4924 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

11See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part 

72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

12We 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. 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM—Continued 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Acom ............................. 0.00 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Comments 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 

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

results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual 

information to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information submitted by an 

interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits 

new information only insofar as it 

rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record.11

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of this new shipper review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 5 

days after the deadline for submitting 

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

The Department requests that interested 

parties provide an executive summary 

of each argument contained within the 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should contain the 

following information: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If we receive a 

request for a hearing, we plan to hold 

the hearing seven days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of these new shipper 

reviews, which will include the results 

of its analysis raised in any such 

comments, within 90 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the final results, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries on a per–unit 

basis.12 The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific (or customer) per– 

unit duty assessment rates. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this is above de minimis. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

new shipper review for all shipments of 

subject merchandise from Hiep Thanh 

or Acom 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 Hiep Thanh or produced 

and exported Acom, the cash deposit 

rate will be zero; (2) for subject 

merchandise exported by Hiep Thanh or 

Acom but not manufactured by Hiep 

Thanh or Acom, the cash deposit rate 

will continue to be the Vietnam–wide 

rate (i.e., 63.88 percent); and (3) for 

subject merchandise manufactured by 

Hiep Thanh or Acom, but exported by 

any other party, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate applicable to the 

exporter. If the cash deposit rate 

calculated in the final results is zero or 

de minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required for those specific producer– 

exporter combinations. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

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)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(4. 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–1722 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–552–802 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results of the Second New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’). See Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) 

(‘‘VN Shrimp Order’’). The Department 

is conducting a new shipper review 

(‘‘NSR’’) of the VN Shrimp Order, 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4925 

1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

of February 1, 2007, through January 31, 

2008. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer–specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On February 28, 2008, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.214(c), the Department 

received a NSR request from BIM 

Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘BIM 

Seafood’’). On March 26, 2008, the 

Department initiated a new shipper 

review for BIM Seafood. See Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

73 FR 18510 (April 4, 2008). 

On April 15, 2008, the Department 

issued its non–market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) questionnaire to BIM Seafood. 

BIM Seafood responded to the 

Department’s NME questionnaire and 

subsequent supplemental 

questionnaires between May and 

December 2008. 

Extension of Time Limits 

On September 17, 2008, the 

Department extended the time limits for 

these preliminary results. See Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

New Shipper Review, 73 FR 54788 

(September 23, 2008). 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On December 1, 2008, BIM Seafood 

submitted surrogate country comments 

and surrogate value data. No other party 

submitted surrogate country or surrogate 

value data. 

Verification 

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

conducted verification of the sales and 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) for BIM 

Seafood between November 3–11, 2008. 

See Memorandum to the File from 

Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Verification of the Sales and 

Factors Response of BIM Seafood Joint 

Stock Company (‘‘BIM Seafood’’) in the 

Antidumping New Shipper Review of 

frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’), dated December 17, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm–raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head–on or head–off, 

shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,1

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild– 

caught warmwater species include, but 

are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp 

(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 

(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 

(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: 1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell–on or peeled 

(HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product: 1) that is produced from fresh 

(or thawed–from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; 2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of 

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; 3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; 4) with the non–shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and 10 percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par–fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

In every Vietnamese antidumping 

duty (‘‘AD’’) case conducted by the 

Department, Vietnam has been treated 

as a NME country. In accordance with 

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

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

69 FR 71005, 71007 (December 8, 2004); 

and Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results of the First Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006) 

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

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam: Final Results of the Second 

Administrative, 72 FR 13242 (March 21, 

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

to this proceeding has contested such 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4926 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

2For more detailed discussion of this issue, 

please see Memorandum from Emeka Chukwudebe, 

Case Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9, to the File, ‘‘Bona Fide 

Nature of the Sale in the Second Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

BIM Seafood,’’ (January 16, 2009). 

3See Memorandum from Kelley Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: 

New Shipper Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp 

from Vietnam: List of Surrogate Countries, dated 

January 15, 2009. 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rate Determination 

A designation as an NME remains in 

effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See section 771(18)(C) of 

the Act. Accordingly, there is a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within Vietnam are subject 

to government control and, thus, should 

be assessed a single antidumping duty 

rate. It is the Department’s standard 

policy to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate, 

company–specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 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. 

In this review, BIM Seafood submitted 

complete responses to the separate rate 

section of the Department’s NME 

questionnaire. The evidence submitted 

by BIM Seafood includes government 

laws and regulations on corporate 

ownership, business licenses, and 

narrative information regarding the 

company’s operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

BIM Seafood supports a finding of a de 

jure absence of government control over 

their export activities. We have no 

information in this proceeding that 

would cause us to reconsider this 

determination. Thus, we believe that the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of an absence of de 

jure government control based on: (1) an 

absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

license; and (2) the legal authority on 

the record decentralizing control over 

the 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 its questionnaire responses, BIM 

Seafood submitted evidence indicating 

an absence of de facto government 

control over its export activities. 

Specifically, this evidence indicates 

that: (1) BIM Seafood sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) BIM Seafood 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) BIM Seafood has a general 

manager, branch manager or division 

manager with the authority to negotiate 

and bind the company in an agreement; 

(4) the general manager is selected by 

the board of directors or company 

employees, and the general manager 

appoints the deputy managers and the 

manager of each department; and (5) 

there is no restriction on BIM Seafood’s 

use of export revenues. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that BIM 

Seafood has established prima facie that 

it qualifies for a separate rate under the 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

New Shipper Review Bona Fide 

Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sale made by BIM Seafood 

for this new shipper review. We found 

that the new shipper sale by BIM 

Seafood was made on a bona fide basis. 

Based on our investigation into the bona 

fide nature of the sales, the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

BIM Seafood, and our verification 

thereof, as well as the company’s 

eligibility for a separate rate (see 

Separate Rates Determination section 

above), we preliminarily determine that 

BIM Seafood 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 BIM Seafood’s sale of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States as an appropriate transaction for 

this new shipper review.2

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 factors of production 

(‘‘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, 

and Indonesia are countries comparable 

to Vietnam in terms of economic 

development.3 Moreover, it is the 

Department’s practice to select an 

appropriate surrogate country based on 

the availability and reliability of data 

from the countries. See Department 

Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non–Market 

Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Surrogate 

Country Policy Bulletin’’). Since the 

less–than-fair value investigation, we 

have determined that Bangladesh is 

comparable to Vietnam in terms of 

economic development and has 

surrogate value data that is available 

and reliable. In this proceeding, we only 

received comments from BIM Seafood 

in which it argues that the Department 

should again select Bangladesh as the 

surrogate country based on the two 

factors listed in the Surrogate Country 

Policy Bulletin. Since no information 

has been provided in this review that 

would warrant a change in the 

Department’s selection of Bangladesh 

from the prior segments, we continue to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4927 

4See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 

31, 2003), Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. 

5See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 34082 (June 13, 2005) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1, Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Results of New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 26329, 26330 (May 4, 

2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 1. 

find that Bangladesh is the appropriate 

surrogate country here because 

Bangladesh is at a similar level of 

economic development pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has reliable, publicly 

available data representing a broad– 

market average. See Memorandum to 

the File, through James C. Doyle, Office 

Director, Office 9, Import 

Administration, from Irene Gorelik, 

Senior Case Analyst, Subject: Second 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate 

Country (February 28, 2008), which is 

on the record of this review. 

U.S. Price 

A. Export Price (‘‘EP’’) 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the EP for sales 

to the United States for BIM Seafood 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

party was made before the date of 

importation and the use of constructed 

EP (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP based on 

the price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, 

we deducted foreign inland freight and 

brokerage and handling from the 

starting price to the unaffiliated 

purchasers. We have reviewed each of 

these services and expenses reported by 

BIM Seafood and find that they were 

provided by an NME vendor or paid for 

using Vietnamese currency. Thus, we 

based the deduction of these movement 

charges on surrogate values. See 

Memorandum to the File through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 

from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, 

Office 9: Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper of Certain Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 

Results, (January 16, 2008) (‘‘Surrogate 

Values Memo’’) for details regarding the 

surrogate values for movement 

expenses. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using a 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. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using a factors–of-production 

methodology if: (1) the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country; and (2) 

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. 

Although the respondents reported 

the inputs used to produce the main 

input to the processing stage (raw head– 

on, shell–on shrimp), for the purposes 

of these preliminary results, we are not 

valuing those inputs when calculating 

NV. Rather, our NV calculation begins 

with a valuation of the shrimp input 

(raw head–on, shell–on shrimp) used to 

produce the merchandise under 

investigation for the following three 

reasons. First, in reviewing BIM 

Seafood’s direct, indirect and contract 

labor hours for hatchery and farming, 

we noted that they did not keep track 

of the actual hours worked. BIM 

Seafood officials explained that there 

are no real fixed–time labor shifts due 

to the 24–hour cyclical growth period of 

shrimp. Second, BIM Seafood did not 

report water usage for the hatchery and 

farming stages of production. In its 

October 16, 2008, questionnaire 

response, BIM Seafood explained that 

water consumption at the hatchery and 

farming stages was not available from its 

own books and records. See BIM 

Seafood’s Questionnaire Response at 3. 

However, during verification we noted 

that water was used in ponds and tanks 

throughout the hatchery and farming 

stages. Third, due to inadequate FOP 

descriptions, certain material inputs at 

the hatchery and farming stages are not 

easily identifiable for the purpose of 

selecting surrogate values. When asked 

to provide a detailed description for 

these material inputs, BIM Seafood only 

provided a broad, general description. 

For instance, BIM Seafood’s first Section 

D response contains two FOPs described 

as ‘‘enzymes.’’ When asked in a 

supplemental response to provide the 

HTS classification for these inputs such 

as these two items, BIM Seafood only 

provided a broad 4–digit HTS number. 

At verification, BIM Seafood was unable 

to provide additional information 

regarding the descriptions and more 

specific HTS classifications for these 

and other inputs and we noted that a 

more detailed level of specificity did not 

appear to be tracked by BIM seafood’s 

book and records. Because BIM Seafood 

could not provide more detailed 

information regarding these and other 

inputs, the Department is unable to 

determine appropriate surrogate values 

for these inputs. 

In the past, the Department has used 

an intermediate input methodology 

when the accuracy of the normal value 

based on an integrated FOP calculation 

would be sacrificed, (e.g., Fish Fillets 

from Vietnam4 and Garlic from China5). 

In this case, because the labor reported 

was not based on actual hours worked, 

water was unreported, and the surrogate 

valuation of the inadequately described 

hatchery and farming FOPs would be 

speculative at best, we have determined 

to use an intermediate input 

methodology. As a result, we will begin 

the normal value calculation at the 

processing stage and apply a surrogate 

value for raw, head–on, shell–on 

shrimp. 

2. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by BIM Seafood during 

the POR. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported per–unit factor– 

consumption rates by publicly available 

Bangladeshi surrogate values. In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Bangladeshi import surrogate values 

a surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory of 

production or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory of 

production where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407– 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4928 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

6See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission in Part, 

72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

7We 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. 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not 

use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we 

calculated freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate 

values that are not contemporaneous 

with the POR using the wholesale price 

index (‘‘WPI’’) for the subject country. 

See Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 

FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). However, in 

this case, a WPI was not available for 

Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POI with which to value factors 

could not be obtained, surrogate values 

were adjusted using the Consumer Price 

Index rate for Bangladesh, or the WPI 

for India or Indonesia (for certain 

surrogate values where Bangladeshi data 

could not be obtained), as published in 

the International Financial Statistics of 

the International Monetary Fund. 

Bangladeshi and other surrogate 

values denominated in foreign 

currencies were converted to USD using 

the applicable average exchange rate 

based on exchange rate data from the 

Department’s website. 

For details regarding the surrogate 

values used to calculate NV, see the 

Surrogate Values Memo. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2007, through January 31, 2008: 

CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER

SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

BIM Seafood Join Stock Company (BIM Seafood) ................ 0.00 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Comments 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

an antidumping duty new shipper 

review, interested parties may submit 

publicly available information to value 

FOPs within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Interested parties must provide the 

Department with supporting 

documentation for the publicly 

available information to value each 

FOP. Additionally, in accordance with 

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

results of this new shipper review, 

interested parties may submit factual 

information to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information submitted by an 

interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits 

new information only insofar as it 

rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record.6

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of this new shipper review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 5 

days after the deadline for submitting 

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

The Department requests that interested 

parties provide an executive summary 

of each argument contained within the 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should contain the 

following information: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If we receive a 

request for a hearing, we plan to hold 

the hearing seven days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this new shipper review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis raised in any such comments, 

within 90 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the final results, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries on a per–unit basis.7

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific (or customer) per– 

unit duty assessment rates. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this is above de minimis. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

new shipper review for all shipments of 

subject merchandise from BIM Seafood 

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 BIM Seafood, the cash 

deposit rate is zero; (2) for subject 

merchandise exported by BIM Seafood 

but not manufactured by BIM Seafood, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the Vietnam–wide rate (i.e., 25.76 

percent); and (3) for subject 

merchandise manufactured by BIM 

Seafood, but exported by any other 

party, the cash deposit rate will be the 

rate applicable to the exporter. If the 

cash deposit rate calculated in the final 

results is zero or de minimis, no cash 

deposit will be required for those 

specific producer–exporter 

combinations. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4929 

1The petitioner provided contact information for 

the twelve Chinese producers/exporters of lawn 

groomers named in the Petition. See Petition at 

Exhibit I-19. However, upon noticing that several of 

the addresses provided were incomplete, the 

Department asked the petitioner to update the 

aforementioned contact information to account for 

full addresses, e.g., contact name, postal code, street 

names and numbers, etc. See the Department’s July 

3, 2008, supplemental questionnaire at 3. In 

response, the petitioner provided updated contact 

information, but noted that this information 

represented its ‘‘best attempt using reasonably 

available information to update the Chinese 

manufacturer and exporter contact information.’’ 

See Supplement to the Petition at 2 and Exhibit 2, 

dated July 8, 2008. 

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)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–1711 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–939) 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) preliminarily 

determines that certain tow behind lawn 

groomers and certain parts thereof 

(‘‘lawn groomers’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as 

provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). 

The estimated dumping margins are 

shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan or Thomas Martin, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4081or (202) 482– 

3936, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2008, the Department 

received a petition concerning imports 

of certain non–motorized tow behind 

lawn groomers and certain parts thereof 

from the PRC filed in proper form by 

Agri–Fab Inc. (‘‘Agri–Fab’’, hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petition 

for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties: Certain Tow Behind Lawn 

Groomers and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated June 

24, 2008 (‘‘Petition’’). The Department 

initiated an antidumping duty 

investigation of lawn groomers from the 

PRC on July 21, 2008. See Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

42315 (July 21, 2008) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

On July 14, 2008, the Department 

requested quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

information from the twelve companies 

that were identified in the Petition as 

potential producers or exporters of lawn 

groomers from the PRC. See Exhibit I– 

19 of the Petition. The Department 

received timely responses to its Q&V 

questionnaire from the following 

companies: Qingdao Huatian Hand 

Truck Co., Ltd., Jiashan Superpower 

Tools Co., Ltd., T.N. International, Inc., 

Nantong Duobang Machinery Co., Ltd., 

and Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) 

Co., Ltd. Five companies to which the 

Department sent the Q&V questionnaire 

received the questionnaire but did not 

respond. These non–responsive 

companies were: Hangzhou Geesun 

International Co., Ltd., Qingdao 

Huandai Tools Co., Ltd., Qingdao Taifa 

Group Co., Ltd., Maxchief Investments 

Ltd., and Qingdao EA Huabang 

Instrument Co., Ltd. 

With regard to two additional 

companies, World Factory, Inc., and 

Sidepin, Ltd., on July 21, 2008, we 

spoke with Federal Express, via 

telephone, and were informed that, 

although World Factory, Inc., originally 

accepted delivery of the Q&V 

questionnaire, it ultimately rejected our 

mailing and returned the package to 

Federal Express. In addition, on July 21, 

2008, we spoke via telephone with DHL 

and were informed that DHL was unable 

to deliver our mailing to Sidepin, Ltd., 

due to a ‘‘bad address.’’1 See 

Memorandum to The File, from Maisha 

Cryor, Senior Import Compliance 

Specialist, Regarding ‘‘Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Summary of Issuance 

of Quantity and Value Questionnaires,’’ 

dated July 21, 2008. 

On August 21, 2008, the International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports of lawn 

groomers from the PRC. See 

CertainTow–Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from China 

Determinations Investigation Nos. 701– 

TA–457 and 731–TA–1153 

(Preliminary), 73 FR 49489 (August 21, 

2008). 

On August 18, 2008, the Department 

selected Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Superpower’’), and Princeway 

Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Princeway’’), as mandatory 

respondents and issued antidumping 

duty questionnaires to the companies. 

See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Selection 

of Respondents for the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated August 18, 2008 

(‘‘Respondent Selection 

Memorandum’’). 

Superpower and Princeway submitted 

timely responses to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire on 

September 24, 2008, and October 14, 

2008, respectively. On July 23, 2008, 

and July 30, 2008, the Department 

received separate–rate applications from 

Nantong D&B Machinery Co., Ltd., and 

Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., 

respectively. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to, and received 

responses from, Superpower and 

Princeway from September through 

December 2008. Petitioner submitted 

comments to the Department regarding 

Princeway’s and Superpower’s 

responses to sections C and D of the 

antidumping duty questionnaire on 

October 24, 2008 and additional 

comments on Princeway’s submissions 

on December 2, 2008. 

On September 30, 2008, the 

Department released a memorandum to 

interested parties which listed potential 

surrogate countries and invited 

interested parties to comment on 

surrogate country and surrogate value 

selection. See Memorandum to All 

Interested Parties Regarding 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On 

October 17, 2008, and October 28, 2008, 

Petitioner and Princeway submitted 

comments and rebuttal comments, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES