[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7193-7197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3257]


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

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 and Final Rescission of Review, in Part

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

SUMMARY: On October 8, 2003, 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; Final Rescission, in Part; 
and Intent to Rescind, in Part, 68 FR 58064 (Preliminary Results). The 
administrative review covers the period September 1, 2001, through 
August 31, 2002.
    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 dumping margins for the reviewed firms 
are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Campau, Scot Fullerton or Matthew 
Renkey, 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;

[[Page 7194]]

telephone (202) 482-1395, (202) 482-1386 or (202) 482-2312, 
respectively.

Background

    On October 8, 2003, 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, 2001, through 
August 31, 2002. The review covers the following companies: Shanghai 
Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Taoen); Weishan Fukang 
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Weishan Fukang); Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs 
Co., Ltd. (Shouzhou Huaxiang); Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd., aka 
Qingdao Rirong Foodstuffs (Qingdao Rirong); and Yangzhou Lakebest Foods 
Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou Lakebest).
    Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, the following 
events have occurred. On November 7, 2003, we received timely filed 
case briefs from Shouzhou Huaxiang and 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). On November 
12, 2003, we received a timely filed rebuttal brief from the Domestic 
Interested Parties. Based on new information obtained by the Department 
from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) concerning Shanghai 
Taoen, the Department issued a letter of inquiry to Shanghai Taoen on 
December 5, 2003. Shanghai Taoen responded to the Department's letter 
on December 16, 2003. We provided interested parties with the 
opportunity to comment on Shanghai Taoen's response. The Domestic 
Interested Parties submitted comments on Shanghai Taoen's response on 
January 5, 2004. Shanghai Taoen did not file rebuttal comments.

Final Rescission of 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 Frozen Food 
Co., Ltd. (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 period of review (POR). In addition, on January 2, 2003, 
Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (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 POR from 
CBP, and found no reportable U.S. entries, exports, or sales of subject 
merchandise by Nantong Shengfa or Weishan Zhenyu during the POR. In the 
Preliminary Results, we stated that no further evidence or information 
was submitted that indicated that the companies had reportable U.S. 
entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise. We received no 
comments from any parties on our preliminary intent to rescind. The 
Department is therefore rescinding 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 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 (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10, 
1605.40.10.90, 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00. The HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and CBP purposes only. The written 
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs as well as the 
comments filed by parties, as requested by the Department on Shanghai 
Taoen's December 16, 2003 submission, are addressed in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, Group III, to James J. Jochum, 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, 2001 through August 31, 2002, dated February 5, 2004 
(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 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, and of briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested 
parties, we have changed our analysis for Shanghai Taoen. For these 
final results, we are basing the margin for Shanghai Taoen on adverse 
facts available (AFA). For a discussion of this change, refer to the 
Shanghai Taoen section of the Application of Facts Available section, 
below.

Application of Facts Available

 Yangzhou Lakebest, Weishan Fukang, and Qingdao 
Rirong

    The Department received no comments on its preliminary 
determination to apply adverse facts available to Yangzhou Lakebest, 
Weishan Fukang, and Qingdao Rirong. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a complete 
discussion of the Department's decision to apply total AFA, see 
Preliminary Results. Furthermore, these entities did not establish that 
they are eligible for separate rates. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from 
China, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); and Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks 
Fittings and Accessories Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 
58 FR 37908 (July 14, 1993). 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

[[Page 7195]]

People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) (99-00 Final 
Results). As discussed below, this rate has been corroborated.

 Shanghai Taoen

    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 AFA is warranted for respondent Shanghai Taoen. 
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.
    For purposes of the Preliminary Results, the Department relied on 
Shanghai Taoen's questionnaire responses. Subsequent to the Preliminary 
Results, we obtained information and documentation from CBP which 
called into question the accuracy and completeness of responses 
submitted by Shanghai Taoen. We asked Shanghai Taoen to explain the 
inconsistency in its response and to demonstrate, with documentation, 
that the responses it submitted were accurate and complete. Based on 
our analysis of Shanghai Taoen's explanation regarding the 
documentation obtained by the Department from CBP, we find that 
Shanghai Taoen's explanation demonstrates that its questionnaire 
responses to the Department, and the responses to questions asked at 
verification of both Shanghai Taoen and and its reported producer, 
Lianyungang Yuzhu Aquatic Products Processing Co., Ltd. (Yuzhu), were 
inaccurate and incomplete. As such, we find that, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
Shanghai Taoen withheld information and failed to submit information by 
the deadlines required. The information withheld by Shanghai Taoen was 
significant, and fundamental to the Department's calculation of an 
accurate dumping margin. As Shanghai Taoen withheld this information, 
we find that the application of facts available is warranted for 
Shanghai Taoen.
    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 to comply with the 
Department's request for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). The Department finds 
that Shanghai Taoen has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability 
because it could have complied with the Department's request to respond 
accurately to the Department's initial questionnaire, requests for 
supplemental information, and questions asked at verification. 
Moreover, at no point in the administrative review, prior to or during 
verification, did Shanghai Taoen notify the Department of the existence 
of any inaccuracies in information it reported to the Department, or 
seek guidance on the applicable reporting requirements, as contemplated 
in section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Furthermore, Shanghai Taoen and its 
producer, Yuzhu, were the only parties that had access to this 
information and, therefore, the only parties that could have complied 
with the Department's request for information. In sum, despite the 
Department's detailed and very specific questionnaires and questions 
asked at verification, Shanghai Taoen gave insufficient attention to 
its statutory duty to reply accurately to requests for factual 
information. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Department 
finds that Shanghai Taoen failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability.
    As AFA, 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 99-00 Final Results. As discussed further below, this 
rate has been corroborated. As most of the information obtained by the 
Department from CBP, and subsequent submissions by Shanghai Taoen and 
the Domestic Interested Parties, consists of business proprietary 
information, a full analysis of the Department's AFA determination is 
contained in the Department's Treatment of Shanghai Taoen International 
Trading Co., Ltd. in the Final Results of the Administrative Review for 
the Period 9/1/01-8/31/02, dated February 5, 2004. (Shanghai Taoen AFA 
Memo).

 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. On August 6, 2003, Shouzhou Huaxiang requested an 
extension of the August 8, 2003 deadline for responding to the second 
supplemental questionnaire. 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. 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.
    In addition, the Department finds that the application of facts 
available is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act 
because Shouzhou Huaxiang's questionnaire responses could not be 
verified. On July 30, 2003, Shouzhou Huaxiang submitted a letter to the 
Department in which it requested cancellation of verification due to 
flooding at Shouzhou Huaxiang (located in Shouxian Town, Anhui 
Province), and one of its two producers, Yancheng Yaou Seafoods Co. 
Ltd. (Yancheng Yaou) (located in Dafeng City, Jiangsu Province). See 
Memorandum to the File: Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.'s 
Refusal to Allow Verification, (September 29, 2003) (Shouzhou Huaxiang 
Memo), at 1. 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). Id. On August 18, 
2003, Shouzhou Huaxiang informed the Department that ``due [sic] the 
continuing impact of the recent flooding of the Huaihe river, Shouzhou 
Huaxiang, the company [sic] will not be able to participate in the 
verification scheduled to begin on August 29, 2003.'' See Letter from

[[Page 7196]]

Shouzhou Huaxiang, at 1 (August 18, 2003).
    The Department conducted independent research, and asked U.S. 
Embassy staff in Beijing to inquire with hotels in the vicinity of 
Shouzhou Huaxiang, and its producer Yancheng Yaou, to determine the 
extent of the flooding. See Shouzhou Huaxiang Memo. The information 
obtained via these inquiries and research efforts indicated that, while 
there had been some flooding near Shouzhou Huaxiang's headquarters in 
July, there was no longer an obstruction of roads, and that there was 
no flooding in the vicinity of Yancheng Yaou. Id. at 2. Also 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 
Qianjiang Houhu Frozen & Processing Factory (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, and again on August 20, 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 did not 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. See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Final 
Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 
Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). To examine 
whether the respondent cooperated by acting to the best of its ability 
under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department considers, inter alia, 
the accuracy and completeness of submitted information and whether the 
respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. 
See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 
from Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5567 (February 4, 2000); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from 
the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 47540-47541 (August 11, 2003). Without 
verification, the Department could not establish the accuracy and 
completeness of the submitted information. Therefore, Shouzhou Huaxiang 
has hindered the calculation of an accurate dumping margin and impeded 
the proceeding within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
    Moreover, the Department finds that 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. As discussed above, 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. see also Memorandum to the File, dated January 
13, 2004.
    Furthermore, 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. With the limited number of 
processors, Shouzhou Huaxiang had a relatively small quantity of 
information to analyze and/or report to the Department. 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 even propose any 
alternatives to the Department's request for verification.
    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 eligibility for a separate rate, we have 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 99-00 Final Results. As discussed further below, this rate has been 
corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as facts 
available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to 
be both reliable and relevant.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 99-00 Final Results. Unlike 
other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, 
there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The 
only sources for calculated margins are administrative determinations. 
The information upon which the AFA rate is based in the current review 
was calculated during the 1999-2000 administrative review. See 99-00 
Final Results. Furthermore, the AFA rate we are applying for the 
current review was corroborated in reviews subsequent to the 1999-2000 
review to the extent that the Department referred to the history of 
corroboration and found that the Department received no information 
that warranted revisiting the issue. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 19508 (April 
21, 2003). No information has been presented in the current review that 
calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the 
Department finds that the information is reliable.

[[Page 7197]]

    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 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 
AFA, 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). 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 99-00 Final Results. 
Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that 
demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we 
determine that this rate has relevance. As the rate is both reliable 
and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. 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).

Final Results of Review

    For these final results we determine that the following dumping 
margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
       Manufacturer and exporter          Period of review    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate \1\......................     9/1/01-8/31/02      223.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shouzhou Huaxiang, Shanghai Taoen, Yangzhou Lakebest, Weishan
  Fukang, and Qingdao Rirong are now included in the PRC-wide rate.

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 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 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; (2) for PRC exporters which do not have a separate 
rate, including the exporters named in the footnote above, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate, 223.01 percent; and (3) 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.

Assessment of Antidumping Duties

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment purposes, we will 
direct CBP 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 CBP within 
15 days of publication of the final results of 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: February 5, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Issues

    Comment 1: Valuation of the Raw Crawfish Input.
    Comment 2: Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shanghai 
Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd.
    Comment 3: Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shouzhou 
Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.

[FR Doc. 04-3257 Filed 2-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P