4920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

1Where a statutory deadline falls on a weekend, 

federal holiday, or any other day when the 

Department is closed, the Department will continue 

its longstanding practice of reaching our 

determination on the next business day. In this 

instance, the preliminary results will be released no 

later than January 21, 2009. 

2The Catfish 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, Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, 

Inc., and Southern Pride Catfish Company LLC 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

3Until 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 

Issue 18: Whether the Department Failed to 

Incorporate Minor Corrections Accepted at 

Verification. 

Issue 19: Whether the Department Mistakenly 

Used an MEP from a Subsidy Country to 

Value an FOP. 

Issue 20: Whether the Department Used the 

Correct Kilogram (‘‘kg’’)/Square Meter 

(‘‘M2’’) Converter for Lauan Veneer 

(‘‘LAUANVENEER’’). 

Issue 21: Whether the Department Used an 

Incorrect SV for Truck Freight in the Cost 

Calculation String for LEATHEROID. 

Issue 22: Whether the Department Incorrectly 

Included Packing Labor in the Calculation 

of the Cost of Manufacture (‘‘COM’’) with 

Respect to CONNUMS Reported in the 

‘‘Sold Not Produced’’ (‘‘SNP’’) FOP 

Database. 

Issue 23: Whether the Department Made an 

Error in the Calculation of the Surrogate 

Financial Ratios. 

Issue 24: Whether the Department Failed to 

Deflate SVs Based on 2007 Import Data. 

Issue 25: Whether the Department Applied 

the Correct kg/Cubic Meter (‘‘M3’’) 

Converter for Fiberboard. 

Issue 26: Whether the Department Used an 

Incorrect SV for Philippine Harmonized 

Schedule (‘‘HS’’) Number 4407.99.00 in the 

SNP SV Spreadsheet to Value Several 

Types of Wood and Wood Parts. 

[FR Doc. E9–1861 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–552–801 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results of the Third New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 1, 2005, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register 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 is conducting new shipper 

reviews (‘‘NSR’’) of the Order, covering 

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

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: 

Alan Ray or 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) 482–5403 or (202) 482– 

0219, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On February 25, 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 NSR requests from Asia 

Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Acom’’) and Hiep Thanh 

Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Hiep 

Thanh). Both companies certified that 

they are the producers and exporters of 

the subject merchandise upon which the 

requests were based. 

On April 7, 2008, the Department 

initiated antidumping duty new shipper 

reviews on frozen fish fillets from 

Vietnam covering the two companies. 

See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 54428 (April 7, 2008). 

On April 14, 2008, the Department 

issued original questionnaires to both 

Hiep Thanh and Acom. Between May 

and October 2008, Hiep Thanh and 

Acom submitted responses to the 

original sections A, C, and D 

questionnaires and supplemental 

sections A, C, and D questionnaires. 

Extension of Time Limits 

On September 25, 2008, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results of this review by 

120 days, to January 20, 2009. See 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Reviews, 73 FR 55496 (September 25, 

2008)1 (‘‘Extension’’). 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On December 12, 2008, the 

Department sent interested parties a 

letter requesting comments on surrogate 

country selection and information 

pertaining to valuing factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’). On January 5, 

2009, Petitioners2 submitted 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 Hiep 

Thanh between November 12–20, 2008. 

See Memorandum to the File from Alan 

Ray, Case Analyst through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Hiep Thanh in the 

Antidumping New Shipper Review of 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’), dated December 12, 2008 

(‘‘Hiep Thanh Verification Report’’). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this Order is 

frozen fish fillets, including regular, 

shank, and strip fillets and portions 

thereof, whether or not breaded or 

marinated, of the species Pangasius 

Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus 

(also known as Pangasius Pangasius), 

and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish 

fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. 

The fillet products covered by the scope 

include boneless fillets with the belly 

flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless 

fillets with the belly flap removed 

(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets 

cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), 

which include fillets cut into strips, 

chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other 

shape. Specifically excluded from the 

scope are frozen whole fish (whether or 

not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen 

belly–flap nuggets. Frozen whole 

dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and 

eviscerated. Steaks are bone–in, cross– 

section 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’’).3 This 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4921 

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. 

4For more detailed discussion of this issue, 

please see Memorandum from Alan Ray, Case 

Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program 

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

the Third Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews 

of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Hiep Thanh and Acom., 

(January 16, 2009). 

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 non–market 

(‘‘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 Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Adminstrative Review and Partial 

Rescission, 73 FR 15479 (March 24, 

2008) (‘‘3rd AR Final Results’’). None of 

the parties to this proceeding have 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Separate Rate Determinations 

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, Hiep Thanh and Acom 

submitted complete responses to the 

separate rates section of the 

Department’s NME questionnaire. The 

evidence submitted by Hiep Thanh and 

Acom 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 

Hiep Thanh and Acom 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 their questionnaire responses, Hiep 

Thanh and Acom submitted evidence 

indicating an absence of de facto 

government control over their export 

activities. Specifically, this evidence 

indicates 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 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 any of 

the companies’ use of export revenues. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Hiep Thanh and Acom have 

established prima facie that they qualify 

for separate rates 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 sales made by Hiep Thanh 

and Acom for these new shipper 

reviews. We found that the new shipper 

sales by Hiep Thanh and Acom were 

made on a bona fide basis. Based on our 

investigation into the bona fide nature 

of the sales, the questionnaire responses 

submitted by Hiep Thanh and Acom, 

and our verification of Hiep Thanh, as 

well the companies’ eligibility for 

separate rates (see Separate Rates 

Determination section above), we 

preliminarily determine that Hiep 

Thanh and Acom have met the 

requirements to qualify as new shippers 

during this POR. Therefore, for the 

purposes of these preliminary results of 

review, we are treating Hiep Thanh and 

Acom’s sales of subject merchandise to 

the United States as appropriate 

transactions for these new shipper 

reviews.4

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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

5See Memorandum from Kelley Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: 

New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: List of 

Surrogate Countries, dated January 15, 2009. 

6Article 303(3) of the NAFTA requires that if a 

good is imported pursuant to a duty deferral 

program and subsequently exported to the territory 

of another Party, the exporting Party shall assess 

customs duties as if the exported good had been 

withdrawn for domestic consumption. Customs 

treats bonded warehouses as duty deferral programs 

in a NAFTA context. See 19 CFR 181.53(a)(1)(ii). 

7 In Entry of Certain Steel Products, 68 FR 13835 

(March 21, 2003), Customs stated that ‘‘under 19 

CFR 181.53, goods withdrawn from a U.S. dutydeferral program (such as a Customs bonded 

warehouse) for exportation to Canada must be 

treated as entered or withdrawn for consumption.’’ 

In CTL Plate from Italy we concluded that 

temporary import bond entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States and re-exported 

to a NAFTA party should be considered entries for 

consumption and, should properly be included in 

the margin calculation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate 

Products from Italy, 64 FR 73234 (December 29, 

1999) (‘‘CTL Plate from Italy’’). 

The Department determined that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

Philippines and Indonesia are countries 

comparable to Vietnam in terms of 

economic development.5 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 

received no comments regarding 

surrogate country selection. 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 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 Matthew Renkey, 

Senior Case Analyst, Subject: Fourth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews of 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection 

of a Surrogate Country (September 2, 

2008). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Affiliation 

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; 

(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.’’ 

We preliminarily find that the Hiep 

Thanh and HTVN Seafood Inc. 

(‘‘HTVN’’) to be affiliated parties within 

the meaning of section 771(33)(E) of the 

Act, due to common ownership. Hiep 

Thanh owns the majority of HTVN. See 

Hiep Thanh Verification Report at 20. In 

addition, two of Hiep Thanh’s 

shareholders are the other owners of 

HVTN. Id. Therefore, for these 

preliminary results we will use the 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) price 

paid to HTVN, the U.S. importer, by its 

first unaffiliated U.S. customer of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

U.S. Price 

A. Constructed Export Price 

For Hiep Thanh, we based the U.S. 

price on CEP in accordance with section 

772(b) of the Act, for sales made on 

behalf of Hiep Thanh by its U.S. 

affiliate, HTVN, to unaffiliated 

purchasers. We based CEP on packed, 

delivered or ex–warehouse prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price (gross 

unit price) for foreign movement 

expenses, international movement 

expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and 

appropriate selling adjustments, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 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. We deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, credit expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. 

B. Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the EP for sales 

to the United States for Acom 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. 

During the POR, Hiep Thanh made 

additional shipments of frozen fish 

fillets to the United States, beyond the 

reported CEP sales. Based on a request 

by the Department and prior to 

verification, Hiep Thanh reported these 

additional shipments of subject 

merchandise in a revised U.S. sales 

database in its October 29, 2008, 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

In our request for these additional 

sales we cited Article 303(3)6 of the 

North American Free Trade Agreement 

and 19 CFR 181.53(a)(1)(i)7 as support 

for requesting that Hiep Thanh report 

these additional shipments. In its 

October 29, 2008, questionnaire 

response, Hiep Thanh argued that these 

additional shipments should not be 

considered in the margin calculation 

because any merchandise stored in bond 

in the United States which is then 

exported to another NAFTA country 

should not be subject to review. See 

Hiep Thanh’s October 29, 2008, 

Questionnaire Response at 5–6. 

According to Hiep Thanh, to the best of 

its knowledge, these additional 

shipments were to be re–exported to 

another NAFTA country. Id. at 1–6. In 

reviewing the CBP entry documents 

collected from CBP and those examined 

at verification, we noted that some of 

these additional sales of subject 

merchandise from Hiep Thanh to 

certain unaffiliated U.S. importers were 

entered and classified as entries for 

consumption, while for other entries, 

we could not determine whether they 

were for consumption. Therefore, where 

POR subject merchandise entries 

exported by Hiep Thanh were classified 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4923 

8See 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. 

9See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 34082 (June 13, 

2005), 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. 

10See Hiep Thanh Verification Report at 2. 

as ‘‘for consumption,’’ we will include 

those sales in the margin calculation for 

these preliminary results. 

For the additional sales of subject 

merchandise which do not appear as 

entries for consumption, we will gather 

additional information (e.g., CBP entry 

documentation) after these preliminary 

results and continue to examine this 

issue for the final results. For the final 

results, we will consider whether 

Article 303(3) of NAFTA applies to 

these additional shipments. 

In accordance with section 772(c) of 

the Act, as appropriate, we deducted 

from the starting price to unaffiliated 

purchasers foreign inland freight and 

brokerage and handling. We calculated 

EP based on the price to unaffiliated 

purchases entered into the United 

States. In accordance with section 

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

deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight and brokerage and handling. We 

have reviewed each of these services 

and expenses reported by Acom and 

Hiep Thanh 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 Alan Ray, Case Analyst, Office 9: 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Reviews of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

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 country 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 a non–market economy 

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 Hiep Thanh reported the 

inputs used to produce the main input 

to the processing stage (food–sized fish), 

for the purposes of these preliminary 

results, we are not valuing those inputs 

when calculating the NV. 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 

Vietnam8 and Garlic from China9). In 

this case, because a substantial number 

of farming FOPs were significantly 

revised and numerous other factors used 

in the production process were not 

reported,10 valuing Hiep Thanh’s 

farming FOPs would be less reliable and 

compromise the accuracy of the NV. 

Instead, we preliminary find that 

valuing the intermediate input, food– 

size fish, would be more accurate in this 

case. As a result, we will begin the NV 

calculation at the processing stage and 

apply a surrogate value for whole, food– 

sized fish. 

Acom reported the inputs beginning 

with the food–size fish because it is 

only a processor of fish fillets and had 

no hatchery or farming FOPs during the 

POR. Therefore, it only reported FOPs 

associated with the processing and 

packing stages of production. As such, 

the Department will account for all of 

Acom’s reported inputs in the normal 

value calculation. 

2. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by Hiep Thanh and 

Acom 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– 

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 further details regarding the 

surrogate values used for these 

preliminary results, see the Surrogate 

Values Memo. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period August 1, 

2007, through January 31, 2008: 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Hiep Thanh ................... 0.00 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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