[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55236-55243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26589]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-848]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Reviews, Partial Rescission of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission of the New Shipper Review 
for Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Products, Co. Ltd.: Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater 
crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 
response to requests from petitioner and from respondent Ningbo Nanlian 
Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (Ningbo Nanlian).

[[Page 55237]]

The Department is also conducting new shipper reviews in response to 
requests from respondents Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Products Co., 
Ltd. (Baolong Biochemical), Lianyungang Haiwang Aquatic Products Co., 
Ltd. (Haiwang) and Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Rirong), PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise. These reviews generally cover the 
period March 26, 1997 through August 31, 1998. See the ``Background'' 
section of this notice, below.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value (NV). The preliminary results are listed below in the section 
titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.'' If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between 
the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP), as applicable, 
and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. (See the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this 
notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Nulman, Michael Strollo, or 
Maureen Flannery, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4052, (202) 482-5255, or (202) 482-3020, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 
1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 
(1998).

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on September 
15, 1997 (62 FR 48218). On September 16, 1998, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b)(1), the Department received a request from respondent, 
Ningbo Nanlian, and on September 30, 1998, the Department received a 
request from petitioner, the Crawfish Processors Alliance (CPA), to 
conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. On October 26, 1998, the 
Department initiated this antidumping administrative review of the 
following companies: Ningbo Nanlian, Huaiyin Ningtai Fisheries Co., 
Ltd. (Huaiyin Ningtai), Nantong Delu Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (Nantong 
Delu), Binzhou Prefecture Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp. (Binzhou 
Foodstuffs), Yancheng Foreign Trade Corp. (Yancheng FTC), Yancheng 
Baolong Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. (Baolong Aquatic), China Everbright 
Trading Company (China Everbright), Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. 
(Huaiyin FTC), and Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export 
Corp. (Jiangsu Ceroilfood). See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 
Part and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 58010 (October 29, 
1998). This administrative review covers the period of March 26, 1997 
through August 31, 1998, except with respect to Ningbo Nanlian. The 
period of review for Ningbo Nanlian is April 1, 1998 through August 31, 
1998, because we reviewed sales for Ningbo Nanlian prior to April 1, 
1998 in our new shipper review of this firm. See Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of New 
Shipper Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999) (Ningbo New Shipper Review).
    On September 29, 1998, the Department received requests from 
Haiwang and Rirong, and on September 30, 1998, the Department received 
a request from Baolong Biochemical, for new shipper reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. 
These requests were pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 
section 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations, which state that, 
if the Department receives a request for review from an exporter or 
producer of the subject merchandise stating that it did not export the 
merchandise to the United States during the period covered by the 
original investigation (the POI) and that such exporter or producer is 
not affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject 
merchandise during that period, the Department shall conduct a new 
shipper review to establish an individual weighted-average dumping 
margin for such exporter or producer, if the Department has not 
previously established such a margin for the exporter or producer. The 
regulations require that the exporter or producer shall include in its 
request, with appropriate certifications: (i) The date on which the 
merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption, or, if it cannot certify as to the date of first entry, 
the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the 
United States, or if the merchandise has not yet been shipped or 
entered, the date of sale; (ii) a list of the firms with which it is 
affiliated; (iii) a statement from such exporter or producer, and from 
each affiliated firm, that it did not, under its current or a former 
name, export the merchandise during the POI; and (iv) in an antidumping 
proceeding involving inputs from a non-market-economy (NME) country, a 
certification that the export activities of such exporter or producer 
are not controlled by the central government. See 19 CFR 351.214(b)(ii) 
and (iii).
    Haiwang's, Rirong's, and Baolong Biochemical's requests were 
accompanied by information and certifications establishing the 
effective date on which each company first shipped and entered 
freshwater crawfish tail meat for consumption in the United States, the 
volume of each shipment, and the date of first sale to an unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. Haiwang, Rirong and Baolong Biochemical 
each claimed it had no affiliated companies which exported freshwater 
crawfish tail meat from the PRC during the POI. In addition, Haiwang, 
Rirong, and Baolong Biochemical each certified that its export 
activities are not controlled by the central government. On October 30, 
1998, the Department initiated these new shipper reviews covering the 
period March 26, 1997 through August 31, 1998. These new shipper 
reviews cover the same period as the administrative review. See 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of New-Shipper Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 
59762 (November 5, 1998). In our initiation notice, we noted that 
Haiwang and Rirong agreed to waive the standard deadlines for new 
shipper reviews, and that, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), we were conducting new shipper reviews for 
these parties concurrent with the administrative review initiated on 
October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58009).
    Due to extraordinarily complicated issues in this case, the 
Department extended the deadline for completion of the administrative 
review and the new shipper reviews for Rirong, Haiwang and Baolong 
Biochemical on March 5, 1999. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 
FR 13398 (March 18, 1999), Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the

[[Page 55238]]

People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 13399 (March 18, 1999), and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results 
of a New-Shipper Antidumping Review, 64 FR 12977 (March 16, 1999). On 
July 16, 1999, the Department published a second extension. See 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 64 FR 
38409. Also on July 16, 1999, the Department published an extension for 
the new shipper review of Baolong Biochemical. See Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty 
Review, 64 FR 38408.
    On August 6, 1999, we received a request from Baolong Biochemical 
to conduct its new shipper review concurrently with the administrative 
review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3). Therefore, pursuant to 
section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), we are conducting 
the new shipper review for Baolong Biochemical concurrently with the 
administrative review. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 
People's Republic of China: Postponement of New Shipper Antidumping 
Duty Review, 64 FR 46181 (August 24, 1999).

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    At the request of petitioner, we initiated a review of China 
Everbright and Jiangsu Ceroilfood. However, on December 7, 1998, China 
Everbright informed the Department that it had no shipments of the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review 
(POR). On December 28, 1998, Jiangsu Ceroilfood informed the Department 
that it had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. We independently confirmed with the United 
States Customs Service that there were no shipments from either China 
Everbright or Jiangsu Ceroilfood during the POR. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations 
and consistent with Department practice, we are rescinding our review 
of China Everbright and Jiangsu Ceroilfood. The cash deposit rates for 
China Everbright and Jiangsu Ceroilfood will continue to be the 
company-specific rates for these companies, as established in the 
amended final determination in the investigation and the antidumping 
duty order. See Notice of Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 48218 (September 
15, 1997)(Amended Final Determination).

Rescission of New Shipper Review for Baolong Biochemical

    A review of information on the record with respect to Baolong 
Biochemical has led us to conclude that Baolong Biochemical did not 
have a bona fide sale to the United States during the review period, 
and thus is not entitled to a review under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 
Act. Baolong Biochemical's sales of crawfish tail meat to the United 
States fall outside of its normal business, which is the processing of 
crawfish shells into intermediary products used to produce medicinal 
products and animal feed. Baolong has no facilities to produce subject 
merchandise. Moreover, the terms and conditions of Baolong's sales are 
not normal for the industry. For a further discussion of these issues, 
see Memorandum to Robert S. LaRussa through Joseph A. Spetrini from 
Barbara E. Tillman: Issues for the Preliminary Results of Review 
Concerning Bona Fide Sales and the Use of Facts Available (Decision 
Memorandum), dated September 30, 1999. Because Baolong Biochemical has 
no bona fide sales during the POR, we are rescinding the new shipper 
review of Baolong Biochemical. We will instruct the Customs Service to 
require the posting of cash deposits, rather than bond, for imports of 
crawfish exported by Baolong Biochemical.

Scope of Reviews

    The product covered by these reviews is freshwater crawfish tail 
meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged 
or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and 
regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from 
the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 
whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater 
crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat 
is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTS) under item numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00. 
The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes 
only. The written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Review Period

    These new shipper and antidumping duty reviews cover the period 
March 26, 1997 through August 31, 1998, except for the review of Ningbo 
Nanlian, which covers the period April 1, 1998 through August 31, 1998, 
as explained above.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted a 
verification of Haiwang. We also conducted a verification of Rirong and 
its unaffiliated producer, Weishan Hongfa Lake Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 
(Hongfa), and Baolong Biochemical and its unaffiliated producer, 
Jiangsu Zhenfeng Group Food Company (Zhenfeng). We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
version of the verification reports. Huaiyin FTC was not verified 
because the company refused to permit verification to take place. See 
letter from Huaiyin FTC to the Department dated May 21, 1999.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if any 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; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping 
investigation; or (D) provides such information but the information 
cannot be verified, the Department shall use the facts otherwise 
available (FA) in reaching the applicable determination under this 
title.
    As noted above, Huaiyin FTC refused verification of its 
questionnaire response. Because Huaiyin FTC did not allow the 
Department to verify the information it submitted, we could not use the 
information. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 
Act, the use of FA is required for Huaiyin FTC. See Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above From the Republic 
of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 30481 (June 8, 
1999).
    With respect to Binzhou Foodstuffs, Huaiyin Ningtai, and Baolong 
Aquatic, we preliminarily determine that, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of FA is required because these firms 
did not respond to the Department's antidumping

[[Page 55239]]

questionnaire. See Silicon Metal From The People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
11654 (March 10, 1998) and Silicon Metal From The People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
37850 (July 14, 1998).
    Two firms, Yancheng FTC and Nantong Delu, failed to file their 
questionnaire responses in the proper manner and to serve responses on 
the other interested parties in this review, as required by sections 
351.303 and 351.304 of the Department's regulations. The Department 
afforded Yancheng FTC and Nantong Delu numerous opportunities to remedy 
these deficiencies. Neither company complied with the applicable 
regulations. Consequently, the information was returned to Yancheng FTC 
on February 19, 1999, and to Nantong Delu on April 5, 1999. Because 
Yancheng FTC and Nantong Delu failed to respond to our requests in the 
form and manner requested, we determine that they did not cooperate to 
the best of their ability with our requests for information. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the use of FA is required 
for Yancheng FTC and Nantong Delu.
    While all six companies received separate rates in the original 
investigation, it is the Department's policy that separate-rates 
questionnaire responses must be evaluated each time a respondent makes 
a separate rate claim, regardless of any separate rate the respondent 
received in the past. See Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of 
China, Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12441 (March 13, 1998). However, for 
companies for which no questionnaire response is on the record, or 
which refuse verification, we are unable to evaluate whether a separate 
rate would be appropriate. In the instant administrative review, these 
companies failed to provide complete and accurate responses which could 
be used in the determination of separate rates. Therefore, consistent 
with Department practice, we are treating these companies, together 
with all other PRC companies that have not established that they are 
entitled to separate rates, as a single enterprise subject to 
government control. Thus, we have determined the rate applied to this 
single enterprise, the PRC-wide rate, based on adverse FA, in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
    We were unable to verify a significant part of Haiwang's 
questionnaire response. Specifically, Haiwang claimed that it produced 
the crawfish sold to the United States during the POR and submitted 
information on its factors of production. However, based on our on-site 
verification, we preliminarily determine that Haiwang's response, 
particularly the factors of production data, is unreliable and 
unverifiable. Because much of the relevant information is proprietary, 
it is not possible to discuss the issue in this public notice. See 
Decision Memorandum and the New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Sales and Factors of 
Production Verification of Lianyungang Haiwang Aquatic Products Co., 
Ltd., dated September 30, 1999 (Haiwang Verification Report). 
Therefore, pursuant to 776(a)(2)(D), we are using FA for Haiwang.
    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(b) of 
the Act, that the use of adverse FA is appropriate for Haiwang, as well 
as for the PRC enterprise. See Determination of Adverse Facts Available 
in the Administrative and New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (Adverse Facts Available 
Memorandum), dated September 30, 1999.
    Under section 776(b) of the Act, adverse FA may include reliance on 
information derived from: (1) the petition, (2) a final determination 
in the investigation, (3) any previous review under section 751 of the 
Act or determination under section 753 of the Act, or (4) any other 
information placed on the record. In this case, for Haiwang and the 
PRC-wide rate, we have used the highest rate from the petition, 201.63 
percent, which was the PRC-wide rate in the final determination (see 
Amended Final Determination).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information, such as the 
petition, using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 
2d Sess. 870 (1994) (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value. See SAA, at 870. The petition rate 
being used in this proceeding was previously corroborated. See the 
Concurrence Memorandum; Final Antidumping Determination Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, dated July 24, 
1997. We have no new information that would lead us to reconsider that 
decision.

Affiliation Issues

    We have placed on the record of the new shipper reviews of Baolong 
Biochemical and Haiwang third party allegations that these companies 
may be affiliated with companies that exported during the 
investigation. With respect to the new shipper review of Haiwang, we 
intend to request more information regarding this issue and will 
evaluate such information for the final results of review. With respect 
to the new shipper review of Baolong Biochemical, this issue is moot 
because we are rescinding the review due to the absence of bona fide 
sales during the period of review.

Market-Oriented Industry (MOI) Status

    Jiangsu Ceroilfood claims that its material inputs are acquired at 
market prices, and that, accordingly, the Department should find that 
the crawfish tail meat industry in the PRC is a MOI. Thus, Jiangsu 
Ceroilfood claims, the Department should value these inputs using the 
actual prices it pays in the PRC.
    Because Jiangsu Ceroilfood had no shipments of the subject 
merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding the review of this 
company in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's 
regulations. Consequently, we are not evaluating the MOI claim of 
Jiangsu Ceroilfood during the course of this administrative review.

Separate Rates

    Baolong Biochemical, Haiwang, Ningbo Nanlian, Jiangsu Ceroilfood, 
and Rirong have requested separate, company-specific rates. Because we 
are rescinding the new shipper review for Baolong Biochemical and the 
administrative review for Jiangsu Ceroilfood, we are not addressing the 
question of a separate rate with respect to these companies.
    In their questionnaire responses, Haiwang, Ningbo Nanlian and 
Rirong state that they are independent legal entities. Ningbo Nanlian 
and Rirong have furthermore reported they are PRC-foreign joint 
ventures. Haiwang has reported that it is a wholly foreign-owned 
enterprise.
    To establish whether a company operating in a NME country is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
Department analyzes each exporting entity 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), as 
amplified by the Final

[[Page 55240]]

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under this 
policy, exporters in NMEs are entitled to separate, company-specific 
margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control, 
both in law and in fact, with respect to export activities. Evidence 
supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of 
government control over export activities includes: (1) an absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence 
of government control over exports is based on four factors: (1) 
whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.

De Jure Control

    With respect to the absence of de jure government control over its 
export activities, evidence on the record indicates that Haiwang is not 
controlled by the government. Haiwang submitted evidence of its legal 
right to set prices independent of all government oversight. Haiwang's 
business licence and certificate of approval indicate that Haiwang is a 
foreign wholly-owned enterprise. We find no evidence of de jure 
government control restricting Haiwang from the exportation of 
crawfish. See Section A Response, Haiwang, pages A-1 through A-8, and 
exhibits 2 through 4 (December 15, 1998).
    With respect to the absence of de jure government control over its 
export activities, evidence on the record indicates that Ningbo Nanlian 
and its affiliated producer, Yinxian No. 2 Freezing Factory (Y2FF), are 
not controlled by the government. Ningbo Nanlian submitted evidence of 
its legal right to set prices independent of all government oversight. 
Ningbo Nanlian's business license indicates that Ningbo Nanlian is 
permitted to engage in the exportation of crawfish. See Section A 
Response, Ningbo Nanlian, pages A-4 through A-8, and exhibits 2-5 
(December 8, 1998).
    With respect to the absence of de jure government control over its 
export activities, evidence on the record indicates that Rirong is not 
controlled by the government. Rirong submitted evidence of its legal 
right to set prices independent of all government oversight. Rirong's 
business licence and certificate of approval indicate that Rirong is a 
Sino-foreign joint venture enterprise. We find no evidence of de jure 
government control restricting Rirong from the exportation of crawfish. 
See Section A Response, Rirong, pages A-1 through A-6, and exhibits 2 
through 4 (December 15, 1998).
    No export quotas apply to crawfish and an export license is not 
required for exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. 
See the Section A Responses of Rirong and Haiwang, both dated December 
15, 1998. Prior verifications have confirmed that there are no export 
licenses required and no quotas for the seafood category ``Other,'' 
which includes crawfish, in China's Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook for 
1996. In addition, we have previously confirmed that crawfish is not on 
the list of commodities with planned quotas in the 1992 PRC Ministry of 
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation document entitled Temporary 
Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities. (See Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat From The People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 8543, (February 22, 1999) and 
Ningbo New Shipper Review.)
    The Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China 
for Controlling the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons (Legal 
Persons Regulations), issued on July 13, 1988 by the State 
Administration for Industry and Commerce of the PRC and placed on the 
record of these reviews, provide that, to qualify as legal persons, 
companies must have the ``ability to bear civil liability 
independently'' and the right to control and manage their businesses. 
These regulations also state that as an independent legal entity, a 
company is responsible for its own profits and losses. (See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal 
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56046 (November 6, 1995) 
(Manganese Metal) and Section A Response, Ningbo Nanlian, December 8, 
1998.) The People's Republic of China All People's Ownership Business 
Law (Company Law), also on the record of these reviews, states that a 
foreign company shall bear civil responsibility for the operational 
activities of its branch organization in China. See Section A Response, 
Ningbo Nanlian, December 7, 1998. At verification, we saw that business 
licenses for Ningbo Nanlian and Rirong were established in accordance 
with these laws. (Haiwang provided copies of the Foreign Investment 
Enterprise Law (See exhibit 1 of the April 13, 1999 supplemental 
questionnaire response) which states that ``sole foreign investment 
enterprise * * * shall have right of autonomy in its operation and 
administration and any [government] interference shall be prohibited.'' 
Therefore, with respect to the absence of de jure control over export 
activity, we determine that these firms are independent legal entities.

De Facto Control

    With respect to the absence of de facto control over export 
activities, the information presented indicates that the management of 
Haiwang, Ningbo Nanlian and Rirong is responsible for all decisions 
such as the determination of export prices, profit distribution, 
marketing strategy, and contract negotiations. Our analysis indicates 
that there is no government involvement in the daily operations or the 
selection of management for Haiwang, Ningbo Nanlian or Rirong. See 
Section A Response, Ningbo Nanlian, page A-6 through A-8 and A-10, and 
exhibit 5, (December 8, 1998); Section A Response, Rirong, pages A-5, 
A-7 and A-9 through A-10 and exhibit 6 (December 15, 1998); and Section 
A Response, Haiwang, pages A-5 to A-8 and exhibit 6 (December 15, 
1998). For more information, see Separate Rate Analysis in the New 
Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China dated September 30, 1999 (Separate Rates Memoranda), 
which are on file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the Main 
Commerce Building).
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over their export 
activities, we preliminarily determine that these exporters are 
entitled to separate rates. For further discussion of the Department's 
preliminary determination that these exporters are entitled to separate 
rates, see the Separate Rates Memoranda.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether respondents' sales of the subject merchandise 
to the United States were made at NV, we compared their United States 
prices to NV, as described in the ``United States

[[Page 55241]]

Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    For sales made by Ningbo Nanlian, we based United States price on 
CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because the sales to 
unaffiliated purchasers were made after importation. We calculated CEP 
based on packed prices from the U.S. affiliate's warehouse to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made the following 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price): foreign inland 
freight, international (ocean) freight, U.S. customs duty, brokerage 
and handling expenses, the affiliated purchaser's U.S. credit expenses, 
the affiliated purchaser's indirect selling expenses, and CEP profit. 
See sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. Because U.S. customs duty, 
brokerage and handling expenses, credit expenses and indirect selling 
expenses incurred by the U.S. affiliate are market-economy costs 
incurred in U.S. dollars, we used actual costs rather than surrogate 
values to value these deductions to gross unit price. Consistent with 
the original investigation and the Ningbo Nanlian New Shipper Review, 
we valued other expenses using India as a surrogate country. We valued 
movement expenses as follows:
     To value truck freight, we used the rates reported in an 
April 20, 1994 newspaper article in the ``Times of India'' and 
submitted for the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 52647 
(October 10, 1995). We adjusted the rates to reflect inflation through 
the POR using wholesale price indices (WPI) for India in the 
International Financial Statistics (IFS) published by the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF).
     To value brokerage and handling in the home market, we 
used information reported in the antidumping administrative review of 
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 63 FR 48184 
(September 9, 1998) (Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India), and also 
used in the Ningbo New Shipper Review.
    We used the average of the foreign brokerage and handling expenses 
reported in the U.S. sales listing portion of the public questionnaire 
response submitted in the antidumping review of Viraj Impoexpo in 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India. We also used this average value 
for Ningbo Nanlian for the period February 1997 through January 1998. 
Charges were reported on a per metric ton basis. For further 
discussion, see Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman through Maureen 
Flannery from The Crawfish Team, Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 
People's Republic of China: Factor Values Memorandum, (Factor Values 
Memorandum) dated September 30, 1999.
     To value ocean freight, we obtained publicly available 
price quotes from Sea Land Services for shipping frozen crawfish tail 
meat from the PRC to Long Beach, California in the United States. See 
Factor Values Memorandum. To adjust this rate to the POR, we used the 
closest corresponding monthly WPI and the WPI average for the POR.
    For Rirong, we based United States price on EP in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers were made prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise 
warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on packed 
prices from the exporter to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. We deducted foreign inland freight and brokerage and 
handling expenses in the home market from the starting price (gross 
unit price) in accordance with 772(c) of the Act. Consistent with the 
original investigation and the Ningbo Nanlian New Shipper Review, we 
used India as a surrogate country for all expenses for non-market-
economy suppliers. We valued movement expenses as follows:
     To value truck freight, we used the rates reported in an 
April 20, 1994 newspaper article in the ``Times of India'' and 
submitted for the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 52647 
(October 10, 1995). We adjusted the rates to reflect inflation through 
the POR using WPI for India in the IFS published by the IMF.
     To value brokerage and handling in the home market, we 
used information reported in the antidumping administrative review of 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India, and also used in Ningbo New 
Shipper Review.

Normal Value

    For companies located in NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the 
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-
production methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME 
country, and (2) available 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.
    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to 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. None of the companies contested such treatment 
in this review. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the 
factors of production to determine NV.
    We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations. 
Consistent with the original investigation and the Ningbo Nanlian New 
Shipper Review, we determined that India (1) is comparable to the PRC 
in level of economic development, and (2) is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. With the exception of the crawfish input, we 
valued the factors of production using publicly available information 
from India. For the crawfish input, we used Spanish import statistics 
for crawfish imported from Portugal. See the Factor Values Memorandum. 
We used import prices to value many factors. As appropriate, we 
adjusted import prices by adding freight expenses to make them 
delivered prices. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see the 
Factor Values Memorandum.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
     To value whole crawfish, we used the average Spanish 
import price for fresh (not frozen) crawfish imported from Portugal. In 
order to factor out seasonal fluctuations in the price of the Spanish 
import data, we valued whole crawfish using data from the calendar year 
1997, the most recent period for which data is available. Spanish 
import data show insignificant amounts of crawfish from other countries 
at aberrational prices and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to 
include these data in the calculation of the crawfish cost. These data 
are publicly available and are published by the Spanish Ministry of 
Customs in Madrid. Since the factors of production were reported for a 
period concurrent with our valuation of the crawfish input, we did not 
adjust these factor values. See the Factor Values Memorandum for 
further discussion.
     To value the by-product of shells in the investigation and 
the Ningbo New Shipper Review, we used Indian import data for HTS 
category 0508.00.05, ``shells of mollusks, crustaceans, and 
echinoderms.'' The petitioner has argued in these reviews, as it did in 
the Ningbo New Shipper Review, that Indian import prices are 
aberrational. In the Ningbo New Shipper Review, we

[[Page 55242]]

found that no other tariff classifications for comparable merchandise 
are as detailed as the Indian HTS category under which we valued the 
crawfish shells. In these reviews, petitioner has argued that the 
Indian tariff category under which we valued the crawfish shells is 
over broad and includes different items with much higher values. HTS 
category 0508.00.05 includes echinoderms. Petitioner has maintained 
that echinoderms, such as starfish, which do not have shells and do not 
contain chitin (the chemical that makes crustacean shells valuable), 
are traded only for decorative purposes, thereby inflating the overall 
value of this tariff category. To substantiate its argument for these 
reviews, petitioner has placed on the record information demonstrating 
that the resulting Indian import price of 56 cents per pound for 
crawfish shells is highly exaggerated, including: (1) an offer to sell 
dried, crushed crab shells from an electronic bulletin board, (2) a 
delivered price for wet crustacean shells reported in a study on marine 
biopolymers, and (3) a price for crustacean scrap sold in India, 
calculated from a report detailing chitin and chitosan exports using 
established yields from crawfish shells for the production of chitosan. 
All of these items show significantly lower prices for shells of 
crustacean than the 55 cents per pound used in the Ningbo New Shipper 
Review. In addition, we know that the price of the Spanish whole, live, 
crawfish is 59 cents per pound. Finally, we received from the U.S. 
Embassy in Sri Lanka information indicating that Sri Lankan exports 
consist of conch shells and chanks for decorative purposes. See 
Memorandum to the File; Cables from U.S. Embassies in Sri Lanka and 
Switzerland regarding Crustacean Shells, September 30, 1999. Based on 
this information taken as a whole, we determine that the Indian import 
statistics are an inappropriate surrogate value for crawfish shells.
    Some of the alternate information currently on the record is 
internally inconsistent, is quite old, or possibly includes items other 
than crawfish shells. For these preliminary results, we applied a 
surrogate value based on a free-on-board (FOB) factory price quote for 
crab and shrimp shells from a Canadian seller of crustacean shells. We 
chose this price from any available alternatives because it is an 
actual price for crustacean scrap that is reasonably contemporaneous 
with the POR. We adjusted this price to reflect deflation to the 
crawfish processing season applicable for each of the companies. See 
the Factor Value Memorandum.
    We have requested additional information relating to shell scrap 
prices in a number of countries. For the final results of these 
reviews, we will consider any information we receive 45 days prior to 
the deadline for the final results.
     To value coal and electricity, we used data reported as 
the average Indian domestic prices within the categories of ``Steam 
Coal for Industry'' and ``Electricity for Industry,'' published in the 
International Energy Agency's publication, Energy Prices and Taxes, 
First Quarter, 1998. We adjusted the cost of coal to include an amount 
for transportation. For water, we relied upon public information from 
the November 1993 Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region, 
published by the Asian Development Bank. To achieve comparability of 
the energy and water prices to the factors reported for the crawfish 
processing periods applicable for the companies under review, we 
adjusted these factor values using the WPI for India, as published in 
the IFS, to reflect inflation through the applicable periods.
     To value plastic bags, cardboard boxes and adhesive tape, 
we relied upon Indian import data from the April 1997 through March 
1998 issues of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 
(Monthly Statistics). We adjusted the values of packing materials to 
include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory. 
For transportation distances used for the calculation of freight 
expenses on raw materials, we added to surrogate values from India a 
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of (a) the distances between 
the closest PRC port and the factory, or (b) the distance between the 
domestic supplier and the factory. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From the People's 
Republic of China, 62 FR 51410 (October 1, 1997) (Roofing Nails). Since 
not all companies reported the same crawfish processing periods, we 
adjusted the reported factor values to reflect inflation through the 
applicable periods for each company.
     To value factory overhead, selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, we calculated simple 
average rates using publicly available financial statements of three 
Indian seafood processing companies submitted in the original 
investigation for which more current data is now available, and applied 
these rates to the calculated cost of manufacture. See Factor Values 
Memorandum.
     For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at 
Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in May 1999. See http://
www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/records/wages. Because of the variability 
of wage rates in countries with similar per capita GDPs, section 
351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a 
regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the 
Import Administration's Web site is found in the 1998 Year Book of 
Labour Statistics, International Labour Office (Geneva: 1998), Chapter 
5: Wages in Manufacturing.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the 
Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Manufacturer/exporter (percent)          Time period        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lianyungang Haiwang Aquatic Products        3/26/97-8/31/98       201.63
 Co., Ltd..............................
Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company,        4/01/98-8/31/98         0.00
 Ltd...................................
Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd......     3/26/97-8/31/98         0.00
PRC-Wide Rate*.........................     3/26/97-8/31/98      201.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Binzhou Prefecture Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., Huaiyin Foreign
  Trade Corp., Huaiyin Ningtai Fisheries Co., Ltd., Nantong Delu Aquatic
  Food Co., Ltd., Yancheng Baolong Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd., and Yancheng
  Foreign Trade Corp. are subject to the PRC-wide rate of 201.63
  percent.

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing would 
normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the 
first

[[Page 55243]]

workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to 
request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) the party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) the 
reason for attending; and (4) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with 
each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's 
case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the 
scheduled time.
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
and new shipper reviews, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days from the publication of 
these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of these administrative and new shipper reviews, 
the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentages 
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the U.S. Customs Service upon completion of this review. 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. For 
assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific 
assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. For 
both EP and CEP sales, we will divide the total dumping margins 
(calculated as the difference between NV and EP (or CEP)) for each 
importer by the entered value of the merchandise. Upon the completion 
of this review, we will direct Customs to assess the resulting ad 
valorem rates against the entered value of each entry of the subject 
merchandise by the importer during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC 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) the cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed firms will be the rates indicated above; 
(2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate 
rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate 
established for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 
exporters, the rate will be the PRC-wide rate, which is 201.63 percent; 
and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the 
PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
supplier of that exporter.
    These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's 
regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could 
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties.
    This administrative review, these new shipper reviews, and this 
notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act 
(19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and sections 351.213, 351.214 and 351.221 of the 
Department's regulations.

    Dated: September 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-26589 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P