[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18604-18609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8819]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-848]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Administrative Reviews: 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 new 
shipper administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on 
freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
in response to requests from China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. 
(China Kingdom), Weishan Fukang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Weishan Fukang), 
Nantong Shengfa Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Nantong Shengfa), and Rizhao 
Riyuan Marine and Food Products Co., Ltd. (Rizhao Riyuan). The reviews 
cover the period September 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000.
    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: April 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith 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 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 
(2000).

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 March 29, 2000 and March 31, 2000, the 
Department received timely requests for review, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(c) of the 
Department's regulations, from China Kingdom, Weishan Fukang, Nantong 
Shengfa, and Rizhao Riyuan to conduct a new shipper administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat 
from the PRC. The order has a September anniversary month and a March 
semiannual anniversary month. These requests were made 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 351.214(b)(2) of the 
Department's Regulations.
    The requests received from China Kingdom, Weishan Fukang, Nantong 
Shengfa, and Rizhao Riyuan were

[[Page 18605]]

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. Each of these four companies certified 
that it was not affiliated with any company which exported freshwater 
crawfish tail meat from the PRC during the POI. In addition, China 
Kingdom, Weishan Fukang, Nantong Shengfa, and Rizhao Riyuan each 
certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central 
government. On June 1, 2000, the Department published its initiation of 
these new shipper reviews for the period September 1, 1999 through 
March 31, 2000. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's 
Republic of China: Initiation of New-Shipper Antidumping Administrative 
Reviews, FR 35046 (June 1, 2000).
    On July 11, 2000, Rizhao Riyuan withdrew its request for review, in 
accordance with section 351.214(f)(1) of the Department's regulations. 
On September 15, 2000, the Department published the rescission of the 
new shipper review of Rizhao Riyuan. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 
New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 65 FR 55940 (September 15, 2000).
    On October 30, 2000 the Department published an extension of the 
deadline for completion of the preliminary results of these new shipper 
reviews until March 21, 2001. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Review: Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 64666 
(October 30, 2000).

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 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, 
which are the new HTS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating 
peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by the U.S. Customs 
Service in mid-year 2000, and HTS items 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00, 
which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The 
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Date of Sale for China Kingdom

    American Coast Processing Enterprises Corp. (American Processing) 
made a sale to its customer on February 18, 2000. The material terms of 
the contract--notably, the price and quantity--were established on this 
date. American Processing's customer issued a purchase order and 
American Processing issued an invoice to its customer on this date. The 
crawfish tail meat arrived at the U.S. port on March 1, 2000, at which 
time the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seized this shipment for 
random inspection. Although the FDA released the crawfish tail meat on 
March 23, 2000, the FDA's inspection process consumed four cartons of 
the product.
    On March 24, 2000, American Processing reissued its earlier invoice 
with the original price and quantity. The customer, however, reissued 
its purchase order showing the reduced total quantity on April 20, 
2000. The unit price did not change.
    China Kingdom argues that, despite the changed purchase order, the 
date of sale remains February 18, 2000, because the material terms of 
the sale did not change.
    We agree with China Kingdom that the original purchase order and 
invoice date best reflects the date of sale on which the exporter 
established the material terms of sale. See section 351.401(i) of the 
Department's regulations. The unit price remained the same. Although 
the total price changed, that was due to circumstances that were beyond 
the control of both the buyer and the seller; the FDA's inspection, 
which consumed these four cartons of crawfish tail meat, did not change 
the material terms of sale. Therefore, we are reviewing China Kingdom's 
sale in this new shipper review.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted a 
verification of the responses of China Kingdom and its affiliated 
importer in the United States, American Processing; Weishan Fukang; and 
Nantong Shengfa. We used standard verification procedures, including 
on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities and the examination 
of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are 
outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, which are 
on file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce 
Building).

New Shippers

    Based on the questionnaire responses received from China Kingdom, 
Weishan Fukang, and Nantong Shengfa, and our verification thereof, we 
preliminarily determine that these companies have met the requirements 
to qualify as new shippers during the period of review (POR). We have 
determined that they made their first sale or shipment of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, that these sales were 
bona fide sales, and that these companies were not affiliated with any 
exporter or producer that previously shipped to the United States.
    At verification, we noted that Anhui Chaohu Daxin Foodstuff Co., 
Ltd. (Chaohu Daxin), China Kingdom's producer, supplied, from the same 
production season, other exporters with crawfish for sale to the United 
States. We considered whether the circumstances were such as to render 
China Kingdom ineligible for consideration as a new shipper. At 
verification, we found that Chaohu Daxin did not begin crawfish 
operations until May 1999 and, therefore, could not have produced or 
exported crawfish before that date. Since Chaohu Daxin's sales to the 
other exporters are contemporaneous with its sales to China Kingdom, we 
preliminarily determine that there are no grounds to dismiss China 
Kingdom as a new shipper.
    We note that Nantong Shengfa assumed the debt and acquired the 
facilities and all of the equipment of Qidong Baolu Aquatic Products 
Co., Ltd. (Qidong Baolu), a producer which supplied another exporter 
during the period of the original investigation. For the final results 
of this review, we will examine whether the activities of Qidong Baolu 
and Nantong Shengfa's connection to Qidong Baolu preclude us from 
determining Nantong Shengfa to be a new shipper.

Separate Rates

    China Kingdom, Weishan Fukang, and Nantong Shengfa have requested 
separate, company-specific rates. In their questionnaire responses, the 
above companies state that they are independent legal entities. In 
addition, Weishan Fukang and Nantong Shengfa have both reported that 
they are PRC-foreign joint ventures.
    To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled

[[Page 18606]]

to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under 
the test established in 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, Final 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 the 
export activities of all the companies reviewed, evidence on the record 
indicates that China Kingdom, Weishan Fukang, and Nantong Shengfa are 
not controlled by the government. All of the above companies submitted 
evidence of their legal right to set prices independent of all 
government oversight. The business license of each company indicates 
that it is permitted to engage in the exportation of crawfish. We find 
no evidence of de jure government control restricting any of the 
reviewed companies from the exportation of crawfish. See ``Separate 
Rates Analysis in the New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat from the People's Republic of China,'' dated March 21, 2001 
(Separate Rates Memorandum), which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce Building).
    No export quotas apply to crawfish. Prior verifications have 
confirmed that there are no commodity specific export licenses required 
and no quotas for the seafood category ``Other,'' which includes 
crawfish, in China's Tariff and 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 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).)
    The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this 
review, indicate a lack of de jure government control over companies 
owned by ``all the people'' and that control over these enterprises has 
been transferred from the government to the enterprises themselves. The 
Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China for 
Controlling the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons (Legal 
Persons Law), issued on June 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 56045 (November 6, 1995) (Manganese Metal). 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. At verification, we saw that business licenses 
for China Kingdom, Weishan Fukang, and Nantong Shengfa were granted in 
accordance with these laws.
    Weishan Fukang provided a copy of the Foreign Trade Law, which 
identifies the rights and responsibilities of business enterprises with 
foreign investment, grants autonomy to foreign trade operators in 
management decisions, and establishes the foreign trade operator's 
accountability for profits and losses. Weishan Fukang and Nantong 
Shengfa provided The Sino-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Law of the PRC, 
which grants export rights to Sino-foreign equity joint venture 
companies without additional approval from a government entity. China 
Kingdom submitted the Regulations for Transformation of Operational 
Mechanism of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises, which is designed to 
motivate state-owned industrial enterprises to enter the market by 
granting companies the ability to appoint managers, set their own 
prices, sell their own products, and to make decisions regarding the 
distribution of profits. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
there is an absence of de jure control over export activity with 
respect to these firms.

De Facto Control

    With respect to the absence of de facto control over export 
activities, the information provided, and reviewed at verification, 
indicates that the respective managements of China Kingdom, Weishan 
Fukang, and Nantong Shengfa are responsible for 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 
any of these companies. In addition, we have found that these 
respondents' pricing and export strategy decisions are not subject to 
any outside entity's review or approval, and that there are no 
governmental policy directives that affect these decisions.
    There are no restrictions on the use of export earnings. Each 
company's general manager has the right to negotiate and enter into 
contracts, and may delegate this authority to employees within the 
company. There is no evidence that this authority is subject any level 
of governmental approval. Each company has stated that its management 
is selected by its board of directors and/or its employees and that 
there is no government involvement in the selection process. Lastly, 
decisions made by respondents concerning purchases of subject 
merchandise from other suppliers are not subject to government 
approval. For more information, see Separate Rates Memorandum. 
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 separate rates should be 
applied to these exporters. For further discussion of the Department's 
preliminary

[[Page 18607]]

determination that separate rates should be applied to these exporters, 
see Separate Rates Memorandum.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether respondents' sales of the subject merchandise 
to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared their 
United States prices to NV, as described in the ``United States Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    For China Kingdom, we based United States price on CEP in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because the first sales to 
unaffiliated purchasers were made after importation. We calculated CEP 
based on packed prices from the affiliated importer to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made the following 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), where 
applicable: foreign inland freight, international (ocean) freight, 
foreign and U.S. 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. We valued foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and 
handling using surrogate values since they were incurred in an NME 
country.
    Because U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, credit expenses, and 
CEP profit are market-economy costs incurred in U.S. dollars, we used 
actual costs rather than surrogate values for these deductions to gross 
unit price. Because American Processing reported indirect selling 
expenses that only consisted of phone charges, but did not reflect 
other costs incurred, we used the facts otherwise available to 
determine American Processing's indirect selling expenses, in 
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and section 351.308 of the 
Department's regulations. As partial facts available we used American 
Processing's general ledger to derive a more accurate expense. In 
addition, at verification, American Processing was unable to support 
its reported credit expense. We compared the interest rate American 
Processing used to derive its reported credit expense to the weighted 
average interest rate reported for the relevant period by the Federal 
Reserve Bank on all commercial and industrial loans maturing between 
one month and one year in accordance with Policy Bulletin 98.2. We 
found the interest rate reported by American Processing to be higher. 
Therefore, as partial facts available, we have calculated American 
Processing's credit expense using the actual interest rate it reported 
to the Department. See ``Memorandum to the File from Jacqueline 
Arrowsmith; Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 
Review for China Kingdom,'' dated March 21, 2001.
    For Weishan Fukang and Nantong Shengfa, 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, brokerage and handling expenses, and international freight 
from an NME carrier, where applicable, from the starting price (gross 
unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    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 these reviews. 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 first administrative 
review of this order, 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. In the original investigation of sales at less than fair 
value (LTFV) and in previous reviews of this order, for the crawfish 
input, we used Spanish import statistics for crawfish imported from 
Portugal. However, Spanish imports from Portugal have declined 
drastically. From April 1999 through March 2000, the production period 
corresponding to the current review, Spanish imports from Portugal were 
only 17 metric tons, in contrast to the 357 metric tons used during the 
investigation, and 160 metric tons used during the 1997-98 
administrative review. This represents a decline of 95.2 percent since 
the period of the LTFV investigation. In addition, unlike in other 
years, Spanish imports from Portugal were heavily weighted towards one 
month. This one month accounted for 71% of the total volume of imports 
from Portugal for that year. Small import volumes as a whole, and one 
month accounting for the vast proportion of imports, seems to indicate 
that crawfish is no longer a product that is regularly traded between 
Portugal and Spain. Therefore, we looked for data reflecting a more 
substantial volume of trade. For these preliminary results, we have 
used Spanish export statistics for exports of crawfish to the European 
Union (EU). For further discussion, see ``Memorandum from The Crawfish 
Team, Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China: Factor Values Memorandum,'' dated March 21, 2001 (Factor Values 
Memo). We used Indian import prices to value many factors. As 
appropriate, we adjusted import prices by adding freight expenses to 
make them delivered prices.
    Because Nantong Shengfa was unable to support its reported 
electricity, water, and direct labor usage rates at verification, we 
are using partial facts available for these factors, in accordance with 
section 776(a) of the Act and section 351.308 of the Department's 
regulations. For electricity and direct labor, we are using the higher 
of what was reported or what we found at verification. For electricity, 
we are using the amount calculated at verification. For direct labor, 
we are using the amount reported as partial facts available. See 
``Verification Report of Sales and Factors for Nantong Shengfa Frozen 
Foods Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 21, 2001. Because we were unable to 
calculate an amount for water at verification, for water we are using 
an average of the water factors from the other respondents' data. See 
``Memorandum to the File from Jacqueline Arrowsmith; Analysis for the 
Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review for Nantong Shengfa,'' 
dated March 21, 2000. In addition, we found at verification that 
Nantong Shengfa had reported incorrectly the distance between the 
factory and its plastic bag supplier. As partial facts available, we 
used the reported amount, which was greater than the amount found at 
verification.

[[Page 18608]]

    We valued the factors of production as follows:
     To value whole crawfish, we used the Spanish export price 
for fresh (not frozen) crawfish exported to the EU. In order to factor 
out seasonal fluctuations in the price of the Spanish export data, we 
valued whole crawfish using an average of monthly data from the POR. 
For further details, see Factors Value Memorandum.
     To value the by-product of shells, we used a September 
1999 free-on-board (FOB) factory price quote for crab and shrimp shells 
from a Canadian seller of crustacean shells. For further details, see 
Factors Value Memorandum.
     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, 2000. We adjusted the cost of coal to include an amount 
for transportation. For water, we relied upon public information from 
the October 1997 Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific 
Region, published by the Asian Development Bank.
    To achieve comparability of energy and water prices to the factors 
reported for the crawfish processing periods applicable to the 
companies under review, we adjusted these factor values to reflect 
inflation to the applicable crawfish processing season using the 
Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for India, as published in the 2000 and 
2001 International Financial Statistics (IFS) by the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF).
     To value packing materials (plastic bags, cardboard boxes 
and adhesive tape), we relied upon Indian import data from the April 
1998 through March 1999 issues of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 
Trade of India (Monthly Statistics). We adjusted these prices to 
reflect inflation to the applicable crawfish processing season. We 
adjusted the values of packing materials to include freight costs 
incurred between the supplier and the factory. For transportation 
distances used in the calculation of freight expenses on packing 
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).
     To value factory overhead, selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, we calculated simple 
average rates using publicly available financial statements of four 
Indian seafood processing companies, 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 2000. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with 
similar per capita gross domestic products, 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 the 1998 Year Book of Labour Statistics, 
International Labour Office (Geneva: 1998), Chapter 5: Wages in 
Manufacturing.
     We valued movement expenses as follows:
    To value truck freight expenses we used seventeen price quotes from 
six different Indian trucking companies which were used in the 
antidumping investigation of Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000). We adjusted the rates to reflect 
inflation through the POR using the WPI for India from the IFS.
    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 Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Administrative Antidumping Duty and New Shipper 
Reviews, and Final Rescission of New Shipper Review, 65 FR 20948 (April 
19, 2000). We adjusted the rates to reflect inflation through the POR 
using the WPI for India from the IFS.
    We used the average of the foreign brokerage and handling expenses 
reported in the U.S. sales listing of the public questionnaire response 
submitted in the antidumping review of Viraj Group, Ltd. in Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod from India. Charges were reported on a per metric ton 
basis. We adjusted these values to reflect inflation through the POR 
using the WPI for India from the IFS. For further discussion, see 
Factor Values Memorandum.
    To value ocean freight, we obtained publicly available price quotes 
from Maersk Sealand for shipping frozen crawfish tail meat from various 
PRC ports to various ports in the United States. See Factor Values 
Memorandum. We adjusted these rates to reflect deflation to the POR, 
where appropriate, using the WPI for India from the IFS.

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. (See Http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index. html).

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin
    Manufacturer/exporter              Time period            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Kingdom...............               9/1/99-3/31/00          7.55
Weishan Fukang..............               9/1/99-3/31/00          0.00
Nantong Shengfa.............               9/1/99-3/31/00          0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the 
Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days 
after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street

[[Page 18609]]

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; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of 
the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by 
the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 
351.309(c)(2) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case 
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not 
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 
cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is 
filed. 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 new shipper 
reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of these preliminary 
results, unless the time limit is extended.
    Upon completion of these new shipper reviews, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service upon 
completion of this review. 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 established in 
the final results of these reviews; (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 currently 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.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 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.
    These new shipper reviews and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777 (i)(1) of the Act. Effective 
January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: March 21, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-8819 Filed 4-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P