[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19504-19509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9739]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-848]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 16, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 63877 (October 16, 
2002) (Preliminary Results). The administrative review covers the 
period September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to our analysis. Therefore, the final results differ from the 
Preliminary Results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the 
reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results 
of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Doug Campau, Office of 
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement VII, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-1395, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 16, 2002, the Department published the preliminary 
results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Preliminary Results. 
The administrative review covers the period September 1, 2000, through 
August 31, 2001. The review covers the following companies: China 
Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom); Fujian Pelagic 
Fishery Group Co. (Fujian Pelagic); Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd., 
aka Qingdao Rirong Foodstuffs (Qingdao Rirong); Qingdao Zhengri Seafood 
Co., Ltd./Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (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).
    Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, the following 
events have occurred. Based on new information obtained by the 
Department through public sources, the Department issued an additional 
supplemental questionnaire to Qingdao Rirong on October 24, 2002. 
Qingdao Rirong responded to the Department's questionnaire on November 
4, 2002. On November 15, 2002, we received timely filed case briefs 
from the Crawfish Processors Alliance, its members (together with the 
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Bob Odom, 
Commissioner), and the Domestic Parties (collectively, the Domestic 
Interested Parties); and China Kingdom and Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng 
Yaou, and on November 20, 2002, we received timely filed rebuttal 
briefs from the Domestic Interested Parties with respect to China 
Kingdom and Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou, and from Qingdao Rirong. On 
December 31, 2002, the Department released to the interested parties 
for comment the Memorandum from Elfi Blum and Scot Fullerton, Case 
Analysts, through Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD 
Enforcement VII, to Barbara Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD 
Enforcement VII: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China for the period of September 1, 2000, through August 
31, 2001 (A-570-848): Analysis of Relationship between Qingdao Rirong 
Foodstuff Co., Ltd., and Y&Z International Trade Inc., dated December 
31, 2002 (Affiliation Memo). We received comments on the & from Qingdao 
Rirong on January 14, 2003 and, after approving an extension for 
rebuttal comments, we received rebuttal comments from the Domestic 
Interested Parties on January 27, 2003.
    On February 7, 2003, the Department extended the time limit for the 
completion of these final results to April 14, 2003. See Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Extension of 
Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative Antidumping Review, 68 
FR 7345 (February 13, 2002). The Department has now completed this 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act).
    Due to issues concerning the proprietary treatment of information

[[Page 19505]]

placed on the record of this review by the Department and in response 
to that information submitted by Qingdao Rirong, and concerning new 
factual information submitted in the Domestic Interested Parties' case 
brief, the Department requested the Domestic Interested Parties to re-
file their case brief with respect to Qingdao Rirong, and Qingdao 
Rirong to re-file its rebuttal brief. In addition, the Department 
requested that both parties re-file their comments to the Affiliation 
Memo. Further, due to issues concerning new factual information 
submitted in China Kingdom's case brief, the Department requested China 
Kingdom to re-file its case brief. Final corrected versions of the case 
briefs from the Domestic Interested Parties with respect to Qingdao 
Rirong, and from China Kingdom were received on April 10, 2003 and 
February 20, 2003, respectively. A final corrected version of Qingdao 
Rirong's rebuttal brief was filed on April 10, 2003. A final corrected 
version of the comments to the Affiliation Memo from Domestic 
Interested Parties was received on April 10, 2003, and amendments to 
Qingdao Rirong's comments were received on January 24 and February 3, 
2003.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The product covered by the 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, 
1605.40.10.90, 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00. The HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written 
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Duty Absorption

    On November 26, 2001, the Crawfish Processors Alliance timely 
requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had 
been absorbed during the period of review (POR), in accordance with 
section 751(a)(4) of the Act, and section 351.213(j)(1) of the 
Department's regulations. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that, 
upon request during an administrative review initiated two or four 
years after the publication of the order, the Department must determine 
whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or 
exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. Because this review was initiated four 
years after the publication of the antidumping duty order, and a duty 
absorption determination was requested by the Crawfish Processors 
Alliance, we analyzed duty absorption in this segment of the 
proceeding.
    On January 10, 2003, the Department requested the remaining eight 
companies subject to this review to place on the record evidence that 
unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to 
be assessed on entries during the review period. On January 21, 2003, 
six of these eight companies responded: Suqian Foreign Trade, Yangzhou 
Lakebest, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou, Qingdao Rirong, Fujian 
Pelagic, and China Kingdom. Suqian Foreign Trade, Yangzhou Lakebest, 
Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou and Qingdao Rirong stated that they were 
not affiliated with their importer of record during the POR and thus 
had reported export price (EP) sales. Suqian Foreign Trade and Yangzhou 
Lakebest responded to the Department's initial questionnaire, but then 
failed to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. 
Therefore, we are applying adverse facts available (AFA) to these two 
companies, as discussed in greater detail below in the ``Application of 
Facts Available'' section. Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou refused to 
participate in the verification of Qingdao Zhengri, and we applied AFA 
to the combined entity. See ``Application of Facts Available'' section 
below. We have determined that Qingdao Rirong sold to the United States 
through an importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 
771(33) of the Act, and have applied AFA to Qingdao Rirong. See 
Memorandum from Doug Campau to Barbara E. Tillman, Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Treatment of 
Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. in the Final Results of the 
Administrative Review for the Period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01, dated April 9, 
2003 (Qingdao Rirong Memo).
    Two companies, China Kingdom and Fujian Pelagic, stated that they 
were affiliated with their importer of record during the POR. One of 
these companies, China Kingdom, reported constructed export price (CEP) 
sales in its response to the Department. Because China Kingdom failed 
to provide total production and factors of production for the relevant 
POR, we are applying AFA to the company, as discussed below in the 
``Application of Facts Available'' section. Fujian Pelagic did not 
respond to any other of the Department's requests for information 
besides the duty absorption inquiry; we therefore are applying AFA to 
Fujian Pelagic, as discussed below in the ``Application of Facts 
Available'' section. On January 22, 2003, one company, Yancheng Foreign 
Trade, which did not respond at all in this proceeding except to the 
Department's duty absorption inquiry, stated that it had no shipments. 
For one company, Shantou SEZ, the Department's request was 
undeliverable. Yancheng Foreign Trade and Shantou SEZ did not respond 
to the Department's questionnaires during the POR, and we are applying 
AFA to both companies, as discussed below in the ``Application of Facts 
Available'' section.
    None of these companies provided any evidence, nor is there any 
other evidence on the record, that the unaffiliated purchasers of 
subject merchandise will ultimately pay the antidumping duties. We are 
applying AFA to all companies, as explained in the ``Application of 
Facts Available'' section below. Accordingly, based on the record, we 
cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
will ultimately pay the assessed duty. Therefore, with respect to 
Qingdao Rirong, China Kingdom, and all exporters that are part of the 
PRC entity, we conclude that antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the producer or exporter during the POR.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, Group III, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration: Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China: September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2001, dated April 14, 2003 
(Decision Memo), which is hereby adopted by this notice.
    A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this 
notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all 
issues raised in this

[[Page 19506]]

review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main 
Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo 
can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of information obtained after the Preliminary 
Results from public sources and memorialized in the Affiliation Memo, 
comments thereon, information received from interested parties, and 
briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in response 
to the Preliminary Results, we have changed the margin for Qingdao 
Rirong. For these final results, we are basing the margin for Qingdao 
Rirong on AFA. For a discussion of this issue, refer to the Qingdao 
Rirong section under Application of Facts Available, below.

Application of Facts Available

[sbull] Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng 
Foreign Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest
    The Department received no comments on its preliminary 
determination to apply facts available to Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, 
Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest. 
Therefore, we have not altered our decision to apply total AFA to these 
companies for these final results, in accordance with sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 776(b) of the Act. For a 
complete discussion of the Department's decision to apply total AFA, 
see Preliminary Results. Furthermore, Fujian Pelagic, Shantou SEZ, 
Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest did 
not establish that they are eligible for separate rates. As AFA, the 
Department is assigning these companies the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 
percent the highest rate determined in any 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.
[sbull] China Kingdom
    In the Preliminary Results, we applied facts available to China 
Kingdom pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act because it 
failed to provide total production and factors of production for the 
relevant POR in a timely manner. Furthermore, we used an adverse 
inference and applied AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because 
we determined that China Kingdom did not act to the best of its ability 
to comply with the Department's request for information and 
demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance by reporting figures for total 
tail meat production and eight factors of production for the wrong 
production period in all of its responses to the Department's 
questionnaires. For further details, see the 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). However, China Kingdom received a 
separate rate in the Preliminary Results, and this determination 
remains unchanged for these final results. After analyzing the comments 
received, we continue to find that the use of AFA is warranted for 
exports of subject merchandise to the United States by China Kingdom in 
these final results. For a complete discussion, see the Decision Memo, 
at Comment 7. As adverse facts available, the Department is assigning 
China Kingdom the rate of 223.01 percent the highest rate determined in 
any segment of this proceeding. As discussed further below, this rate 
has been corroborated.
[sbull] Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou
    In the Preliminary Results, we applied facts available to Qingdao 
Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act 
because this entity refused to participate fully in verification. 
Furthermore, we applied AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act 
because we determined that Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou did not act to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request to 
verify, because of contradictory responses submitted to the Department, 
and because it provided certifications that the Department determined 
to be inaccurate. For further details, see the Memorandum from 
Jacqueline Arrowsmith 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, dated September 23, 2002. After analyzing the comments 
received, we continue to apply AFA to Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou in 
these final results. For details, see the Decision Memo at Comment 6. 
Furthermore, because the respondent refused to participate fully in 
verification, the Department did not have an opportunity to verify 
separate rate information submitted by Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou. 
Consequently, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou is not entitled to a 
separate rate in these final results. As adverse facts available, the 
Department is assigning Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou the rate of 
223.01 percent the highest rate determined in any segment of this 
proceeding. As discussed further below, this rate has been 
corroborated.
[sbull] Qingdao Rirong
    As discussed in detail in the Qingdao Rirong Memo, we determine 
that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A), the use of facts 
otherwise available is warranted in reaching these final results. 
Furthermore, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, and for the 
reasons discussed below, the Department is applying an inference that 
is adverse to the interests of Qingdao Rirong in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available.
    Throughout the course of this administrative review, Qingdao Rirong 
reported that it made U.S. sales, on an EP basis, to an unaffiliated 
U.S. importer. In the Preliminary Results, the Department treated all 
of Qingdao Rirong's U.S. sales as EP sales.
    Subsequent to the publication of its Preliminary Results, the 
Department continued to examine the issue of a possible relationship 
between Qingdao Rirong and its importer. Through research into public 
records, the Department found previously unreported information 
concerning the relationship between Qingdao Rirong and Y&Z. Much of 
this information conflicted with information previously reported to the 
Department by Qingdao Rirong. This prompted the Department to issue 
another supplemental questionnaire to Qingdao Rirong on October 24, 
2002, and to perform further research on its own. After an analysis of 
all information on the record concerning the relationship between 
Qingdao Rirong and Y&Z, the Department determined that, at least 
through December 16, 2002, Qingdao Rirong was affiliated with its 
importer, under section 771(33) of the Act. See Affiliation Memo. On 
January 2, 2003, the Department released the Affiliation Memo to all 
parties, along with a cover

[[Page 19507]]

letter in which the Department took the additional step of soliciting, 
from all parties, initial and rebuttal comments on the information and 
findings contained within the Affiliation Memo. Subsequently, the 
Department took the extraordinary step of accepting new information 
from Qingdao Rirong, rebutting or clarifying the information and 
findings contained within the Affiliation Memo, as well as new 
information from the Domestic Interested Parties, rebutting information 
contained within Qingdao Rirong's comments on Affiliation Memo.
    After further analysis and consideration of all evidence on the 
record, the Department has concluded that there is substantial evidence 
demonstrating Qingdao Rirong and its importer are affiliated in 
accordance with section 771(33) of the Act. Furthermore, the Department 
has concluded that the evidence of affiliation on the record outweighs 
the evidence and arguments provided by Qingdao Rirong in support of its 
argument that it is not affiliated with its importer. See Qingdao 
Rirong Memo. The Department therefore continues to find that Qingdao 
Rirong and its importer were both owned and controlled by a common 
party, and as such, are ``affiliated persons'' within the meaning of 
section 771(33) of the Act, through the POR of this administrative 
review, and at least until December 16, 2002.
    Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides for the use of facts 
available when an interested party withholds information that has been 
requested by the Department. As discussed in detail in the Qingdao 
Rirong Memo, Qingdao Rirong withheld essential information concerning 
the relationship between itself and its importer. Because of this, 
Qingdao Rirong made it impossible for the Department to perform a 
timely analysis of the nature of the relationship between Qingdao 
Rirong and its importer.
    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 shall promptly inform the person 
submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency, and shall, to 
the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to 
remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits 
established for the completion of the administrative review. 
Accordingly, and despite the time constraints prescribed by section 
351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations, when the Department 
discovered, through its own independent research, that Qingdao Rirong's 
responses were deficient with respect to information concerning the 
relationship between Qingdao Rirong and its importer, the Department 
issued another supplemental questionnaire on October 24, 2002, 
affording Qingdao Rirong an opportunity to explain the deficiency. The 
Department also gave Qingdao Rirong an opportunity to respond to its 
December 31, 2002 Affiliation Memo.
    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we find that an 
adverse inference is warranted because Qingdao Rirong failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's 
requests for information. Again, Qingdao Rirong withheld essential 
information concerning the relationship between itself and its 
importer, making it impossible for the Department to perform a timely 
analysis of the nature of the relationship between Qingdao Rirong and 
its importer, and similarly impossible for the Department to timely 
determine whether its dumping analysis should have been based on a 
comparison of NV to EP or CEP.
    Information concerning the relationship between an exporter and its 
importer is fundamental to the Department's antidumping analysis. In 
order to determine whether dumping has occurred, an EP or CEP (as 
defined in section 772 of the Act and section 351.401 of the 
Department's regulations) is compared to an NV (as defined in section 
773 of the Act and section 351.401 of the Department's regulations). EP 
means ``the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or 
agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or 
exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States,'' while CEP means ``the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by 
or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or 
by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter . . ..'' See sections 
772(a) and (b) of the Act. Thus, to determine whether its dumping 
analysis should be based on a comparison of NV to EP, or NV to CEP, the 
Department must first determine whether Qingdao Rirong and Y&Z are 
affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act.
    Since the Department has not been provided with complete U.S. sales 
information concerning Qingdao Rirong's sales to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser, the Department is precluded from calculating an accurate 
dumping margin. Since Qingdao Rirong only reported data concerning its 
transactions with its importer, the Department does not possess data 
necessary for calculating an accurate dumping margin. This data 
includes the sales prices to Qingdao Rirong's first unaffiliated 
purchaser(s), and may include numerous other U.S. expenses (e.g., U.S. 
inland shipping, insurance, and re-packing costs). The Department has 
no way of knowing what the prices to the first unaffiliated customers 
were, what expenses were incurred, nor even who Qingdao Rirong's first 
unaffiliated customers were.
    Given that this is the third time Qingdao Rirong has been reviewed, 
the company should have been able to comply with the Department's 
requests for information in an accurate and timely manner. Furthermore, 
given that the owner of Qingdao Rirong was also the incorporator, 
president, chief executive officer, and an owner of the importer, 
information concerning the sales of each company, the history and 
ownership of these two companies, as well as the history of the owner's 
involvement with each company, would have been readily available to 
both the owner and his company, Qingdao Rirong. Finally, Qingdao Rirong 
never indicated that it was having any difficulty obtaining any 
requested information, or in understanding the Department's requests.
    Qingdao Rirong gave insufficient attention to its statutory duties, 
beyond mere inadvertence, by virtue of its failure to provide requested 
information that is essential to the Department's dumping analysis. As 
noted above, this is the third review of Qingdao Rirong; as such, the 
company should have been fully aware of its statutory duties in this 
regard. Furthermore, the Department requested information relevant to 
the relationship between Qingdao Rirong and Y&Z in several different 
questionnaires, issued both prior and subsequent to the Preliminary 
Results. Thus, Qingdao Rirong had multiple opportunities to fulfill its 
statutory duty to provide such information. Finally, we note that, if a 
respondent has any question as to the scope of what may be relevant to 
the Department's analysis of the relationship between a seller and 
purchaser, that respondent need only contact the Department for 
clarification, or review the definition of ``affiliated persons,'' 
contained in Appendix I to the Department's initial questionnaire 
issued at the beginning of each review. In light of the aforementioned 
facts, Qingdao Rirong's failures to provide

[[Page 19508]]

complete information concerning the relationship between Qingdao Rirong 
and Y&Z, amount to a pattern of behavior of repeatedly withholding 
information requested by the Department.
    For the reasons described above and in further detail in the 
Qingdao Rirong Memo, we conclude that Qingdao Rirong failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability within the meaning of 776(b) of 
the Act, and that the application of total adverse facts available for 
Qingdao Rirong is warranted. Qingdao Rirong received a separate rate in 
the Preliminary Results, and this determination remains unchanged for 
these final results. As adverse facts available, the Department is 
assigning Qingdao Rirong the rate of 223.01 percent the highest rate 
determined in any segment of this proceeding. See Qingdao Rirong Memo. 
As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used As AFA

    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 Qingdao Rirong, China Kingdom, Fujian Pelagic, 
Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, 
Yancheng Foreign Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest, we are applying as AFA 
the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, 
which is a rate calculated in the 1999-2000 review. See Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 
2002). 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 segment of 
this administrative proceeding (i.e., the calculated rate of 223.01 
percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate) 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, together with the most appropriate surrogate value 
information available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the 
parties in that review, as well as 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 Qingdao Rirong, China Kingdom, Fujian Pelagic, Qingdao 
Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng 
Foreign Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest, we determine that this rate has 
probative value.

Final Results of Review

    For these final results we determine that the following dumping 
margins exist:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                          Time Period                Margin (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Rirong......................................                9/1/00-8/31/01                        223.01
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.

Assessment of Antidumping Duties

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment purposes, for China 
Kingdom, Qingdao Rirong, and all exporters subject to the PRC-wide 
rate, we will direct Customs to assess the 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for 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 date of 
publication, as provided by section

[[Page 19509]]

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
companies will be the rate established above; (2) for previously-
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most 
recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate 
will be the PRC-wide rate, 223.01 percent; and (4) for all other non-
PRC exporters of the subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 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 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 14, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Issues
Comment 1: Valuation of the raw crawfish input
Comment 2: Cash deposit rates for producing and non-producing supplier 
combinations (Combination Rates)
Comment 3: Application of facts available to Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff 
Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Rirong) because it withheld information concerning 
its corporate affiliations
Comment 4: Application of facts available to Qingdao Rirong because it 
engaged in a pattern of noncompliance with regulations governing 
business proprietary information (BPI)
Comment 5: If Qingdao Rirong's margin is not based on adverse facts 
available, what should be used as partial facts available in 
calculating Qingdao Rirong's margin
Comment 6: Whether the Department improperly applied facts available to 
Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd.
Comment 7: Application of Adverse Facts Available to China Kingdom 
Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom)
[FR Doc. 03-9739 Filed 4-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S