[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58064-58071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25517]


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

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; Final Rescission, in Part; and Intent to Rescind, in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater 
crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 
response to requests from the Crawfish Processors Alliance, its 
members, and the Domestic Parties (collectively, the Domestic 
Interested Parties); and from respondents Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., 
Ltd. (Qingdao Rirong), Weishan Fukang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Weishan 
Fukang), and Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Weishan Zhenyu). The 
period of review (POR) is from September 1, 2001 through August 31, 
2002.
    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. Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) 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 8, 2003.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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). Based on timely requests from various interested parties, 
the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC for the period 
of September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2002. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 65336 (October 24, 2002) (Notice of 
Initiation).
    The Domestic Interested Parties requested a review of the following 
companies: China Everbright; China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd., 
aka China Kingdoma Import & Export Co., Ltd., aka Zhongda Import & 
Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom); Fujian Pelagic Fishery Group Co. 
(Fujian Pelagic); Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5) (Huaiyin 5); 
Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (30) (Huaiyin 30); Jiangsu Cereals, 
Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp. (Jiangsu Cereals); Jiangsu 
Hilong International Trading Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Hilong); Nantong Delu 
Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (Nantong Delu); Nantong Shengfa Frozen Food Co., 
Ltd. (Nantong Shengfa); Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Ningbo 
Nanlian); North Supreme Seafood (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. (North Supreme); 
Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd., aka Qingdao Rirong Foodstuffs 
(Qingdao Rirong); Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Qingdao 
Zhengri Seafoods (Qingdao Zhengri); Shanghai Taoen International 
Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Taoen); Shantou SEZ Yangfeng Marine 
Products Co. (Shantou SEZ); Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 
(Shouzhou Huaxiang); Suqian Foreign Trade Corp., aka Suqian Foreign 
Trading (Suqian Foreign Trade); Weishan Fukang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 
(Weishan Fukang); Weishan Zhenyu; Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Products 
Co., Ltd. (YBBP); Yancheng Foreign Trade Corp., aka Yancheng Foreign 
Trading, aka Yang Chen Foreign Trading (YFTC); Yancheng Haiteng Aquatic 
Products & Foods Co., Ltd. (Yancheng Haiteng); Yancheng Yaou Seafoods 
(Yancheng Yaou); and Yangzhou Lakebest Foods Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou 
Lakebest). In addition, the Domestic Interested Parties requested 
review, for the same POR, of ``'the single PRC entity,' within the 
meaning of that term as it was used in the Department's previous Notice 
of Initiation, 66 FR 54195, 54196 (October 26, 2001).'' See Letter from 
Domestic Interested Parties (September 30, 2002).
    On September 30, 2002, Qingdao Rirong, Weishan Fukang, and Weishan 
Zhenyu, which were included in the Domestic Interested Parties' request 
for review, also requested review of their shipments of subject 
merchandise. The Department published a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review on October 24, 2002. See Notice 
of Initiation. We did not specifically initiate a review of the PRC 
entity. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman: Domestic Parties Request 
for a Review of the Non-Market Economy Entity (September 30, 2003).
    On June 3, 2003, 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 
section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department 
extended the deadline for completion of the preliminary results 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, 68 
FR 33098 (June 3, 2003).

Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part

    Pursuant to the Department's regulations, the Department will 
rescind an administrative review ``if a party that requested the review 
withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of 
notice of initiation of the requested review.'' See 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1). Since Domestic Interested Parties submitted a timely 
withdrawal of its request for review of China Everbright, China 
Kingdom, Fujian Pelagic, Huaiyin 5, Huaiyin 30, Jiangsu Cereals, 
Jiangsu Hilong, Nantong Delu, Ningbo Nanlian, North Supreme, Qingdao 
Zhengri, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, YBBP, YFTC, Yancheng 
Haiteng, and Yancheng Yaou, and no other interested party requested a 
review of these companies, the Department is rescinding its antidumping 
administrative review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1).

[[Page 58065]]

Intent to Rescind Administrative Review, in Part

    The Department's regulations provide that the Department ``may 
rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a 
particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, 
during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, 
exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be.'' See 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). On December 11, 2002, Nantong Shengfa informed 
the Department that it did not export or produce for export to the 
United States, nor did it produce and sell subject merchandise through 
others to the United States, during the POR. In addition, on January 2, 
2002, Weishan Zhenyu informed the Department that it did not have any 
direct or indirect export sales of the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. The Department reviewed data on entries 
under the order during the period of review from the BCBP, and found no 
reportable U.S. entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise by 
Nantong Shengfa or Weishan Zhenyu during the POR. Therefore, absent the 
submission of any evidence that these companies had reportable U.S. 
entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise, the Department 
intends to rescind the administrative review with respect to these 
companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

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 
BCBP 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.

Shanghai Taoen

    The Department has identified a significant discrepancy between the 
quantity and value data Shanghai Taoen reported in its questionnaire 
response and the quantity and value information that the Department 
identified through BCBP data queries. The Department contacted BCBP 
about this issue and will be working closely with it to determine the 
cause of this discrepancy. In addition, the Department will further 
examine this issue for the final results by requesting additional 
information from Shanghai Taoen.

Application of Facts Available

1. Shouzhou Huaxiang
    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B) 
and (D) and section 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that 
the application of total adverse facts available is warranted for 
respondent Shouzhou Huaxiang. 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. 
Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act warrants the use of facts otherwise 
available in reaching a determination when information is provided, but 
cannot be verified. Shouzhou Huaxiang requested an extension of the 
August 8, 2003 deadline for responding to the second supplemental 
questionnaire on August 6, 2003. See Letter from Shouzhou Huaxiang, at 
1 (August 6, 2003). The Department granted a 12-day extension, to 
August 20, 2003. See Letter to Shouzhou Huaxiang, at 1 (August 8, 
2003). However, Shouzhou Huaxiang never submitted its response. Thus, 
because Shouzhou Huaxiang failed to respond to the Department's second 
supplemental questionnaire, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) 
of the Act, the Department determines that the application of facts 
otherwise available is warranted.
    The Department further finds that the application of facts 
available is also warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 
Act, because Shouzhou Huaxiang's questionnaire responses could not be 
verified. On June 4, 2002, Shouzhou Huaxiang informed the Department 
that ``due {sic{time}  the continuing impact of the recent flooding of 
the Huaihe river, Shouzhou Huaxiang, the company {sic{time}  will not 
be able to participate in the verification scheduled to begin on August 
29, 2003.'' See Letter from Shouzhou Huaxiang, at 1 (August 18, 2003). 
On August 15, 2003, the Department left messages with counsel for 
Shouzhou Huaxiang to convey the Department's continued willingness to 
try to work with Shouzhou Huaxiang, and to offer to consider any 
alternative proposals for conducting verification (such as by shuffling 
the order in which each of the three entities Shouzhou Huaxiang, and 
its two producers would be visited). See Memorandum to the File: 
Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.'s Refusal to Allow Verification, 
(September 29, 2003) (Shouzhou Huaxiang Memo).
    On August 18, 2003, prior to the extended deadline for responding 
to the second supplemental questionnaire, the Department again 
contacted counsel for Shouzhou Huaxiang, to convey the Department's 
continued willingness to try to work with Shouzhou Huaxiang, and to 
offer to consider any alternative proposals for conducting 
verification. The Department also asked whether Shouzhou Huaxiang's 
producers, Yancheng Yaou and Hubei Houhu, could still be verified. Id. 
at 3. Counsel for Shouzhou Huaxiang indicated that they would discuss 
the matter with Shouzhou Huaxiang, and then get back to the Department 
on August 19, 2003. Id. On August 19, 2003, the Department again 
contacted counsel for Shouzhou Huaxiang to find out whether they had 
received any feedback from Shouzhou Huaxiang, concerning the 
Department's offer to consider any alternative proposals for conducting 
verification, or whether Shouzhou Huaxiang's producers, Yancheng Yaou 
and Hubei Houhu, would agree to be verified. Id.
    Shouzhou Huaxiang never offered any alternative proposals for 
conducting verification, and never changed its position that it would 
not participate in verification. This decision prevented the 
verification of information placed on the record. Thus, the information 
submitted by Shouzhou Huaxiang cannot serve as a reliable basis for 
reaching a determination since verification provides the Department 
with an opportunity to check the accuracy of the information submitted 
by the respondent. Because Shouzhou Huaxiang did not respond to the 
Department's second supplemental questionnaire, and refused to allow 
verification, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.
    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. The Department 
finds that

[[Page 58066]]

Shouzhou Huaxiang has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability 
because evidence on the record of this review indicates that it could 
have complied with the Department's request for supplemental 
information and could have participated in verification. Information on 
the record indicates that the flooding referred to by Shouzhou Huaxiang 
was not so severe that verification could not proceed by August 29, 
2003, or that the company could not respond to the Department's second 
supplemental questionnaire by the extended August 20, 2003 deadline. 
See Shouzhou Huaxiang Memo at 3-4. Shouzhou Huaxiang's main business is 
selling crawfish tail meat, and during the period of review it dealt 
with a limited number of crawfish tail meat processors. As such, 
Shouzhou Huaxiang was in a position to respond to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire. The Department's determination that 
Shouzhou Huaxiang failed to act to the best of its ability is further 
supported by Shouzhou Huaxiang's failure to participate in, and even 
propose any alternatives to, the Department's request for verification. 
Shouzhou Huaxiang participated in a previous review, and was therefore 
aware of the Department's interest in conducting verification of 
Shouzhou Huaxiang's questionnaire responses. Shouzhou Huaxiang was 
further put on notice that the Department intended to conduct 
verification by the Department's letter of August 6, 2003, and by the 
Department's verification outline issued on August 11, 2003. Id. at 1-
2. While Shouzhou Huaxiang initially raised concerns regarding the 
location and timing of the verification due to flooding in the area, 
Shouzhou Huaxiang failed to respond to the Department's requests that 
Shouzhou Huaxiang propose alternative arrangements. The Department 
therefore concludes that Shouzhou Huaxiang failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability by refusing to allow verification, as well as for 
failing to respond to the Department's second supplemental 
questionnaire, as discussed above.
    Because the Department concludes that Shouzhou Huaxiang 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. Since Shouzhou Huaxiang did not 
allow verification of its questionnaire responses, the Department was 
unable to examine Shouzhou Huaxiang's eligibility for a separate rate. 
In the absence of verifiable information establishing Shouzhou 
Huaxiang's entitlement to a separate rate, we have preliminarily 
determined that it is subject to the PRC-wide rate. As AFA, and as the 
PRC-wide rate, the Department is assigning the rate of 223.01 percent-
the highest rate determined in the current or 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) (1999-2000 Final 
Results). As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated.
2. Yangzhou Lakebest
    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) and section 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the 
application of total adverse facts available is warranted for 
respondent Yangzhou Lakebest. 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. Yangzhou Lakebest failed to 
properly file its response to the Department's May 2, 2003 supplemental 
questionnaire. See Memorandum to the File: Details of Communications 
with Yangzhou Lakebest Foods Co. Ltd. (September 30, 2003). The 
Department received Yangzhou Lakebest's response to the May 2, 2003 
supplemental questionnaire on June 6, 2003. We examined the response 
and found numerous deficiencies. The response contained numerous errors 
regarding the bracketing of information for which proprietary treatment 
was requested in the response, and the factors of production 
information was incomplete and unusable. In addition, Yangzhou Lakebest 
did not file the required number of copies with the Department or serve 
the other interested parties. Therefore, we returned the response to 
Yangzhou Lakebest. In the accompanying letter, the Department requested 
that Yangzhou Lakebest remedy the procedural errors in its response and 
refile it and explain a number of substantive deficiencies in its 
response. See Letter to Yangzhou Lakebest (June 20, 2003). However, 
Yangzhou Lakebest failed to re-file its response to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire, or to provide any explanation for its 
deficiencies. The Department received no further responses, 
correspondence, or other filings from Yangzhou Lakebest after the 
company submitted its deficient response to the Department's 
supplemental response on June 6, 2003. Because Yangzhou Lakebest 
stopped responding to the Department, section 782(e) of the Act is not 
applicable.
    Yangzhou Lakebest failed to provide information explicitly 
requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts 
otherwise available. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act does not apply 
because Yangzhou Lakebest did not indicate that it was 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. The 
Department finds that, by not providing the necessary responses to the 
questionnaires issued by the Department, and not providing any 
explanation, Yangzhou Lakebest failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability. The information requested by the Department is integral to its 
antidumping analysis. Without complete and reliable factors of 
production information, the Department cannot calculate normal value, 
and, therefore, a dumping margin. Yangzhou Lakebest is the only party 
which has access to the information requested by the Department and 
therefore is the only party which could have complied with the 
Department's supplemental request for information and provided the 
necessary factors of production data.
    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, 
because of the breadth of the missing, unsupported and unverifiable 
data, we are applying total adverse facts available to Yangzhou 
Lakebest. As part of this adverse facts available determination, we 
find that Yangzhou Lakebest did not demonstrate its eligibility for a 
separate rate, and have preliminarily determined that it is subject to 
the PRC-wide rate. As noted above, as AFA, and as the PRC-wide rate, 
the Department is assigning the rate of 223.01 percent-the highest rate 
determined in the current or any previous segment of this proceeding. 
See 1999-2000 Final Results. As discussed below, this rate has been 
corroborated.
3. Weishan Fukang
    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 
section

[[Page 58067]]

776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the application of 
total adverse facts available is warranted for respondent Weishan 
Fukang because Weishan Fukang failed to allow the Department to verify 
its questionnaire responses. Section 776(a)(2)(D) warrants the use of 
facts otherwise available in reaching a determination when information 
is provided, but cannot be verified. Verification of the questionnaire 
responses of Weishan Fukang was scheduled for August 27 through August 
29, 2003. On August 28, 2003, Weishan Fukang withdrew from 
verification. See Memorandum to the File: Verification of Weishan 
Fukang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (September 26, 2003). Verification is 
integral to the Department's analysis because it allows the Department 
to satisfy itself that the information that the Department relies upon 
in calculating a margin is accurate and therefore enables the 
Department to comply with the statutory mandate to calculate the 
dumping margin as accurately as possible. Since Weishan Fukang withdrew 
from verification, the Department cannot rely on Weishan Fukang's 
questionnaire responses to calculate a margin for Weishan Fukang.
    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. The Department 
concludes that Weishan Fukang failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability when it withdrew from verification. In applying the facts 
otherwise available, the Department finds that an adverse inference is 
warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Because Weishan 
Fukang did not demonstrate, using verifiable information, its 
eligibility for a separate rate, we have preliminarily determined that 
it is subject to the PRC-wide rate. As noted above, as AFA, and as the 
PRC-wide rate, the Department is assigning the rate of 223.01 percent - 
the highest rate determined in the current or any previous segment of 
this proceeding. See 1999-2000 Final Results. As discussed further 
below, this rate has been corroborated.
4. Qingdao Rirong
    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) and section 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the 
application of total adverse facts available is warranted for 
respondent Qingdao Rirong. On April 21, 2003, the Department published 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
(2000-2001 Final Results), 68 FR 19504, for the review period covering 
September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2001 (2000/2001 POR). In the 2000-
2001 Final Results, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
which the Department has placed on the record of this review, the 
Department determined that Qingdao Rirong and its U.S. importer, Y&Z 
International (Y&Z), should be treated as affiliated parties for 
purposes of the 2000/2001 POR. In that determination, we also found 
that Qingdao Rirong was affiliated with Y&Z until at least December 16, 
2002. See 2000-2001 Final Results, at comment 3.
    On November 20, 2002, the Department issued its initial antidumping 
duty questionnaire in the instant administrative review to Qingdao 
Rirong. See Qingdao Rirong Questionnaire. In Section C of the 
Department's questionnaire, the Department requested that Qingdao 
Rirong identify its sales as either EP or CEP. See Qingdao Rirong 
Questionnaire, dated November 20, 2002, at Section C. On January 22, 
2003 (and resubmitted on May 20, 2003), Qingdao Rirong responded to the 
Department's questionnaire. See Qingdao Rirong Questionnaire Response, 
dated May 20, 2003. In its response, Qingdao Rirong stated that 
``{d{time} uring the POR, all Rirong sales to the United States were EP 
sales.''
    Based on our determination in the 2000-2001 Final Results that 
Qingdao Rirong and Y&Z were affiliated throught at least December 16, 
2002, the Department requested that Qingdao Rirong report U.S. sales 
for the current review period on a CEP basis. See Supplemental 
Questionnaire from the Department to Qingdao Rirong, dated June 10, 
2003. The Department noted that ``should {Qingdao Rirong{time}  choose 
not to provide sales data on a CEP basis, and should the Department 
conclude that Qingdao Rirong and Y&Z should be considered affiliated 
for this period of review, and that, as a result, U.S. sales should be 
classified as CEP sales, the Department may apply facts available for 
purposes of this review.'' Id. In its July 1, 2003 response to the 
Department's June 10, 2003 supplemental questionnaire, Qingdao Rirong 
claimed that it was not affiliated with Y&Z ``in any form for this 
fifth administrative review.'' See Qingdao Rirong Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response, dated July 1, 2003 at page 2.
    On August 4, 2003, the Department placed on the record of this 
review its affiliation analysis for the current POR, incorporating 
information obtained during both the current and previous 
administrative reviews, in which it again determined that, at least 
through December 16, 2002, Qingdao Rirong was affiliated with Y&Z under 
section 771(33) of the Act. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman: 
Analysis of Relationship between Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff, Co., Ltd., 
and Y&Z International Trade Inc. Thus, Qingdao Rirong's CEP sales data 
was necessary in order for the Department to be able to calculate 
Qingdao Rirong's antidumping margin, in accordance with sections 
771(33) and 772(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.402 of the Department's 
regulations. In light of this determination, the Department sent 
Qingdao Rirong a letter in which it again requested that Qingdao Rirong 
report its U.S. sales on a CEP basis. See Letter to Qingdao Rirong 
(August 4, 2003). On August 11, Qingdao Rirong submitted a letter to 
the Department indicating that it would not report its U.S. sales on a 
CEP basis. See Letter from Qingdao Rirong (August 11, 2003).
    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) and section 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the 
application of total adverse facts available is warranted for 
respondent Qingdao Rirong. 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 
the form required. Qingdao Rirong refused to provide its U.S. sales 
data on the appropriate CEP basis. As the Department has determined 
that Qingdao Rirong and Y&Z are affiliated for purposes of this 
administrative review, the CEP sales data (i.e., the sales price from 
Y&Z to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States, and all 
the CEP adjustment information) requested by the Department would 
provide the only reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin for 
Qingdao Rirong. Qingdao Rirong failed to provide information explicitly 
requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts 
otherwise available. Because Qingdao Rirong refused to provide its U.S. 
sales data on the appropriate basis, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act 
are not applicable.
    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. The 
Department

[[Page 58068]]

concludes that Qingdao Rirong failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability by refusing to provide its U.S. sales data on the appropriate 
basis. Without CEP sales data, none of the information submitted by 
Qingdao Rirong can serve as a reliable basis for reaching a 
determination because we do not have the appropriate U.S. sales to 
compare to NV. This information was in the sole possession of Qingdao 
Rirong, and could not be obtained otherwise. Thus, the Department is 
precluded from calculating a margin for Qingdao Rirong. Because the 
Department concludes that Qingdao Rirong 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 Qingdao Rirong did not demonstrate 
its eligibility for a separate rate, we have preliminarily determined 
that it is subject to the PRC-wide rate. As AFA, and as the PRC-wide 
rate, the Department is assigning the rate of 223.01 percent-the 
highest rate determined in the current or any previous segment of this 
proceeding. This is a calculated dumping margin from the 1999-2000 
administrative review. See 1999-2000 Final Results. As discussed 
further below, this rate has been corroborated.

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. 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). The information used in calculating this 
margin was based on sales and production data of a respondent in a 
prior review, and 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 1999-2000 Final Results. 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. As there is no information on the record of this review 
that indicates that this rate is not relevant as adverse facts 
available for the PRC-entity, including Shouzhou Huaxiang, Yangzhou 
Lakebest, Weishan Fukang, and Qingdao Rirong, we determine that this 
rate has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest 
rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 223.01 
percent) is in accord with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary 
information be corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the responses 
of Shanghai Taoen. We used standard verification procedures, including 
on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities and the examination 
of relevant sales and financial records. Verification of the 
questionnaire responses of Shanghai Taoen took place from August 18 
through August 21, 2003. See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
(A-570-848): Verification Report for Shanghai Taoen International 
Trading Co., Ltd. (September 29, 2003).
    Verification of the questionnaire responses of Weishan Fukang was 
scheduled for August 27 through August 29, 2003. However, as described 
in the ``Application of Facts Available'' section above, on August 28, 
2003, Weishan Fukang withdrew from verification. See Memorandum to the 
File: Verification of Weishan Fukang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (September 
26, 2003). Our verification results are on file in the CRU, Room B-099 
of the main Department building.

Separate Rates Analysis for Shanghai Taoen

    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 
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

[[Page 58069]]

government regarding the selection of management.

De Jure Control

    In its questionnaire responses, Shanghai Taoen stated that it is an 
independent legal entity. Evidence on the record indicates that the 
government does not have de jure control over Shanghai Taoen's export 
activities. Shanghai Taoen submitted evidence of its legal right to set 
prices independent of all government oversight. Furthermore, the 
business license of Shanghai Taoen indicates that it is permitted to 
engage in the exportation of crawfish. We also found no evidence of de 
jure government control restricting Shanghai Taoen's exportation of 
crawfish.
    In its responses, Shanghai Taoen 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. The Company Law 
of the People's Republic of China, effective as of July 1, 1994 states 
that a company is an enterprise legal person, that shareholders shall 
assume liability towards the company to the extent of their 
shareholdings, and that the company shall be liable for its debts to 
the extent of all its assets. Shanghai Taoen also provided copies of 
the Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, which identifies the rights and 
responsibilities of organizations engaged in foreign trade dealings, 
grants autonomy to foreign trade operators in management decisions, and 
establishes the foreign trade operator's accountability for profits and 
losses. Shanghai Taoen also provided a copy of its business license. We 
therefore preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure 
control over the export activities of Shanghai Taoen.

De Facto Control

    With respect to the absence of de facto control over export 
activities, information on the record indicates that, for Shanghai 
Taoen, company management 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, Shanghai Taoen'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 Shanghai Taoen.
    There are no restrictions on the use of Shanghai Taoen's export 
earnings. Shanghai Taoen's general manager has the right to negotiate 
and enter into contracts, and may delegate this authority to employees 
within the company. There is no evidence that this authority is subject 
any level of governmental approval. Shanghai Taoen has stated that its 
management is selected by its board of directors and/or its employees, 
and that there is no government involvement in the management selection 
process. Lastly, decisions made by Shanghai Taoen 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 Shanghai 
Taoen.
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over its export 
activities, we preliminarily determine that Shanghai Taoen is eligible 
for a separate rate.

Normal Value Comparisons

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

United States Price

    For Shanghai Taoen, 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, brokerage and handling expenses in the home market, and ocean 
freight, from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance with 
Section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act.
    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. None of the respondents contested such 
treatment in this review. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values 
to the factors of production to determine NV. See Factor Values Memo 
for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China, dated September 30, 2003 (Factor Values Memo).
    We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). Consistent with the 
original investigation and subsequent 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. With the exceptions of the whole live crawfish 
input and the crawfish scrap by-product, for which Indian data were not 
available, we valued the factors of production using publicly available 
information from India. We adjusted the Indian import prices by adding 
foreign inland freight expenses to make them delivered prices.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value the input of whole crawfish we used publicly available 
data for Spanish imports of whole live crawfish from Portugal. As noted 
above, Indian data were not available and this data was all that was 
available on the record of this review. We adjusted the values of whole 
live crawfish to include freight costs incurred between the supplier 
and the factory. For transportation distances

[[Page 58070]]

used in the calculation of freight expenses on whole live crawfish, we 
added, using surrogate values from India, a surrogate freight cost of 
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 a by-product, wet crawfish scrap, we used a price quote 
from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp shells. (See Attachment 5 of the 
Factor Values Memo.) Again, Indian data were not available, and this 
was the best information available.
    To value coal, we used Indian import data, concurrent with the POR, 
from the World Trade Atlas. We adjusted the cost of coal to include an 
amount for transportation. To value electricity, we used the 2001 total 
cost per kilowatt hour (KWH) for ``Electricity for Industry'' as 
reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, Key World 
Energy Statistics, 2002. For water, we relied upon public information 
from the October 1997 Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and 
Pacific Region, published by the Asian Development Bank.
    To achieve comparability of water prices to the factors reported 
for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation through 
the POR using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for India, as published 
in the 2002 International Financial Statistics(IFS) by the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF).
    To value packing materials (plastic bags, cardboard boxes and 
adhesive tape), we used Indian import data from the World Trade Atlas, 
concurrent with the POR. 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 continued to use simple averages 
derived from the publicly available 1996-97 financial statements of 
four Indian seafood processing companies. We applied these rates to the 
calculated cost of manufacture. (See Factor Values Memo, at 6.)
    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, and corrected in February 
2003. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. Because of the variability of 
wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic 
products, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) 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 2000, 
International Labour Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 5: Wages in 
Manufacturing.
    To value truck freight expenses we used an average of nineteen 
Indian price quotes as reported in the February 14, 2000 issue of The 
Financial Express (an Indian business publication), 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 through 
the POR using the WPI for India from the IFS.
    To value foreign 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, 66 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, which we converted to a per pound basis. We adjusted these 
values to reflect inflation through the POR using the WPI for India 
from the IFS. See Factor Values Memo.
    To value ocean freight we used September 2000 quotes from Maersk 
Sealand and TransOceanic from Shanghai to various U.S. ports, adjusted 
for inflation. See Factor Values Memo.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions using exchange rates obtained from the 
website of Import Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Manufacturer and exporter                        Period of review         Margin (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Taoen................................................         9/1/01 - 8/31/02                    57.73
PRC-Wide Rate\1\..............................................         9/1/01 - 8/31/02                   223.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shouzhou Huaxiang, Yangzhou Lakebest, Weishan Fukang, and Qingdao Rirong 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) For Shanghai 
Taoen, a per kilogram cash deposit rate will be established (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 (Cash Deposits Memo)) ; (2) For all 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 exporter that supplied that 
exporter.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs

[[Page 58071]]

Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the 
BCBP upon completion of this review. For assessment purposes, for 
Shanghai Taoen, 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 Shanghai Taoen to that importer during the POR. See 
Cash Deposits Memo. 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. Also upon completion of this review, for all other 
exporters covered by this review, we will direct BCBP 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 BCBP within 15 days of 
publication of the final results of review.

Comments and Hearing

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Normally, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to 
arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five 
days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 
(1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public 
hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 
Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. 
Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, 
not later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, 
unless extended.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 19 CFR 351.213 and 
351.221.

    Dated: September 30, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-25517 Filed 10-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S