[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63877-63886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26311]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-848]


Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

[[Page 63878]]

requests from the Crawfish Processors Alliance (petitioner) and the 
Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry and Bob Odom, 
Commissioner; and from respondents China Kingdom Import & Export Co., 
Ltd., aka China Kingdoma Import & Export Co., Ltd., aka Zhongda Import 
& Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom) and Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Company, 
Ltd., aka Qingdao Zhengri Seafoods (Qingdao Zhengri). The period of 
review (POR) is from September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001.
    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 16, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Campau or Maureen Flannery, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1395 or (202) 482-3020, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department's regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 
351 (2001).

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on September 
15, 1997. 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). On September 28, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1), the Department received a request from the petitioner to 
conduct an administrative review of several companies, covering the 
period from September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001. On September 
28, 2001, respondents China Kingdom and Qingdao Zhengri also requested 
review of their own shipments. The Department initiated an antidumping 
duty administrative review for this case on October 23, 2001. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 54195 (October 26, 
2001).
    On May 20, 2002, the Department determined that it was not 
practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within 
the statutory time limit. Consequently, in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, the Department extended the deadline for completion of the 
preliminary results of the administrative review by 120 days, to 
September 30, 2002. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 36856 (May 28, 2002).
    On July 31, 2002, in accordance with sections 351.213(d)(1) and (3) 
of its regulations, the Department rescinded, in part, this 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater 
crawfish tail meat. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review for the Period September 1, 2000, through August 
31, 2001, 67 FR 50860 (August 6, 2002). The Department rescinded the 
review only with respect to those companies which had no reportable 
U.S. entries or exports of subject merchandise during the period of 
review, or for which all applicable requests for review were withdrawn 
in a timely manner.
    Following the rescission, this review now covers the following 
companies: China Kingdom; Fujian Pelagic Fishery Group Co. (Fujian 
Pelagic); Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd., aka Qingdao Rirong 
Foodstuffs (Qingdao Rirong); Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou Seafoods 
(Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou); Shantou SEZ Yangfeng Marine Products 
Co. (Shantou SEZ); Suqian Foreign Trade Corp., aka Suqian Foreign 
Trading (Suqian Foreign Trade); Yancheng Foreign Trade Corp., aka 
Yancheng Foreign Trading, aka Yang Cheng Foreign Trading (Yancheng 
Foreign Trade); and Yangzhou Lakebest Foods Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou 
Lakebest).

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order 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 2000, and HTS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 
0306.29.00.00, 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.

Treatment of Qingdao Zhengri and Yancheng Yaou

    We determine that Qingdao Zhengri and Yancheng Yaou should be 
treated as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. 
In their responses to the Department's questionnaires, both companies 
stated that they are related through a Hong Kong company that owns 
significant shares in both companies. In addition, the companies 
reported that the Hong Kong owner consolidated Qingdao Zhengri's 
selling activities with those of Yancheng Yaou in January 2000. See 
Response of Yancheng Yaou Seafoods to Section A of the Department's 
Questionnaire; 2000-2001 Review (March 11, 2002) at page 1; and 
Response of Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. to Section A of the 
Department's Questionnaire; Crawfish Tail Meat 2000-2001 Review 
Investigation (March 11, 2002) at page 1. Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou 
submitted three consolidated supplemental responses to sections A, C, 
and D of the Department's questionnaire. For the reasons cited above, 
the Department is treating these two companies as a single entity for 
these preliminary results.

Application of Facts Available

1. Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign 
Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest
    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) and section 776(b) of the Act, the

[[Page 63879]]

Department determines that the application of total adverse facts 
available is warranted for respondents Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, 
Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest. 
All five of these respondents failed to respond to some or all of the 
Department's questionnaires for this POR. Yangzhou Lakebest and Suqian 
Foreign Trade responded to the Department's initial questionnaire, but 
then failed to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. 
Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, and Yancheng Foreign Trade failed to 
respond to any of the Department's questionnaires. Sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the use of facts 
available when an interested party withholds information that has been 
requested by the Department, or when an interested party fails to 
provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form 
required. These five respondents failed to provide information 
explicitly requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to 
the facts otherwise available. Because these respondents did not 
respond to the Department's questionnaires, sections 782(d) and (e) of 
the Act are not applicable. In addition, section 782(c)(1) does not 
apply because these parties did not indicate that they were unable to 
submit the information required by the Department.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the respondent, if it determines that a 
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In applying 
the facts otherwise available, the Department has determined that an 
adverse inference is warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act 
because the Department has determined that these respondents failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability.
    The Department finds that, by not providing the necessary responses 
to the questionnaires issued by the Department, these five companies 
have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. None of these 
companies cited any reason for their failure to respond. Without this 
information, the Department cannot calculate margins for these 
companies nor determine that any merits a separate rate. This 
information was in the sole possession of the respondents, and could 
not be obtained otherwise. Thus, the Department is precluded from 
calculating margins for these companies or determining eligibility for 
separate rates. Therefore, in selecting from the facts available, the 
Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted. In 
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 
776(b) of the Act, we are applying total adverse facts available to 
Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign 
Trade, Yangzhou Lakebest and all other PRC exporters that have not 
established that they are entitled to a separate rate. As adverse facts 
available, the Department is assigning these companies the rate of 
223.01 percent the highest rate determined in any previous segment of 
this proceeding. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002). As discussed 
below, this rate has been corroborated.
2. China Kingdom
    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and section 776(b) of the 
Act, the Department determines that the application of adverse facts 
available is also warranted for respondent China Kingdom. At 
verification, China Kingdom explained that the total production and 
factors of production reported in its answers to the Department's 
questionnaires were based on production outside the POR. China Kingdom 
then attempted to submit new factual information, consisting of new 
figures for total production and factors of production. See Memorandum 
to the File: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Verification 
Report for China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (September 16, 2002) 
(China Kingdom Verification Report). Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the use of facts available when an 
interested party withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department, or when an interested party fails to provide the 
information requested in a timely manner and in the form required. 
China Kingdom failed to provide total production and factors of 
production for the relevant POR in a timely manner.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,'' 
the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an 
unreasonable burden on that party. Throughout the course of this 
review, China Kingdom had several opportunities to correct the reported 
data. However, at no time prior to the verification did China Kingdom 
notify the Department that it had any difficulty in obtaining the 
production or factors of production data from the relevant POR. At no 
point during the review did China Kingdom seek guidance on alternative 
reporting requirements, or propose an alternate form for submitting the 
required data, as contemplated in section 782(c)(1) of the Act.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate. In its questionnaire, the Department asked 
China Kingdom to provide production and factors of production data for 
the POR (September 1, 2000, to August 31, 2001). Prior to the 
verification, the Department had no means of determining whether the 
data came from the relevant POR, and therefore could not inform the 
respondent that its response was deficient. On the other hand, China 
Kingdom had access to the necessary information, and was fully aware of 
the time period covered by the current review. In addition, China 
Kingdom had ample opportunities to correct its data prior to 
verification, but did not attempt to do so until verification had 
started.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) the information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties. As discussed above, China Kingdom 
had ample time to submit the production and factors of production data 
for the relevant POR, but failed to do so. In addition, the Department 
had provided China Kingdom with the exact dates for verification well 
in advance. However, China Kingdom waited until verification

[[Page 63880]]

to submit the production data for the relevant POR. Thus, the data 
reported in the questionnaire response could not be verified. As set 
forth in section 351.307(d) of the Department's regulations, the 
purpose of verification is to verify the accuracy and completeness of 
the information in the questionnaire responses. China Kingdom did not 
act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request 
for information. The production and factors of production data for the 
relevant POR is critical to the calculation of a dumping margin. China 
Kingdom failed to provide this information in its February 27, 2002, 
responses to the Department's section A through D questionnaire. In 
addition, between February 27, 2002, and August 8, 2002, China Kingdom 
failed to note that the data it had provided was completely irrelevant 
to this administrative review, and failed to request an opportunity to 
submit corrected data. At no time did the respondent indicate that it 
had trouble obtaining or submitting the data for the relevant POR. 
Consequently, China Kingdom has not demonstrated that it acted to the 
best of its ability in providing the information requested by the 
Department. In addition, the information was so incomplete that it 
could not be used in the determination. The submitted questionnaire 
response for production and factors of production was unverifiable. See 
Verification Report at 10. For these reasons, the information could not 
be used without undue difficulty.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the respondent, if it determines that a 
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In applying 
the facts otherwise available, the Department finds that an adverse 
inference is warranted, pursuant to
    section 776(b) of the Act, because, as discussed above, the 
Department has determined that China Kingdom has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. As adverse facts available, the Department is 
assigning China Kingdom the rate of 223.01 percent the highest rate 
determined in any previous segment of this proceeding. See Memorandum 
to Joseph A. Spetrini: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC): Application of Total Adverse Facts Available 
for China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. in the Preliminary Results 
of the Administrative Review for the Period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01 (September 
30, 2002) (China Kingdom AFA Memo). As discussed further below, this 
rate has been corroborated.
3. Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou
    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and section 776(b) of the 
Act, the Department determines that the application of adverse facts 
available is also warranted for respondents Qingdao Zhengri and 
Yancheng Yaou. As noted above, we have determined that Qingdao Zhengri 
and Yancheng Yaou should be treated as a single entity. On June 4, 
2002, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou informed us that Qingdao Zhengri 
``does not wish to participate in a verification.'' See Letter from 
Qingdao Zhengri, at 1 (June 4, 2002). This decision prevented the 
verification of information placed on the record. Section 776(a)(2)(D) 
warrants the use of facts otherwise available in reaching a 
determination when information is provided, but cannot be verified. 
Furthermore, on July 23, 2002, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou stated 
that Qingdao Zhengri ``did not make any sales during the period of 
review prior to January 3, 2000.'' See Letter from Qingdao Zhengri, at 
1 (June 23, 2002). This statement contradicted earlier responses where 
Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou stated that Qingdao Zhengri did not have 
any sales during the POR. In addition, several submissions made by 
Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou did not contain accurate certifications, 
as required by section 351.303(g) of the Department's regulations. 
Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the use 
of facts otherwise available when an interested party withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department, or when an 
interested party fails to provide the information requested in a timely 
manner and in the form required.
    Since Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou did not allow on-site 
verification of its responses at Qingdao Zhengri, none of the 
information submitted regarding Qingdao Zhengri could be verified, 
including its separate rate information. Furthermore, as discussed 
above, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou made contradictory statements 
regarding sales to the United States, and did not provide accurate 
certifications of its submissions by the deadline established by the 
Department. Thus, information submitted by Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng 
Yaou cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of a respondent, if it determines that a party 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In applying the 
facts otherwise available, the Department finds that an adverse 
inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, because, 
as discussed above, the Department has determined that Qingdao Zhengri/
Yancheng Yaou has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by 
refusing verification of Qingdao Zhengri. Furthermore, Qingdao Zhengri/
Yancheng Yaou have submitted contradictory responses regarding whether 
Qingdao Zhengri had any sales of crawfish tail meat during the POR. In 
addition, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou's responses were accompanied by 
certifications that did not comply with the requirements of section 
351.303(g) of the Department's regulations. In light of these 
developments, we conclude that Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou did not 
act to the best of its ability in this review. As adverse facts 
available, the Department is assigning this entity, and all other PRC 
exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate, the rate of 223.01 percent the 
highest rate determined in any previous segment of this proceeding. See 
Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC): Application of Total Adverse 
Facts Available for Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. and Yancheng Yaou 
Seafood Co., Ltd. in the Preliminary Results of the Administrative 
Review for the Period September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2001 
(September 30, 2002). As discussed further below, this rate has been 
corroborated.
4. Qingdao Rirong
    At verification, Qingdao Rirong explained that the total production 
and factors of production (FOP) reported in its responses to the 
Department's questionnaires were incomplete because it omitted two 
months of production and consumption data for each factor. Qingdao 
Rirong then attempted to submit this new factual information, 
consisting of two months of previously unreported production and 
consumption data, as ``minor corrections'' to the questionnaire 
response. The Department declined to accept this new factual 
information as ``minor corrections.'' See Memorandum to Joseph A. 
Spetrini: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC): Application of Partial Facts Available for Factors of 
Production: Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Preliminary Results of 
the Administrative Review (September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001)

[[Page 63881]]

(September 30, 2002); see also, Antidumping Administrative Review of 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
(A-570-848): Sales and Factors Verification Report for Qingdao Rirong 
Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Rirong) (September 16, 2002) (Qingdao 
Rirong Verification Report), on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 
Room B-099 of the main Department building.
    Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the 
use of facts available when an interested party withholds information 
that has been requested by the Department, or when an interested party 
fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in 
the form required. Qingdao Rirong failed to provide accurate and 
complete factor values for the POR in a timely manner.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,'' 
the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an 
unreasonable burden on that party. Throughout the course of this 
review, Qingdao Rirong had several opportunities to correct the 
reported data. However, at no time, prior to the verification, did 
Qingdao Rirong notify the Department that it had any difficulty in 
obtaining accurate and complete FOP for the relevant POR. At no point 
during the review did Qingdao Rirong seek guidance on alternative 
reporting requirements, or propose an alternate form for submitting the 
required data, as contemplated in section 782(c)(1) of the Act.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate. In its questionnaire, the Department asked 
Qingdao Rirong to provide production and FOP data for the POR 
(September 1, 2000, to August 31, 2001). Prior to the verification, the 
Department had no means of determining whether the data submitted were 
based on the entire POR, and therefore could not inform the respondent 
that its response was deficient. On the other hand, Qingdao Rirong had 
access to the necessary information and was fully aware of the time 
period covered by the current review. In addition, Qingdao Rirong had 
ample opportunities to correct its production and FOP data prior to 
verification, but did not do so until verification had started, 
although it was aware that the Department would no longer accept new 
factual information at that point.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) the information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties. From the time it received the 
original questionnaire until verification, Qingdao Rirong had ample 
time to submit accurate and complete production and FOP for the 
relevant POR. In addition, the Department had provided Qingdao Rirong 
with the exact dates for verification well in advance, and had made it 
clear that all factual information should be submitted prior to the 
start of verification. However, Qingdao Rirong waited until 
verification to submit revised FOP based on revised production and 
consumption data.
    Qingdao Rirong did not act to the best of its ability to comply 
with the Department's request for information. Qingdao Rirong should 
have been able to comply with the Department's requests for information 
in a timely manner. Qingdao Rirong's failure to provide essential 
information, namely, timely and complete production and FOP data, 
hindered the Department's ability to accurately calculate a dumping 
margin for this company. Qingdao Rirong failed to provide this 
information in its March 27, 2002, responses to the Department's 
section A through D questionnaire. In addition, between March 27, 2002, 
and July 29, 2002, Qingdao Rirong failed to detect that it had reported 
production volume and FOP that were incomplete and did not reflect the 
complete POR. At no time did Qingdao Rirong indicate that it had 
trouble obtaining or submitting the production and FOP data for all the 
months of the POR during which it produced subject merchandise. 
Consequently, Qingdao Rirong has not demonstrated that it acted to the 
best of its ability in providing the information requested by the 
Department.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the respondent, if it determines that a 
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In applying 
the facts otherwise available, the Department finds that an adverse 
inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, because 
the Department has determined that Qingdao Rirong has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability. Qingdao Rirong did not report 
significant data regarding production and FOP during two months of the 
POR. In turn, the new data affected the calculation of the factors of 
production for the entire POR. Furthermore, the Department issued, in 
all, four requests for information to Qingdao Rirong, which required 
Qingdao Rirong to examine its information submitted to the Department. 
Nevertheless, on none of these four occasions did Qingdao Rirong ever 
revise its FOP, nor did it indicate that it had not included certain 
production and consumption data in its FOP calculations. See Qingdao 
Rirong Verification Report. We therefore determine that Qingdao Rirong 
did not cooperate to the best of its ability within the meaning of 
776(b) of the Act, and the application of adverse facts available is 
warranted.
    Although the failure to report FOP based on complete production and 
consumption data for the POR warrants the application of adverse facts 
available, we do not find that the application of total adverse facts 
available is warranted since Qingdao Rirong responded to the 
Department's questionnaires; Qingdao Rirong allowed for verification; 
and the reported sales information and the production and consumption 
information submitted to the Department in the original questionnaire 
responses could be verified and was confirmed to be accurate. See 
Qingdao Rirong Verification Report. As such, the Department has 
determined that partial adverse facts available should be applied to 
account for the unreported months of production and consumption.
    As partial adverse facts available for the two months of the 
production season (September and October 2000) for which the Department 
rejected the production and consumption and FOP data at verification as 
untimely filed new factual information, we have applied the highest 
monthly factor value of one of the remaining months of production, 
except for the crawfish

[[Page 63882]]

scrap factor, for which we will take the lowest, as provided to and 
verified by the Department. To calculate each factor for the POR, we 
weighted each factor for September and October using the highest 
production quantity for any of the five reported months, and then 
weighted the factors for the reported months using the verified 
production quantity from each of those months. See Memorandum to File 
through Maureen Flannery from Elfi Blum: Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results of the Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China: Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., 
Ltd., dated September 30, 2002 (Calculation Memo); see also, Memorandum 
to Joseph A. Spetrini: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC): Application of Partial Facts Available for 
Factors of Production: Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Preliminary 
Results of the Administrative Review (September 1, 2000 through August 
31, 2001) (September 30, 2002) (Qingdao Rirong AFA Memo).

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used As Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the 
Department's disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. 
Doc. 103-316 (SAA), states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that 
the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used.
    With respect to China Kingdom, Fujian Pelagic, Qingdao Zhengri/
Yancheng Yaou, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign 
Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest, we are applying the highest rate from any 
previous segment of this administrative proceeding as adverse facts 
available, which is a rate calculated in the 1999-2000 review. However, 
unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping 
margins. The only source for calculated margins is administrative 
determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department 
chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin 
from the current or a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. See, e.g., Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
36551, 36552 (July 11, 1996). With respect to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, however, the Department will consider information 
reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to 
have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin 
is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, 
in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department 
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information 
available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a 
margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United 
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not 
use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these 
unusual circumstances are present here.
    Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any previous 
segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., the calculated rate of 
223.01 percent) is in accord with section 776(c)'s requirement that 
secondary information be corroborated (i.e., that it have probative 
value). The information used in calculating this margin was based on 
sales and production data of a respondent in a prior review, as well as 
on the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the 
Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in that review, as 
well as information gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the 
calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested 
parties in the proceeding. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 
People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002). Moreover, as there 
is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that 
this rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available for 
Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign 
Trade, Yangzhou Lakebest, China Kingdom, and Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng 
Yaou, we determine that this rate has probative value.
    With respect to Qingdao Rirong, the factors we are using for 
partial adverse facts available constitute primary information on the 
record of this review. Corroboration within the meaning of the SAA (see 
SAA at 870) and section 776(c) of the Act is therefore not necessary. 
In addition, there is no information on the record of this review 
demonstrating that the factors selected are not appropriate as adverse 
facts available for Qingdao Rirong.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we attempted to verify 
the responses of Qingdao Rirong and China Kingdom. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturers' facilities and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. However, as described in the ``Application of Facts 
Available'' section above, we encountered problems at the verification 
of the questionnaire responses submitted by both China Kingdom and 
Qingdao Rirong. See China Kingdom Verification Report at 10 and Qingdao 
Rirong Verification Report at 1-2; see also China Kingdom AFA Memo and 
Qingdao Rirong AFA Memo. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public versions of the verification reports, on file in the CRU, Room 
B-099 of the main Department building.

Separate Rates

    To establish whether a company operating in a non-market economy 
country (NME) 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 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

[[Page 63883]]

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
    In their questionnaire responses, both Qingdao Rirong and China 
Kingdom stated that they are independent legal entities. Qingdao Rirong 
also stated that it is a PRC-foreign joint venture. Evidence on the 
record indicates that the government does not have de jure control over 
either Qingdao Rirong's or China Kingdom's export activities. Both 
companies submitted evidence of their legal right to set prices 
independent of all government oversight. Furthermore, the business 
licenses of Qingdao Rirong and China Kingdom indicate that each is 
permitted to engage in the exportation of crawfish. We also found no 
evidence of de jure government control restricting either entity's 
exportation of crawfish.
    In their responses, Qingdao Rirong and China Kingdom both stated 
that 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 July 13, 1988 by the State Administration for 
Industry and Commerce of the PRC 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. Both Qingdao 
Rirong and China Kingdom also provided copies of the Foreign Trade Law 
of the PRC, 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. Both 
entities also provided copies of their business and export licenses. We 
therefore preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure 
control over the export activities of Qingdao Rirong and China Kingdom.
De Facto Control
    With respect to the absence of de facto control over export 
activities, information on the record indicates that, for both Qingdao 
Rirong and China Kingdom, management for each company is responsible 
for all decisions concerning export strategies, export prices, profit 
distribution, and contract negotiations, and that there are no 
governmental policy directives that affect management's decisions. 
Furthermore, each company's pricing and export strategy decisions are 
not subject to any outside entity's review or approval. Information on 
the record also indicates that there is no government involvement in 
the daily operations or the selection of management for either company.
    There are no restrictions on the use of revenues or profits 
including export earnings for either Qingdao Rirong or China Kingdom. 
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 to any 
level of governmental approval. Qingdao Rirong has stated that its 
management is selected by its board of directors and/or its employees, 
while China Kingdom has stated that its management is selected by its 
board of directors alone. Both companies have indicated that there is 
no government involvement in the management selection process. Lastly, 
decisions made by Qingdao Rirong and China Kingdom concerning purchases 
of subject merchandise from other suppliers are not subject to 
government approval. We therefore preliminarily determine that there is 
an absence of de facto control over the export activities of Qingdao 
Rirong and China Kingdom.
    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 Qingdao Rirong and China 
Kingdom are each eligible for a separate rate.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Qingdao Rirong's sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at prices below NV, we 
compared its export prices to NV, as described in the Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice. As discussed above in the 
Application of Facts Available section, we have applied partial adverse 
facts available in determining the factors of production used in the 
calculation of NV.

Export Price

    For Qingdao 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. Where applicable, we deducted foreign inland 
freight, inland insurance, and brokerage and handling expenses in the 
home market from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Act.

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

[[Page 63884]]

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. See Memorandum to the File, 
through Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement 
VII, from Adina Teodorescu, Case Analyst, Re.: Administrative Review of 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; 
Factor Values Memorandum, dated September 30, 2002 (Factor Values 
Memorandum). 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 prior 
administrative reviews 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. See Memorandum from the 
Office of Policy to Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, Group III/Office 
7 of AD/CVD, dated June 13, 2002 (Policy Memo). With the exceptions of 
the crawfish input and the shell scrap, we valued the factors of 
production using publicly available information from India. We adjusted 
the Indian import prices by adding freight expenses to make them 
delivered prices.
    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 live freshwater crawfish imported 
from Portugal. However, in the final results of two subsequent new 
shipper reviews and the most recently completed administrative review, 
the Department found that Spanish imports of live freshwater crawfish 
from Portugal had declined drastically. Consequently, the Department 
found that the most appropriate surrogate value was the price paid by 
crawfish processors to crawfish fishermen/harvesters for live crawfish 
up to 40 grams in weight in Australia. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) 
(99/00 Final Results).
    Submissions placed on the record of the current administrative 
review indicate that the appropriate basis for the valuation of the 
live crawfish input remains a significant issue. Consequently, the 
Department conducted additional research in an attempt to identify the 
best available information among the possible options for valuing the 
live crawfish input. Based on this research, we found that Spanish 
imports of Portugese crawfish increased significantly, and that the 
market appears to have recovered. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, 
Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through Maureen Flannery, 
Program Manager, from Matthew Renkey and Scot Fullerton, Analysts: 
Selection of Surrogate for the Valuation of Whole, Live Freshwater 
Crawfish in the 2000 - 2001 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews for 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China 
(August 5, 2002) (Crawfish Valuation Memo). Information concerning 
these imports is publicly available, published, and regularly 
maintained by the Spanish government. Section 773(c)(4) of the Act, as 
amended, provides that in valuing the factors of production, the 
Department should use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of 
factors of production in one or more market economy countries that are 
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. While 
Spain is not at the same level of economic development as the PRC, we 
find that there is no reliable or usable publicly available information 
to value live crawfish from the surrogate countries identified by the 
Office of Policy. See Memorandum to the File, through Maureen Flannery, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement VII, from Christian Hughes and Doug 
Campau, Case Analysts: Surrogate Value Research; Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Administrative Review 9/1/
00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01 
(August 5, 2002). Since the trade in live freshwater crawfish between 
Spain and Portugal recovered during the 2000-2001 POR, and since it 
appears that the recovery is not likely to be an aberration, such 
published official government import data is the preferred source of 
valuing the factors of production. Accordingly, the Department is using 
the Spanish import statistics to value the live freshwater crawfish 
input for purposes of this administrative review.
    In previous reviews, the Department has used a Canadian free-on-
board (FOB) factory price quote for dried crab and shrimp shells to 
value crawfish shell scrap. Because this surrogate price was on a dry-
weight basis, whereas shells were sold wet by the Chinese exporter, we 
converted the dry-weight price to a wet-weight basis to reflect the 
value of the shell scrap. See 99/00 Final Results For this review, we 
have obtained price quotes from Indonesia for wet and dried crab and 
shrimp shells. Indonesia is the only country identified for this review 
as a surrogate country comparable to the PRC for which we were able to 
obtain public surrogate value information on shell scrap. See Policy 
Memo. Furthermore, we have a price from Indonesia for wet shells, as 
well as a price for dried shells. Therefore, we used the price of wet 
crab and shrimp shells from Indonesia to value the scrap shell in this 
administrative review. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through Maureen Flannery, Program 
Manager, from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu, Case Analysts: 
Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC), Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/
31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01 
(August 5, 2002).
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value the input of whole live crawfish, we used publicly 
available Spanish import data of whole live crawfish from Portugal for 
September 2000 through August 2001. See Crawfish Valuation Memo. We 
adjusted the values of whole live crawfish to include freight costs 
incurred between the supplier and the factory. For transportation 
distances used in the calculation of freight expenses on whole live 
crawfish, we added to the surrogate values 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 crawfish scrap, we used a price quote from Indonesia for 
crab and shrimp shells. For further details, see Factors Value 
Memorandum.
    To value coal, we relied upon Indian import data for steam coal for 
the period August 2000 through January 2001 from the Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India (Monthly Statistics). We adjusted the 
cost of coal to include an amount for transportation. To value 
electricity, we used the average of the 1997 total cost per kilowatt 
hour (KWH) for ``Electricity for Industry'' as reported in the 
International Energy Agency's publication, Energy Prices and Taxes, 
First Quarter, 2000. For water, we relied upon public information from 
the

[[Page 63885]]

October 1997 Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific 
Region, published by the Asian Development Bank. To achieve 
comparability of electricity and water prices to the factors reported 
for the POR, we adjusted these factor values to reflect inflation to 
the POR using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for India, as published 
in the 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 for the period August 
2000 through January 2001 from the Monthly Statistics. 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 
Roofing Nails.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A) and profit, we calculated simple average rates using 
publicly available 1996-97 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 September 2002. 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 Year Book of Labour Statistics 2001, 
International Labour Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing.
    We valued movement expenses as follows:
    To value truck freight expenses we used nineteen Indian price 
quotes as reported in the February 14, 2000 issue of The Financial 
Express, which were used in the antidumping duty investigation of 
certain circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the PRC. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain 
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China, 67 FR 36570 (May 24, 2002) (China Pipe). We adjusted the rates 
to reflect inflation to the POR of the finished product using the WPI 
for India from the IFS.
    To value brokerage and handling, we used a publicly summarized 
version of the average value for brokerage and handling expenses 
reported in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 67 FR 50406 
(October 3, 2001) (Hot-Rolled from India), which was also used in China 
Pipe. 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 investigation of Essar Steel Ltd. 
in Hot-Rolled from India. Charges were reported on a per metric ton 
basis. We adjusted these values to reflect inflation to the POR using 
the WPI for India from the IFS. For further discussion, see Factor 
Values Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.)

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                          Time Period                Margin (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Rirong......................................                9/1/00-8/31/01                          0.00
China Kingdom.......................................                9/1/00-8/31/01                        223.01
PRC-Wide Rate\1\....................................                9/1/00-8/31/01                        223.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fujian Pelagic, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign Trade,
  and Yangzhou Lakebest are included in the PRC-wide rate.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    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) If the margin for 
Qingdao Rirong remains zero, no cash deposits would be required for 
shipments exported by Qingdao Rirong. If Qingdao Rirong's margin is 
above de minimis in the final results, for subject merchandise exported 
by Qingdao Rirong, the cash deposit rate will be the total amount of 
antidumping duties due, divided by the total quantity exported during 
the POR. China Kingdom's rate will be the rate established in the final 
results. (2) For other exporters with separate rates, the deposit rate 
will be the company-specific per-kilogram or ad valorem rate 
established for the most recent period, as applicable. (3) For all 
other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC-wide rate, 223.01 
percent. (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.

Comments and Hearing

    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 two days after the deadline for rebuttal briefs, or 
the first 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; and (3) 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

[[Page 63886]]

not later than 5 days after the due date for submission of case briefs. 
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 intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days from the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, 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, for Qingdao Rirong, 
where appropriate, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates 
for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. We will divide the 
total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP) 
for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold by 
Qingdao Rirong to that importer during the POR. Upon the completion of 
this review, we will direct Customs to assess the resulting quantity-
based rates against the weight in kilograms of each entry of the 
subject merchandise by the importer during the POR. See Memorandum to 
Barbara E. Tillman through Maureen Flannery, from Mark Hoadley: 
Collection of Cash Deposits and Assessment of Duties on Freshwater 
Crawfish from the PRC (August 27, 2001), and placed on the record of 
this review. Also upon completion of this review, for China Kingdom and 
all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate, we will direct Customs to 
assess the resulting ad valorem rates against the entered value of each 
entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department will 
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs 
Service within 15 days of publication of the final results of review.

Notification to Importers

    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 and this notice are published in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and sections 351.213 and 
351.221 of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: September 30, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-26311 Filed 10-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S