[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53669-53675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 International Trade Administration

[A-570-848]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review and Rescission of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely and properly filed requests from Qingdao 
Xiyuan Refrigerate Food Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Xiyuan), Yancheng Fuda Foods 
Co., Ltd. (Yancheng Fuda), and Siyang Foreign Trade Corporation 
(Siyang), the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated new 
shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish 
tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC). We preliminarily 
determine that Qingdao Xiyuan has made sales in the

[[Page 53670]]

United States at prices below normal value (NV). We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results. In addition, the 
Department is rescinding the new shipper reviews for Yancheng Fuda and 
Siyang.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Matthew Renkey, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1386 or (202) 482-2312, respectively.

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. As noted 
above, the Department received timely requests for a new shipper review 
under the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from 
the PRC in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), and Sec.  351.214(c) of the Department's 
regulations, from Qingdao Xiyuan, Yancheng Fuda, and Siyang. In their 
requests, Yancheng Fuda and Qingdao Xiyuan stated that they produced 
the crawfish tail meat exported for their new shipper sales. In its 
request, Siyang stated that it purchased the crawfish tail meat it 
exported from an unaffiliated producer. On October 31, 2003, the 
Department initiated these new shipper reviews for the period September 
1, 2002, through August 31, 2003, for Qingdao Xiyuan and Yancheng Fuda, 
and for the period July 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003, for Siyang. 
See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 68 FR 62774 
(November 6, 2003).
    On November 25, 2003, the Domestic Interested Parties 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. We find that section 751(a)(4) of the Act is not 
applicable to these reviews, and accordingly, we did not determine 
whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. See 
Memorandum to File From Matthew Renkey Through Maureen Flannery, Duty 
Absorption Request From the Domestic Interested Parties in Three New 
Shipper Reviews, dated August 26, 2004.
    On April 27, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for the 
completion of the preliminary results until July 30, 2004. See Notice 
of Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results of New Shipper 
Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of 
China, 69 FR 24567 (May 4, 2004). On July 29, 2004, the Department 
further extended the time limit for the completion of the preliminary 
results until August 26, 2004. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit of 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 47080 (August 4, 2004).

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 (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 
1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, 
indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in 2000, and HTSUS items 
0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00, which are reserved for fish and 
crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and CBP purposes only. The written description of the scope 
of this order is dispositive.

Rescission of New Shipper Reviews

    A new shipper request from an exporter in a non-market economy 
(NME) country must contain a certification that the exporter is not 
controlled by the central government (see Sec.  351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) 
of the Department's regulations) and, thus, that it is not part of the 
NME entity, which was subject to the original investigation, and is 
eligible for a separate rate. During the course of a new shipper 
review, the exporter must affirmatively demonstrate that it meets the 
Department's criteria for receiving a separate rate. As discussed in 
detail below, we have found that neither Yancheng Fuda nor Siyang 
demonstrated that it meets the criteria for a separate rate, and as 
such, we are rescinding these new shipper reviews.

Yancheng Fuda

    On November 19, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Yancheng Fuda. The Department's questionnaire 
contained instructions for preparing and filing Yancheng Fuda's 
response. Yancheng Fuda's initial questionnaire response was due on 
January 5, 2004. On January 6, 2004, Yancheng Fuda's counsel, who filed 
the request for review on Yancheng Fuda's behalf, informed the 
Department that it was withdrawing its representation of Yancheng Fuda. 
On March 3, 2004, the Department sent a letter to Yancheng Fuda noting 
that it had received neither a response to the questionnaire nor any 
correspondence from Yancheng Fuda, and requesting that Yancheng Fuda 
contact the Department immediately if it intended to participate in the 
new shipper review.
    On March 16, 2004, Yancheng Fuda contacted the Department and 
requested an extension to file its questionnaire response. On March 17, 
2004, the Department granted Yancheng Fuda an extension until March 29, 
2004, to properly file its questionnaire response. On March 26, 2004, 
Yancheng Fuda faxed a questionnaire response directly to the 
Department, without serving parties, without filing the requisite 
number of copies with the Central Records Unit (CRU), and without an 
indication as to whether its response contained business proprietary 
information. The response appeared to be a draft response, as Yancheng 
Fuda asked that the Department ``check it,'' and further indicated that 
it would later ``mail the original finished questionnaire'' to the 
Department. On the same day, the Department faxed to Yancheng Fuda a 
letter explaining that the Department does not accept draft 
questionnaire responses, and reminding Yancheng Fuda that its 
questionnaire response must be filed in accordance with the 
Department's regulations, which were provided to Yancheng Fuda on March 
17, 2004, via Federal Express and March 18, 2004, via fax. The 
Department provided the regulations and instructions again on March 26, 
2004, via fax. In this letter, the Department granted Yancheng Fuda an 
additional extension until March 30, 2004, to properly file its 
questionnaire response.
    On March 30, 2004, the Department received, via Federal Express, 
the same

[[Page 53671]]

draft questionnaire response received on March 26, 2004. As this 
questionnaire response was not filed in accordance with the 
Department's filing requirements, copies of this document were not 
placed on the record for this review. See Memorandum to File From Scot 
Fullerton Through Maureen Flannery to File, Yancheng Fuda Foods Co., 
Ltd. Improperly Filed Letters and Questionnaire Response, dated April 
19, 2004.
    On April 28, 2004, the Department received a questionnaire response 
filed by a law firm on behalf of Yancheng Fuda. Given the extensive 
amount of time which had lapsed since the initial due date for the 
response, and the subsequent extensions given to Yancheng Fuda, the 
Department found that the questionnaire response submitted on April 28, 
2004, was not timely filed.
    As mentioned above, in order to be eligible for a new shipper 
review, a company is required to certify in its request that it is not 
controlled by the central government. See Sec.  351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) 
of the Department's regulations. While Yancheng Fuda did provide such a 
certification that served as the basis for initiation, it did not 
provide a timely questionnaire response. Absent a questionnaire 
response, the Department is unable to determine whether Yancheng Fuda 
meets the requirements for receiving a separate rate. Because the 
Department is unable to confirm that Yancheng Fuda is eligible for a 
separate rate, it must continue to consider Yancheng Fuda to be part of 
the NME entity. Consistent with the Department's practice, we have 
therefore determined that Yancheng Fuda does not qualify as a new 
shipper under Sec.  351.214(a) of the Department's regulations because 
it is part of an entity that shipped during the original period of 
investigation. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of 
China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 
FR 61581 (November 12, 1999) (Brake Rotors). On August 12, 2004, we 
issued a memorandum stating our intent to rescind the new shipper 
review for Yancheng Fuda because it had not demonstrated its eligiblity 
for a separate rate. See Memorandum From Barbara E. Tillman to Jeffrey 
A. May: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From The People's Republic of 
China: Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Yancheng Fuda Foods 
Co., Ltd., dated August 12, 2004. We allowed interested parties an 
opportunity to comment, but received no comments. Accordingly, we are 
rescinding the new shipper review of Yancheng Fuda.

Siyang

    On November 19, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Siyang. Siyang's initial questionnaire response was 
due on January 5, 2004. On January 5, 2004, the Department granted 
Siyang an extension to file its questionnaire response, and on January 
21, 2004, Siyang submitted a response to sections A, C, and D of the 
Department's questionnaire. On May 7, 2004, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to Siyang; Siyang filed its response to the 
supplemental questionnaire on May 24, 2004. On June 2, 2004, Siyang 
submitted a letter to the Department stating that Siyang and its 
supplier would not participate in verification for this new shipper 
review.
    As mentioned above, in order to be eligible for a new shipper 
review, a company is required to certify in its request that it is not 
controlled by the central government. See Sec.  351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) 
of the Department's regulations. While Siyang did provide such a 
certification that served as the basis for initiation, it did not 
permit verification of its questionnaire responses. Absent the ability 
to conduct verification, the Department is unable to determine whether 
Siyang meets the requirements for receiving a separate rate. Therefore, 
because the Department is unable to confirm that Siyang is eligible for 
a separate rate, it must continue to consider Siyang part of the NME 
entity. Consistent with the Department's practice, we have therefore 
determined that Siyang does not qualify as a new shipper under Sec.  
351.214(a) of the Department's regulations because it is part of an 
entity that shipped during the original period of investigation. See, 
e.g., Brake Rotors. On August 12, 2004, we issued a memorandum stating 
our intent to rescind the new shipper review for Siyang because it had 
not demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate. See Memorandum 
From Barbara E. Tillman to Jeffrey A. May: Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat From The People's Republic of China: Intent To Rescind the New 
Shipper Review of Siyang Foreign Trade Corporation, dated August 12, 
2004. We allowed interested parties an opportunity to comment, but 
received no comments. Accordingly, we are rescinding the new shipper 
review of Siyang.

Analysis for Qingdao Xiyuan

Separate Rates

    Qingdao Xiyuan requested a separate, company-specific rate and 
properly certified in its request for a new shipper review that it was 
not controlled by the central government. See Sec.  
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) of the Department's regulations. Qingdao Xiyuan 
provided separate rate information in its questionnaire response. 
Accordingly, we performed a separate-rate analysis to determine whether 
Qingdao Xiyuan is independent from government control. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the 
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996).
    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past 
antidumping investigations and in prior segments of this proceeding. 
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 
(May 25, 2000), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000). A designation 
as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government 
control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless 
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to 
be eligible for a separate, company-specific rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country 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) (Sparklers), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under 
this policy, exporters in NMEs are eligible for separate, company-
specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government 
control, in law and in fact, with respect to export activities. 
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure

[[Page 53672]]

absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence 
of government control over exports is based on four factors: (1) 
Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.
    With respect to the absence of de jure government control over the 
export activities of the company reviewed, evidence on the record 
supports the claim made by Qingdao Xiyuan that its export activities 
are not controlled by the government. Qingdao Xiyuan submitted evidence 
of its legal right to set prices independently of all government 
oversight. The business license of Qingdao Xiyuan indicates that the 
company is permitted to engage in the exportation of crawfish. We found 
no evidence of de jure government control restricting this company's 
exportation of crawfish.
    There are no export quotas that 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 e.g., 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).
    Qingdao Xiyuan submitted, for the record of this review, the 
Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China (Foreign Trade 
Law), adopted by the Seventh Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 
Eighth National People's Congress (effective on July 1, 1994). The 
Foreign Trade Law indicates a lack of de jure government control over 
privately-owned companies, such as Qingdao Xiyuan. The Foreign Trade 
Law regulations state that ``foreign trade operators shall in 
accordance with law enjoy full autonomy in their management and shall 
be responsible for their own profits and losses.'' See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Manganese Metal from 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56045 (November 6, 1995). 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de 
jure control over export activity with respect to Qingdao Xiyuan.
    With respect to the absence of de facto control over export 
activities, the information submitted on the record indicates that the 
management of Qingdao Xiyuan is responsible for the determination of 
export prices, profit distribution, marketing strategy, and contract 
negotiations. Our analysis indicates that there is no government 
involvement in the daily operations or the selection of management for 
this company. In addition, we have found that Qingdao Xiyuan's pricing 
and export strategy decisions are not subject to the review or approval 
of any outside entity, and that there are no governmental policy 
directives that affect these decisions.
    There are no restrictions on the use of export earnings. The 
general manager of Qingdao Xiyuan has the right to negotiate and enter 
into contracts, and may delegate this authority to employees within the 
company. There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any 
level of governmental approval. Qingdao Xiyuan reported that its 
management is selected by a board of directors and there is no 
government involvement in the selection process. Finally, decisions 
made by the respondent concerning purchases of subject merchandise from 
suppliers are not subject to government approval. Consequently, because 
evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both 
in law and in fact, over the company's export activities, we 
preliminarily determine that a separate rate should be applied to 
Qingdao Xiyuan.

Normal Value Comparisons

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

United States Price

    Based on the information we have gathered to date, we preliminarily 
find Qingdao Xiyuan's sales to be bona fide. However, we will continue 
to analyze this issue for purposes of the final results of review. For 
a discussion of our analysis, which is primarily based on business 
proprietary information, See Memorandum to the File through Maureen 
Flannery from Scot Fullerton entitled Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in 
the New Shipper Review of Qingdao Xiyuan Refrigerate Food Co., Ltd., 
dated August 26, 2004. A public version of this Memorandum is on file 
in the CRU.
    We based the United States price on export price (EP), in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed 
export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the 
record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We deducted 
foreign inland freight and international freight from the starting 
price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. 
Qingdao Xiyuan reported the actual international freight expense it 
incurred since it used a market economy carrier and paid in U.S. 
dollars. Qingdao Xiyuan also reported that this international freight 
charge included brokerage and handling, so we have not made a separate 
deduction for brokerage and handling.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

    When reviewing imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act directs the Department to base NV, in most circumstances, on 
the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market-
economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 
the factors of production, the Department shall use, to the extent 
practicable, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or 
more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic 
development comparable to the NME country and are significant producers 
of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values 
are discussed under the ``Factor Valuations'' section below.
    We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with 
section

[[Page 53673]]

773(c)(4) of the Act and Sec.  351.408(c) of our regulations. 
Consistent with the original investigation and the 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, processed seafood. See 
Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey through Maureen Flannery: 
Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 
People's Republic of China, dated August 26, 2004 (Surrogate Values 
Memo). This Memorandum is on file in the CRU.

2. Factors of Production

    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. Factors of production include the following elements: (1) 
Hours of labor required, (2) quantities of raw materials employed, (3) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and (4) representative 
capital costs. We used the reported factors of production for 
materials, energy, labor, and packing. We valued all the input factors 
using publicly available information, as discussed in the ``Surrogate 
Country'' section of this notice.
    With the exceptions of the whole live crawfish input and the 
crawfish shell scrap by-product, 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. Where applicable, we excluded any imports from NMEs 
and ``unspecified'' countries from the import data. We also excluded 
imports from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because these 
countries maintain non-specific export subsidies. For reasons which are 
discussed below in more detail, the live crawfish input was valued 
using Spanish import data, and the crawfish shell scrap was valued 
using an Indonesian price quote. See Surrogate Values Memo.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production no later than 20 days following the date of publication of 
these preliminary results.

3. Factor Valuations

    We applied surrogate values to the factors of production to 
determine NV. We valued the factors of production as follows:
Materials
    Whole, Live Crawfish. To value the input of whole live crawfish, we 
used publicly available data on Spanish imports of whole live crawfish 
from Portugal. We used Spanish import data because: (1) There is no 
crawfish industry in India or in any of the other countries identified 
in the list of countries at a level of economic development comparable 
to that of the PRC (See Antidumping Administrative Review and New 
Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's 
Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, 
dated April 30, 2004, on file in the CRU (Surrogate Countries Memo); 
and (2) Spain has a crawfish industry and publicly available import 
statistics. See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 7976 (February 19, 2003) and Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 43085 (July 21, 
2003). We adjusted the values of whole live crawfish to include freight 
costs incurred between the supplier and the factory. For transportation 
distances used in the calculation of freight expenses for whole live 
crawfish, we added a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of (a) 
the distances between the closest PRC port and the factory, or (b) the 
distance between the domestic supplier and the factory. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing 
Nails From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 51410 (October 1, 
1997) (Roofing Nails).
    Crawfish Shell Scrap. To value the by-product of crawfish shell 
scrap, we used a price quote from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp 
shells, because (1) there is no Indian data suitable for valuing the 
crawfish scrap factor and (2) Indonesia is among the countries 
identified as an appropriate surrogate. See Memorandum to Barbara E. 
Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through Maureen 
Flannery, Program Manager, from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu, 
Case Analysts: Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China (PRC), Administrative 
Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/
00-10/15/01 (August 5, 2002) and Memorandum to File from Barbara E. 
Tillman entitled Summary of Telephone Discussion with Official of Indo 
Chitosan International (July 15, 2002). These documents are included in 
Attachment 5 to the Surrogate Values Memo. See also Surrogate Countries 
Memo. To achieve comparability of the scrap price to the factor 
reported for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect 
inflation during the POR using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for 
Indonesia, as published in the International Financial Statistics (IFS) 
by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Energy
    Coal and Electricity. To value coal, we relied upon Indian import 
data for steam coal from the internet version of the World Trade Atlas. 
For transportation distances used in the calculation of freight 
expenses for coal, we used the 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 
electricity, we used the average of the total cost per kilowatt hour 
(KWH) for ``Electricity for Industry'' as reported in the International 
Energy Agency's publication, Key World Energy Statistics (2003). To 
achieve comparability of electricity prices to the factor reported for 
the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation during the 
POR using the WPI for India, as published in the IFS.
    Water. 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 factor reported for the POR, we 
adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation during the POR using 
the WPI for India, as published in the IFS.
    Packing Materials. To value packing materials (plastic bags, 
cardboard boxes and adhesive tape), we relied upon the most recent 
Indian import data for the POR as reported in the World Trade Atlas. 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 forpacking 
materials, we used 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.

[[Page 53674]]

Labor
    For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate found on 
Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003 (updated in February 
2004). See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html. 
Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per 
capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the 
Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage 
rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's 
Web site is the Year Book of Labour Statistics 2002, International 
Labour Organization (ILO), (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing.
Factory Overhead, SG&A, and Profit
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit, we used the publicly available 2002-2003 
financial statement of Nekkanti Seafoods Ltd., an Indian seafood 
processor. We applied these rates to the calculated cost of 
manufacture. See Surrogate Values Memo at 5.
Transportation Expenses
    We valued movement expenses as follows: to value domestic ground 
transport, we used freight prices published in the April 26, 2002, 
edition of the Iron & Steel Newsletter, which cites http://www.INFreight.com, an Indian logistics Web site that tracks freight 
rates for all of India. Iron & Steel Newsletter republished freight 
prices for shipments originating from three cities: Mumbai (Bombay), 
Delhi and Kolkata (Calcutta). We adjusted the rates to reflect 
inflation through the POR using the WPI for India from the IFS.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to Sec.  351.415 of the 
Department's regulations at the rates found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Exporter/manufacturer                Time period     Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Xiyuan Refrigerate Food Co., Ltd......  9/1/02-8/31/03    59.98%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Upon completion of the review for Qingdao Xiyuan, bonding will no 
longer be permitted and cash deposits will be required. If the final 
results of the review remain the same as the preliminary results, the 
cash deposit rate for shipments produced and exported by Qingdao Xiyuan 
will be the total amount of antidumping duties divided by the total 
quantity exported during the POR. See Memorandum to File dated August 
26, 2004, which places on the record of this review the 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, dated August 27, 2001. This cash deposit rate 
will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new 
shipper review for all shipments of freshwater crawfish tail meat from 
the PRC produced and exported by Qingdao Xiyuan and entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. This 
per kilogram cash deposit rate will be equivalent to the company-
specific dumping margin established in this review. For crawfish tail 
meat exported, but not produced by Qingdao Xiyuan, we will continue to 
apply the PRC-wide rate, which is currently 223.01 percent, as the cash 
deposit rate. Since we are rescinding the new shipper reviews of 
Yancheng Fuda and Siyang, upon publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register, we will instruct CBP that bonding is no longer 
permitted and that a cash deposit of 223.01 percent must be collected 
for all entries exported by Yancheng Fuda and Siyang.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries for Qingdao Xiyuan. For assessment purposes for Qingdao Xiyuan, 
we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater 
crawfish tail meat from the PRC. We divided the total dumping margins 
(calculated as the difference between NV and EP) for the importer by 
the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during 
the POR. Upon completion of this review, we will direct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on a per kilogram basis equivalent to the company-
specific dumping margin established in this review for each entry of 
subject merchandise made by the importer during the POR that was 
produced and exported by Qingdao Xiyuan during the POR. The Department 
will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 
15 days of publication of the final results of review. Since we have 
rescinded the new shipper reviews of Yancheng Fuda and Siyang, we will 
issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of 
this notice to liquidate the entries from these two companies during 
the POR at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry.

Verification

    We plan to conduct verification of Qingdao Xiyuan's questionnaire 
responses, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, subsequent to the 
issuance of these preliminary results. We will use standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Qingdao 
Xiyuan's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial 
records. Our verification results will be summarized in a written 
report, a public version of which will be on file in the CRU located in 
room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of 
the review of Qingdao Xiyuan within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 
Sec. 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would 
normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the 
first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals 
who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 
days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) 
The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of 
the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must

[[Page 53675]]

be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing 
is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only 
on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a 
rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's 
rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm, by telephone, the time, date, 
and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Unless the time limit is extended, the Department will issue the 
final results of this new shipper review no later than 90 days after 
the signature date of the preliminary results. The final results will 
include the analysis of issues raised in the briefs.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under Sec. 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 these review 
periods. 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.
    With respect to Yancheng Fuda and Siyang, 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 Sec. 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 26, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E4-2043 Filed 9-01-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P