Bangladesh and the Philippines. 

Bangladesh 

In the most recently completed 

segment involving a new shipper 

review, the Department selected 

Bangladesh as the surrogate country due 

to the superior quality of the 

Bangladeshi data available in the 

Economics of Aquaculture Feeding 

Practices in Selected Asian Countries: 

FAO Technical Paper 505 (Rome, 2007) 

(‘‘FAO Report’’). See Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, Final Results of Fifth New 

Shipper Review, 75 38985 (July 7, 2010) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1 (‘‘5th NSR 

Final’’). In the 5th NSR Final, we found 

that the whole fish input data from the 

FAO Report were the best information 

available to value the fish input because 

they satisfied the surrogate value 

selection criteria (e.g., are publicly 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56067 

16See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Final 

Rescission, In Part, of New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 

50952 (October 2, 2009), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see also 

Third Administrative Review of Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 46565 (September 10, 

2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

17 In the most recently completed segment, we 

stated that ‘‘In analyzing the Fish Pond Report, the 

Department has serious concerns about the public 

availability of the data. By Petitioners’ own 

admission, the data are not published as the Fish 

Pond Report per se, but rather, the Fish Pond 

Report represents source data to be used in a yetto-be-determined manner for official publication in 

the Fisheries Situationer. Therefore, the Fish Pond 

Report is not an official government publication in 

and of itself, nor is it even an interim government 

publication. Accordingly, we do not find the Fish 

Pond Report to be public information. Moreover, we 

find our concerns in this regard amplified by the 

observation that the affidavit is not made on behalf 

of the Philippine government, further underscoring 

our concerns about the public availability of this 

information.* * * 

Furthermore, the document has a hand written 

title and appears to be incomplete in some of the 

data fields as discussed below. There is no mention 

in the affidavit that the data is regularly 

disseminated in the Fish Pond Report format or 

whether the affiant is responsible for providing this 

data to the public. There is no explanation as to 

whether the affiant provides this data as a regular 

part of her government job, reducing the likelihood 

the data as released were subject to the ordinary 

review and analysis accompanying their inclusion 

in the Fisheries Situationer. Given these concerns, 

the Department does not find that this data is 

publicly available.’’ See 5th NSR Final at Comment 

1. 

available, represent a broad market 

average, are from an approved surrogate 

country, are specific to the input in 

question and are tax exclusive),16 even 

though they are not contemporaneous 

with the POR. The information on this 

record with respect to the FAO Report 

data remains unchanged from the prior 

new shipper review. 

The Philippines 

In the fifth administrative review and 

fourth new shipper reviews, the 

Department was concerned with the 

public availability of the whole fish 

surrogate data from the Philippines. See 

5th AR Final at Comment 1. Subsequent 

to that segment, the Department again 

evaluated the public availability of the 

Philippines data and found that 

although Petitioners supplemented the 

record with additional information and 

documentation, serious concerns 

remained (e.g., not an official 

government publication in and of itself, 

an affidavit not made on behalf of the 

Philippines government, no discussion 

of public dissemination, etc.).17 On the 

record of this review however, 

Petitioners submitted information 

clearly generated by a Philippine 

government agency, on official 

Philippines government letterhead, and 

with an explanation of the data 

collection methods. In addition, they 

provided a complete copy of the 

Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines, 

2006–2008, published by the Bureau of 

Agricultural Statistics, Department of 

Agriculture, (‘‘Fisheries Statistics’’) 

published in November 2009, which 

links the Philippines data provided in 

this and prior segments to an official 

Philippines government publication. 

Therefore, the Department no longer has 

concerns with the public availability of 

the Philippines data in this segment. 

Analysis 

First, we note that both the FAO 

Report data and the Fisheries Statistics 

data are publicly available, tax- and 

duty-exclusive, and from an approved 

surrogate country. Therefore, we 

examined each source with respect to 

the broad market average, specificity, 

and contemporaneity. With respect to 

the broad market average, we find that 

the data from both the FAO Report and 

the Fisheries Statistics are considered 

broad market averages. As we have 

stated in prior reviews, the FAO Report 

data were obtained directly from 60 fish 

farmers from a region that produces fish 

in Bangladesh. However, the FAO 

Report does state why this particular 

region was selected (i.e., importance of 

this region in Pangas farming, the 

availability of hatchery produced fry, 

availability of ponds, warm climate, 

cheap and abundant labor). See FAO 

Report at 38. Similarly, the Philippines 

data were collected from 34 respondents 

(i.e., ‘‘farmers, operators, or caretakers. 

Other possible respondents are aqua 

farm traders and persons knowledgeable 

of aquaculture production in the 

locality.’’) See Petitioners’ July 9, 2010 

Submission at Attachment 1, page 2. 

Although we recognize that the 

Philippines data volume is only 12 

metric tons, while the Bangladeshi data 

is 178 metric tons, for these preliminary 

results, we find that both of these 

sources are significant broad market 

averages because they represent national 

level data of similar quality using 

similar collection methods (i.e., 

interviews, questionnaires, etc.). 

With respect to specificity, the 

Bangladeshi data in the FAO Report 

specifically identify the whole live fish 

examined as Pangasianodon 

Hypopthalmus, which is one of the fish 

fillets species identified in the scope of 

the Order. The Philippines data in the 

Fisheries Statistics are identified as 

Pangasius, which is the genus name for 

the fish fillets subject to the Order. First, 

we note that Pangasius is a genus name 

and Pangasianodon Hypopthalmus is a 

species in that genus. In prior reviews, 

we used whole fish surrogate value data 

identified as Pangas and found it 

comparable to the fish input used by 

Respondents. See 3rd AR Final Results 

at Comment 4. In this case, although the 

whole fish data from Bangladesh are 

more specific to the input used by the 

Respondents in producing fish fillets, 

we note that the record does not contain 

any information that would lead us to 

preliminarily determine that any 

difference between the two sources 

would necessarily generate a difference 

in price. Moreover, Pangasianodon 

Hypopthalmus is considered a 

component of Pangasius so it is 

reasonable to find that the Pangasius 

price from the Philippines in the 

Fisheries Statistics is likely to include 

Pangasianodon Hypopthalmus and 

other comparable species names also 

listed in the Order. 

Finally, with respect to 

contemporaneity, we find that the 

Philippine data are contemporaneous 

with the POR as they are based on data 

collected in calendar year 2008. See 

Petitioners’ July 9, 2010 Submission at 

Attachment 1, page 3. The Bangladeshi 

data in the FAO Report are from 

calendar year 2005. Therefore, the 

Philippines data are contemporaneous 

with the POR, while the Bangladeshi 

data are not. 

After examining all the factors 

considered in selecting the surrogate 

value for fish as part of our surrogate 

country analysis, we find that the data 

available from the Philippines for the 

whole live fish represent the best 

surrogate values for these preliminary 

results. Given that Philippines data are 

contemporaneous, as equally a broad 

market average as the Bangladeshi data 

and of a similar genus of the fish used 

by the Respondents to produce fish 

fillets, we preliminarily select the 

Philippines as the most appropriate 

surrogate country. However, we hereby 

invite parties to submit additional 

comments and data from Bangladesh 

and the Philippines with respect to fish 

farming and fisheries that can be 

considered for the final results. 

Affiliations and Collapsing 

Section 771 (33) of 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 of director of an 

organization and such organization; 

(C) Partners; 

(D) Employer and employee; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

18These individuals include Quang Lam and his 

three blood sisters and their children. 

(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 restrain or direction over the 

other person.’’ 

Finally, according to 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(1) and (2), two or more 

companies may be treated as a single 

entity for antidumping duty purposes if: 

(1) The producers are affiliated, (2) the 

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 (3) there is 

a significant potential for manipulation 

of price or production. See 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(1) and (2). 

Vinh Hoan 

In the final results of the fifth 

antidumping duty administrative 

review, the Department determined that 

Vinh Hoan and Van Duc Food Export 

Joint Company (‘‘Van Duc’’) should be 

treated as a single entity. See 5th AR 

Final, and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

The Department did not collapse Vinh 

Hoan Feed 1 Company (‘‘Vinh Hoan 

Feed’’) with these other companies, 

however, because Vinh Hoan Feed 

lacked a critical capital component 

(freezing machines) in order to produce 

comparable merchandise. Id. 

Based on evidence submitted by Vinh 

Hoan in this administrative review, the 

Department finds that Vinh Hoan is 

affiliated with Vinh Hoan Feed, Vinh 

Hoan USA, Van Duc, and another entity, 

Van Duc Tien Giang (‘‘VD TG’’) pursuant 

to section 771 (33) of the Act. See Vinh 

Hoan’s March 2, 2010, submission at 2– 

8. Furthermore, based on evidence on 

the record, the Department 

preliminarily finds that Vinh Hoan, Van 

Duc, and VD TG should be treated as a 

single entity for purposes of this 

administrative review. See 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(1) and (2). All three 

companies have the ability to produce 

and/or export subject merchandise. 

Furthermore, the companies are under 

the common control of Ms. Truong and 

her family by virtue of ownership, 

common board members or managers. 

As such, there is significant potential for 

manipulation of price or production. 

The Department still determines, 

however, that Vinh Hoan Feed lacks the 

critical capital component (freezing 

machines) in order to produce 

comparable merchandise. Therefore, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and 

(2), the Department preliminary finds 

that Vinh Hoan, Van Duc, and VD TG 

but not Vinh Hoan Feed, should be 

treated as a single entity (collectively, 

the ‘‘Vinh Hoan Group’’) in these 

preliminary results. 

Vinh Quang 

With regard to Vinh Quang, the 

Department preliminarily finds that 

Vinh Quang is affiliated with the 

following customers that resold the 

subject merchandise in the United 

States: (1) H&N Foods International 

(‘‘H&N’’); (2) Blue River Seafood Inc. 

(‘‘Blue River’’) (dba Joe Pucci & Sons 

(‘‘Pucci’’)); (3) Expack Seafoods, Inc. 

(‘‘Expack’’); and, (4) Clemente Seafood 

Center, Inc. (‘‘Clemente’’) (collectively 

‘‘CEP Entities’’). The Department also 

finds Vinh Quang to be affiliated with 

H&N, Blue River/Pucci and Clemente 

under Section 771(33)(A) of the Act 

because members of the Lam Family 18

own directly or indirectly (with their 

husbands) the majority of these entities 

and are in a position to control them. 

See Vinh Quang July 13, 2010, 

submission at 2–9. Finally, the 

Department determines that Expack is 

affiliated with H&N (and indirectly to 

Vinh Quang) under 771(33)(E) and (F) of 

the Act because H&N is the majority 

owner of Expack and because the Lam 

Family members (one of the Lam sisters, 

her husband and children) are in a 

position to directly or indirectly control 

Expack. Id. 

Therefore, for these preliminary 

results the Department will use the 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) price 

paid to H&N, Blue River/Pucci, and 

Expack by their first unaffiliated U.S. 

customers of subject merchandise 

during the POR. For Clemente, please 

see Facts Available section below. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise made by Vinh 

Hoan, Vinh Quang or CL-Fish to the 

United States were at prices below NV, 

we compared each company’s export 

price (‘‘EP’’) or CEP, where appropriate, 

to NV, as described below. 

U.S. Price 

For Vinh Hoan’s and CL-Fish’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 free-onboard foreign port price to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. For the EP sales, we also 

deducted foreign inland freight, foreign 

cold storage, foreign brokerage and 

handling, foreign containerization, and 

international ocean freight from the 

starting price (or gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we used the CEP methodology 

when the first sale to an unaffiliated 

purchaser occurred after importation of 

the merchandise into the United States. 

In this instance, we calculated CEP for 

Vinh Hoan’s and Vinh Quang’s U.S. 

sales through its respective U.S. 

affiliates, Vinh Hoan USA and the Vinh 

Quang’s CEP Entities, respectively, to 

unaffiliated customers. 

For Vinh Hoan’s and Vinh Quang’s 

CEP sales, we made adjustments to the 

gross unit price, where applicable, for 

billing adjustments, rebates, foreign 

inland freight, international freight, 

foreign cold storage, foreign 

containerization, foreign brokerage and 

handling, U.S. marine insurance, U.S. 

inland freight, U.S. warehousing, U.S. 

inland insurance, other U.S. 

transportation expenses, and U.S. 

customs duties. In accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including commissions, credit expenses, 

advertising expenses, indirect selling 

expenses, inventory carrying costs, and 

U.S. re-packing costs. We also made an 

adjustment for profit in accordance with 

section 772(d)(3) of the Act. 

Where movement expenses were 

provided by NME-service providers or 

paid for in NME currency, we valued 

these services using surrogate values 

from Descartes Carrier Rate Retrieval 

Database (‘‘Descartes’’) Web site. See 

Surrogate Value Memo. Where 

applicable, we used the actual reported 

expense for those movement expenses 

provided by ME suppliers and paid for 

in ME currency. 

New Shipper Review Bona Fide 

Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sales made by CL-Fish in 

the new shipper review. We found that 

the new shipper sales by CL-Fish were 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56069 

19See Memorandum from Javier Barrientos, Case 

Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sales in 

the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Cuu Long Fish Joint Stock 

Company, dated September 7, 2010. 

20See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 

of 1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. 

Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 

1988’’) at 590. 

21See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at pages 4–5; Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19– 

20; See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 

(October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at page 23. 

22See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 

1363 (CAFC 2010). 

23This rate is applicable to the Vinh Hoan Group 

which includes Vinh Hoan, Van Duc, and VD TG. 

24This rate is applicable to Anvifish JSC. 

25See Anvifish JSC’s submission, dated July 16, 

2010. 

made on a bona fide basis.19 Based on 

our investigation into the bona fide 

nature of the sales, the questionnaire 

responses submitted by CL-Fish, as well 

as the company’s eligibility for separate 

rates (see Separate Rates Determination 

section above), we preliminarily 

determine that CL-Fish 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 CLFish’s sales of subject merchandise to 

the United States as appropriate 

transactions for this new shipper 

review. 

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 Vinh Hoan, Vinh Quang, and CLFish, pursuant to sections 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

As the basis for NV, Vinh Hoan, Vinh 

Quang, and CL-Fish provided FOPs 

used in each of the stages for processing 

frozen fish fillets. The Department’s 

general policy, consistent with section 

773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to value the 

FOPs that a respondent uses to produce 

the subject merchandise. 

To calculate NV, the Department 

valued Vinh Hoan’s, Vinh Quang’s, and 

CL-Fish’s reported per-unit factor 

quantities using publicly available 

Philippine, Bangladeshi, Indian, and 

Indonesian surrogate values. The 

Philippines was our first surrogate 

country source from which to obtain 

data to value inputs, and when data 

were not available from there, we used 

Bangladeshi, Indian, or Indonesian 

sources. 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. 

In accordance with the OTCA 1988 

legislative history, the Department 

continues to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding surrogate values 

if it has a reason to believe or suspect 

the source data may be subsidized.20 In 

this regard, the Department has 

previously found that it is appropriate 

to disregard such prices from India, 

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 

because we have determined that these 

countries maintain broadly available, 

non-industry specific export 

subsidies.21 Based on the existence of 

these subsidy programs that were 

generally available to all exporters and 

producers in these countries at the time 

of the POR, the Department finds that it 

is reasonable to infer that all exporters 

from India, Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand may have benefitted from 

these subsidies. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with general export 

subsidies. For further detail, see 

Surrogate Values Memo. 

As a consequence of the CAFC’s 

ruling in Dorbest II,22 the Department is 

no longer relying on the regressionbased wage rate described in 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3). The Department is 

continuing to evaluate options for 

determining labor values in light of the 

recent CAFC decision. For these 

preliminary results, we have calculated 

an hourly wage rate to use in valuing 

the reported labor input by averaging 

earnings and/or wages in countries that 

are economically comparable to 

Vietnam and that are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

For further information on the 

calculation of the wage rate, please see 

the Surrogate Value Memo. 

Currency Conversion 

Where necessary, the Department 

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. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

margins exist for the period August 1, 

2008, through July 31, 2009. 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(Dollars per 

kilogram) 

(1) Vinh Hoan 23 ............... 4.22 

(2) Vinh Quang ................. 2.44 

(3) Agifish ......................... 4.22 

(4) ESS LLC ..................... 4.22 

(5) South Vina .................. 4.22 

Vietnam-Wide Rate 24 ....... 2.11 

As a result of the new-shipper review, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that a weighted-average 

dumping margin of $0.93 per kilogram 

exists for merchandise produced and 

exported by CL-Fish for the period 

August 1, 2008, through July 31, 2009. 

With respect to Anvifish JSC, 

although there is now evidence on the 

record of this review that Anvifish Co., 

Ltd. underwent a name change to 

become Anvifish JSC during the fourth 

administrative review,25 there is still 

insufficient information to determine if 

Anvifish JSC is in fact the successor in 

interest to Anvifish Co., Ltd. Therefore, 

the Department will issue a postpreliminary supplemental questionnaire 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

26We 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. 

to determine if Anvifish JSC is the 

successor to Anvifish Co., Ltd. and if 

Anvifish JSC is entitled to use the rate 

assigned to Anvifish Co., Ltd. Until the 

Department determines otherwise, 

Anvifish JSC will remain part of the 

Vietnam-wide entity. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of announcement of the 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). An interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested 

parties may submit written comments 

(case briefs) within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results 

and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, within five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Further, the Department requests that 

parties submitting written comments 

provide the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. Unless the deadline is 

extended pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

will issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised by the parties in their comments, 

within 120 days of publication of the 

preliminary results. The assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by this review and 

future deposits of estimated duties shall 

be based on the final results of this 

review. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b), the Department will 

calculate an assessment rate on all 

appropriate entries. For the mandatory 

respondents, Vinh Hoan and Vinh 

Quang, and new shipper, CL-Fish, we 

will calculate importer-specific duty 

assessment rates on a per-unit basis.26

Where the assessment rate is de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

no duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. We will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries 

containing merchandise from the 

Vietnam-wide entity at the Vietnamwide rate we determine in the final 

results of review. We intend to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the 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 the 

exporters listed above, except for CLFish (see below), the cash deposit rate 

will be that established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed Vietnam and 

non-Vietnam 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 Vietnam 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the Vietnam-wide rate of $2.11 per 

kilogram; and (4) for all non-Vietnam 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the Vietnam exporters that 

supplied that non-Vietnam exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of subject 

merchandise from new shipper CL-Fish 

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 CL-Fish, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established in the 

final results; (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by CL-Fish but not 

manufactured by CL-Fish, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

Vietnam-wide rate (i.e., $2.11 per 

kilogram); and (3) for subject 

merchandise manufactured by CL-Fish, 

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 where CL-Fish 

is the exporter and manufacturer. 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) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23001 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–909] 

Certain Steel Nails From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the first 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

nails (‘‘nails’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) January 23, 2008, 

through July 31, 2009. The Department 

has preliminarily determined that sales 

have been made below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) with respect to certain exporters 

who participated fully and are entitled 

to a separate rate in this administrative 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES