[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 175 (Monday, September 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53387-53400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-15003]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-552-801


Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(``Vietnam''). See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 47909 
(August 12, 2003) (``Order''). We preliminarily find that QVD Food 
Company Ltd. (``QVD'') sold subject merchandise at less than normal 
value (``NV'') during the period of review (``POR''), August 1, 2004, 
through July 31, 2005. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

General

    On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review on the antidumping duty order on 
certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 
2005). On August 26, 2005, we received a request for review from Phan 
Quan Trading Co., Ltd. (``Phan Quan''). On August 31, 2005, we received 
requests for review from An Giang Agriculture and Foods Import-Export 
Company (``Afiex''); Vinh Hoan Company, Ltd. (``Vinh Hoan''); Can Tho 
Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (``Cataco''); 
QVD; and Nam Viet Company, Ltd. (``Navico''). Also on August 31, 2005, 
we received a request from Catfish Farmers of America and individual 
U.S. catfish processors (``Petitioners'') to conduct an administrative 
review of twenty-nine Vietnamese exporters and/or producers.\1\ 
Petitioners' August 31, 2005, administrative review request included 
Phan Quan, Afiex, Vinh Hoan, Cataco, QVD and Navico. On September 28, 
2005, the Department initiated this administrative review, covering the 
aforementioned twenty-nine companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part (``Initiation Notice''), 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners requested a review on the following companies: 
(1) Afiex, which also requested a review; (2) An Giang Agriculture 
Technology Service Company (``ANTESCO''); (3) An Giang Fisheries 
Import and Export Joint Stock Company (``Agifish''); (4) Anhaco; (5) 
Bamboo Food Co., Ltd. (``Bamboo Food''); (6) Binh Dinh Import Export 
Company (``Binh Dinh''); (7) Cataco, which also requested a review; 
(8) Can Tho Animal Fishery Products Processing Export Enterprise 
(``Cafatex''); (9) Da Nang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation 
(``Danang''); (10) Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory (``Duyen 
Hai''); (11) Gepimex 404 Company (``Gepimex''); (12) Hai Vuong Co., 
Ltd. (``Hai Vuong''); (13) Kien Giang Ltd. (``Kien Giang''); (14) 
Mekong Fish Company (``Mekonimex''); (15) Navico, which also 
requested a review; (16) Phan Quan, which also requested a review; 
(17) Phu Thanh Frozen Factory (``Phu Thanh''); (18) Phuoc My 
Seafoods Processing Factory (``Phuoc My''); (19) QVD, which also 
requested a review; (20) Seaprodex Saigon; (21) Tan Thanh Loi Frozen 
Food Co., Ltd. (``Tan Thanh Loi''); (22) Thangloi Frozen Food 
Enterprise (``Thanlgoi Frozen Food''); (23) Thanh Viet Co., Ltd. 
(``Thanh Viet''); (24) Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (``Thuan Hung''); (25) 
Tin Thinh Co., Ltd. (``Tin Thinh''); (26) Viet Hai Seafood Company 
Limited (``Vietnam Fish-One''); (27) Vifaco; (28) Vinh Hoan, which 
also requested a review; and (29) Vinh Long Import-Export Company 
(``Vinh Long'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantity and Value (``Q&V'') Questionnaires

    On September 14, 2005, the Department issued questionnaires 
requesting the total quantity and value of subject merchandise exported 
to the United States during the POR to all 29 companies subject to the 
administrative review. On September 28, 2005, a memorandum to the file 
was placed on the record by the Department noting that Federal Express 
(``Fed Ex'') tracking confirmed that the Q&V questionnaires were 
delivered to all 29 companies. See Memorandum to the File, through 
Cindy Robinson, Acting Program Manager, from Julia Hancock, Case 
Analyst, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''): Initial Questionnaires Timeline, 
(September 28, 2005).
    On September 20, 2005, Vietnam Fish-One submitted a letter to the 
Department stating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. On September 30, 2005, QVD, Vinh 
Hoan, Cafatex, and Navico submitted Q&V responses. On October 1, 2005, 
Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, Phu Thanh, and Afiex submitted Q&V 
responses. Also, on October 3, 2005, Agifish and Cataco submitted Q&V 
responses.
    On October 5 and 6, 2005, the Department sent a letter to five 
companies (i.e., Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, Phu Thanh, and Afiex), 
requesting that each company resubmit their Q&V response because: (1) 
Danang failed to answer all questions from the

[[Page 53388]]

questionnaire and failed to follow the Department's filing procedures 
pursuant to its regulations; (2) Mekonimex failed to submit a public 
version of its questionnaire response; (3) Thanh Viet failed to answer 
all questions from the questionnaire and failed to follow the 
Department's filing procedures pursuant to its regulations; (4) Phu 
Thanh failed to answer all questions from the questionnaire and failed 
to follow the Department's filing procedures pursuant to its 
regulations; and (5) Afiex's Q&V response was not properly labeled as a 
proprietary document and was rejected for overbracketing of proprietary 
information. Also, on October 6, 2005, the Department issued a letter 
requesting the sixteen companies who had not responded to the 
Department's original Q&V questionnaire to submit such response.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The sixteen companies that did not respond to the 
Department's September 14, 2005, Q&V questionnaire are: (1) Duyen 
Hai; (2) Gepimex; (3) Hai Vuong; (4) Kien Giang; (5) Thangloi 
Frozen; (6) Tan Thanh Loi; (7) Thuan Hung; (8) ANTESCO; (9) 
Seaprodex Saigon; 10) Anhaco; (11) Vinh Long; (12) Vifaco; (13) Tin 
Thinh; (14) Binh Dinh; (15) Bamboo Food; and (16) Phan Quan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 19, 2005, Vifaco submitted a letter to the Department 
stating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. On October 20, 2005, Phan Quan submitted a Q&V 
response to the Department.
    On November 2, 2005, the Department sent a second letter to six 
companies, (i.e., Danang, Thanh Viet, Tin Thinh, Mekonimex, Thuan Hung, 
and Afiex), requesting that each company resubmit their respective Q&V 
response because: (1) Danang failed to bracket the proprietary 
information in the appropriate format and provide a public version of 
the proprietary questionnaire response; (2) Thanh Viet failed to answer 
all the questions from the questionnaire and identify whether its 
submission was a public or proprietary document; (3) Tin Thinh failed 
to bracket the proprietary information and provide a public version; 
(4) Mekonimex failed to provide a public summary of the proprietary 
information; (5) Thuan Hung failed to answer all of the questions from 
the questionnaire and identify whether its submission was a public or 
proprietary document; and (6) Afiex failed to provide a public summary 
of the proprietary information. Also, on November 2, 2005, the 
Department placed on the record memoranda to the file stating that the 
Department had removed Afiex, Thuan Hung, Mekonimex, and Thanh Viet's 
Q&V responses from the record of this review and returned the responses 
to the respective company because the Department was unable to consider 
each company's resubmitted Q&V response for the above reasons.
    On November 3, 2005, the Department issued a letter to Tin Thinh 
regarding the deadline for Tin Thinh's second resubmitted Q&V response.
    On November 8, 2005, Thuan Huang resubmitted its Q&V response. On 
November 9, 2005, Thanh Viet, Mekonimex, and Afiex resubmitted their 
Q&V responses. On November 9, 2005, the Department issued a letter to 
Tin Thinh stating that, because the Department's November 3, 2005, 
letter to Tin Thinh was returned by Fed Ex, Tin Thinh's second 
resubmitted Q&V response was due on November 16, 2005.
    On November 9, 2005, a memorandum to the file was placed by the 
Department noting that Fed Ex tracking confirmed that the second Q&V 
letter was delivered to the 16 companies\3\ that did not respond to the 
Department's September 14, 2005, Q&V questionnaire. Additionally, Fed 
Ex tracking confirmed that the Department's October 5, 2005, and 
October 6, 2005, letters to Afiex, Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, and 
Phu Thanh were delivered to the respective companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The sixteen companies are: (1) Duyen Hai; (2) Gepimex; (3) 
Hai Vuong; (4) Kien Giang; (5) Thangloi Frozen; (6) Tan Thanh Loi; 
(7) Thuan Hung; (8) ANTESCO; (9) Seaprodex Saigon; (10) Anhaco; (11) 
Vinh Long; (12) Vifaco; (13) Tin Thinh; (14) Binh Dinh; (15) Bamboo 
Food; and (16) Phan Quan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 16, 2005, Afiex submitted a letter clarifying its 
November 9, 2005, Q&V response. On November 17, 2005, a memorandum to 
the file was placed on the record by the Department noting that Fed Ex 
tracking confirmed that the Department's November 2, 2005, letters to 
Afiex, Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, Thuan Hung, and Tin Thinh were 
delivered to the respective companies.
    On November 21, 2005, Petitioners submitted comments on respondent 
selection. On November 21, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Danang 
rejecting Danang's Q&V response for filing deficiencies. Also, on 
November 28, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Tin Thinh rejecting 
Tin Thinh's Q&V response for filing deficiencies.
    On November 29, 2005, Petitioners resubmitted their November 21, 
2005, comments on respondent selection. On November 30, 2005, the 
Department issued letters to Mekonimex and Cataco requesting 
clarification of their reported Q&V data.
    On December 7, 2005, Vietnam Fish-One submitted a response to 
Petitioners' respondent selection comments.
    On December 19, 2005, Danang resubmitted a Q&V questionnaire 
response, explaining that, as a pro se company, it attempted to 
cooperate and misunderstood the Department's filing requirements. In 
addition, on December 19, 2005, the Department placed a memorandum to 
the file on the record noting that Cataco's quantity and value 
clarification response received via email communication was placed on 
the record.
    On December 27, 2005, Cataco submitted a Q&V clarification 
response.
    On December 29, 2005, Petitioners submitted comments on Danang's 
December 19, 2005, Q&V response and on Cataco's December 27, 2005, Q&V 
clarification response.
    On January 4, 2006, Danang submitted rebuttal comments in response 
to Petitioners' December 29, 2005, submission.
    On January 13, 2006, the Department selected the four largest 
exporters/producers of subject merchandise during the POR as mandatory 
respondents: QVD; Cafatex; Mekonimex; and Cataco. See Memorandum to 
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, AD/CVD 
Operations, Import Administration, Subject: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents (January 13, 2006) 
(``Respondent Selection Memo'').

Partial Rescission

    On November 21, 2005, Petitioners withdrew their request on the 
following fourteen exporters that did not individually request a 
review: Bamboo Food; Caseafex; Gepimex; Hai Vuong; Kien Giang; Phu 
Thanh; Phuoc My; Seaprodex Saigon; Tan Thanh Loi; Thangloi Frozen Food; 
Thanh Viet; Thuan Hung; Tin Thinh; and Vifaco. Additionally, 
Petitioners withdrew their request on the following three companies who 
had individually requested a review: Afiex; Phan Quan; and Vinh Hoan.
    On December 23, 2005, Vinh Hoan withdrew its request for an 
administrative review. Additionally, on December 23, 2005, H&N Foods 
International (``H&N''), a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise, 
requested that the Department extend the deadline for withdrawing 
requests review in this proceeding by thirty days. On December 27, 
2005, Vinh Hoan submitted a letter to the Department requesting that 
its

[[Page 53389]]

withdrawal letter dated December 23, 2005, be disregarded. 
Additionally, on December 27, 2005, the Department extended the 
deadline for withdrawing requests for review in this proceeding by ten 
days from December 27, 2005, to January 6, 2006.
    On January 5, 2006, H&N requested that the Department extend the 
deadline, which was January 6, 2006, for withdrawing requests in this 
administrative review until two days after the Department's issuance of 
its decision regarding respondent selection in this administrative 
review. On January 9, 2006, Vinh Hoan again withdrew its request for a 
review in this administrative review. Additionally, on January 11, 
2006, Petitioners withdrew their request of two additional companies, 
Danang and Agifish, both of which did not individually request a 
review. Moreover, Petitioners also did not object to Vinh Hoan's 
January 9, 2006, request to withdraw its request for a review.
    Subsequently, on February 7, 2006, due to the withdrawal of 
Petitioners' and Vinh Hoan's review requests, the Department rescinded 
the review with respect to Agifish; Bamboo Food; Coseafex; Danang; 
Gepimex; Hai Vuong; Kien Giang; Phu Thanh; Phuoc My; Seaprodex Saigon; 
Tan Thanh Loi; Thangloi Frozen Food; Thanh Viet; Thuan Hung; Tin Thinh; 
Vifaco; and Vinh Hoan. Additionally, the Department rescinded the 
review with respect to Vietnam Fish-One, which reported that it made no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission, in 
Part, and Extension of Preliminary Results of the Second Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 6266 (February 7, 2006) (``Partial 
Rescission and Extension of Preliminary Results''). On February 7, 
2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results 
of this review by 120 days, to August 31, 2006. Id.

Mandatory Respondents

    On January 17, 2006, the Department sent the non-market economy 
(``NME'') questionnaire to QVD, Cafatex, Mekonimex and Cataco.

Cataco

    On February 3, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file 
on the record noting that on February 2, 2006, Cataco emailed the 
Department requesting an extension of time to March 10, 2006, to 
respond to the Department's NME questionnaire. On February 3, 2006, the 
Department granted Cataco a one-week extension to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire.
    On February 13, 2006, Cataco submitted its section A response. On 
February 27, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter requesting a one-week 
extension to submit its sections C and D questionnaire response. On 
February 27, 2006, the Department granted Cataco a one-week extension 
to submit its sections C and D questionnaire response from March 2, 
2006, to March 9, 2006.
    On March 2, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A 
questionnaire to Cataco. Additionally, on March 6, 2006, Cataco 
submitted its sections C and D questionnaire response.
    On March 14, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file 
on the record regarding an email from Cataco, which requested a two-
week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire 
response. Additionally, on March 14, 2006, the Department issued a 
letter to Cataco granting a one-week extension to submit its 
supplemental section A questionnaire response from March 20, 2006, to 
March 27, 2006.
    On March 20, 2006, a the Department placed a memorandum to the file 
on the record regarding placing information with respect to Cataco from 
the first administrative review on the record of this review. 
Additionally, on March 20, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental 
sections C and D questionnaire to Cataco.
    On March 23, 2006, Cataco submitted its supplemental section A 
questionnaire response. On April 4, 2006, Cataco requested a two-week 
extension to submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response. 
On April 7, 2006, the Department granted Cataco a ten-day extension to 
submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response from April 10, 
2006, to April 20, 2006. On April 17, 2006, Cataco submitted its 
supplemental sections C and D questionnaire response.
    On June 1, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on 
the record regarding placing Cataco's entry packages from CBP on the 
record of this review. Additionally, on June 1, 2006, the Department 
placed a memorandum to the file on the record regarding DC Lawyers' May 
12, 2006, withdrawal as counsel for Cataco. Additionally, on June 14, 
2006, the Department issued a second supplemental sections A, C and D 
questionnaire to Cataco.
    On June 28, 2006, Valley Fresh Seafood, Inc. (``Valley Fresh'') 
submitted a letter to the Department addressing a business proprietary 
section of Cataco's supplemental questionnaire. On July 3, 2006, Cataco 
submitted a letter to the Department that it was partially withdrawing 
from this administrative review and was not responding to the June 14, 
2006, supplemental questionnaire.
    On July 7, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Valley Fresh 
that it was rejecting its June 28, 2006, letter, because it contained 
new factual information. The deadline for submitting factual 
information was June 1, 2006. Additionally, on July 7, 2006, the 
Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record removing 
Valley Fresh's June 28, 2006, letter from the record.
    On July 17, 2006, Petitioners submitted a letter requesting that 
the Department not accept Cataco's July 3, 2006, letter of partial 
withdrawal. On July 19, 2006, the Department issued a letter rejecting 
Cataco's partial withdrawal from this review and requested that Cataco 
submit a full response to the June 14, 2006, supplemental 
questionnaire.
    On July 26, 2006, Valley Fresh submitted a letter to the Department 
with respect to a business proprietary section of the Department's June 
14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire to Cataco. On July 26, 2006, 
Cataco submitted a letter to the Department stating that, except for a 
certain business proprietary section, it was not responding to the June 
14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire.
    On August 1, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Valley Fresh 
rejecting its July 26, 2006, letter because it contained new factual 
information. On August 1, 2006, the Department also issued a letter to 
Cataco rejecting its July 26, 2006 letter and requesting that Cataco 
resubmit its letter without the attached June 28, 2006, letter from 
Valley Fresh. Additionally, on August 1, 2006, the Department placed 
memoranda to the file on the record noting that the July 26, 2006, 
submissions from Valley Fresh and Cataco had been removed from the 
record.
    On August 3, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter, which contained 
Valley Fresh's June 28, 2006, letter to the Department requesting that 
it reconsider its decision to reject Cataco's July 26, 2006, letter. On 
August 8, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Cataco rejecting its 
August 3, 2006, letter and requesting that Cataco resubmit the letter 
without the attached June 28, 2006, letter from Valley Fresh. On August 
9, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record 
removing Cataco's

[[Page 53390]]

August 3, 2006, submission from the record.
    The Department did not receive a response from Cataco on August 14, 
2006, which was the deadline to resubmit. On August 17, 2006, the 
Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record noting, via 
telephone communication with Cataco's counsel, that Cataco would not be 
resubmitting its August 3, 2006, letter.

Cafatex

    On January 27, 2006, Cafatex requested a week extension to submit 
its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On January 
31, 2006, the Department granted Cafatex a one-week extension to submit 
its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006.
    On February 14, 2006, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP submitted a 
letter withdrawing as counsel for Cafatex. On February 16, 2006, the 
Department issued a letter to Cafatex noting that it had not received 
Cafatex's section A questionnaire response, which was due on February 
14, 2006, and had not received a request for extension. In the letter, 
the Department requested that, if Cafatex intended to remain in the 
review, it should submit its section A questionnaire response.
    On February 27, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the 
file on the record noting that in a facsimile dated February 21, 2006, 
Cafatex confirmed its decision not to participate in the instant 
administrative review.

Mekonimex

    On February 8, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Mekonimex 
noting that because the Department did not receive Mekonimex's section 
A response, which was due on February 7, 2006, the deadline to submit 
its section A response was extended to February 13, 2006. On February 
15, 2006, Mekonimex submitted two letters stating that it would no 
longer participate and that it was withdrawing from this review.

QVD

    On January 30, 2006, QVD requested a two-week extension to submit 
its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On January 
31, 2006, the Department granted QVD a week extension to submit its 
section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006.
    On February 13, 2006, QVD requested a three-week extension to 
submit its section C and D response.
    On February 14, 2006, QVD submitted its section A response. Also, 
on February 14, 2006, the Department granted QVD a week extension to 
submit its sections C and D response from February 22, 2006, to March 
1, 2006.
    On February 21, 2006, QVD requested a two-week extension to submit 
its sections C and D response. On February 23, 2006, Department granted 
QVD a week extension to submit its sections C and D response from March 
1, 2006, to March 8, 2006.
    On March 8, 2006, QVD submitted its sections C and D questionnaire 
response. Additionally, on March 9, 2006, the Department issued a 
supplemental section A questionnaire to QVD.
    On March 20, 2006, QVD requested a two-week extension to submit its 
supplemental section A questionnaire response. On March 20, 2006, the 
Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to submit its supplemental 
section A questionnaire response from March 30, 2006, to April 10, 
2006.
    On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental sections C 
and D questionnaire to QVD. Additionally, on March 30, 2006, a 
memorandum to the file was placed by the Department regarding QVD's 
supplemental section C questionnaire.
    On April 4, 2006, QVD requested a three-week extension to submit 
its supplemental section C questionnaire response. On April 5, 2006, 
the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to submit its 
supplemental section C questionnaire response from April 10, 2006, to 
April 20, 2006.
    On April 10, 2006, QVD submitted its supplemental section A 
questionnaire response. On April 11, 2006, QVD requested a three-week 
extension to submit its supplemental section D questionnaire response. 
On April 12, 2006, the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to 
submit its supplemental section D questionnaire response from April 18, 
2006, to April 28, 2006.
    On April 19, 2006, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its 
supplemental section C questionnaire response. Additionally, on April 
19, 2006, the Department granted QVD a one-week extension to submit its 
supplemental section C questionnaire response from April 20, 2006, to 
April 28, 2006.
    On April 24, 2006, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its 
supplemental section D questionnaire response. On April 25, 2006, the 
Department granted QVD a one-week extension to submit its supplemental 
section D questionnaire response from April 28, 2006, to May 5, 2006.
    On April 28, 2006, QVD submitted its supplemental section C 
questionnaire response. On May 5, 2006, QVD submitted its supplemental 
section D questionnaire response. Additionally, on May 31, 2006, the 
Department issued a second supplemental section D questionnaire to QVD.
    On June 9, 2006, QVD requested a three-week extension to submit its 
second supplemental section D questionnaire response. On June 13, 2006, 
the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to submit its second 
supplemental section D questionnaire response from June 14, 2006, to 
June 26, 2006.
    On June 16, 2006, the Department placed QVD's entry packages from 
CBP on the record of this review. On June 19, 2006, Petitioners 
submitted deficiency comments on QVD's sections A and C questionnaire 
responses.
    On June 23, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental 
section A and C questionnaire to QVD. On June 27, 2006, QVD submitted 
its second supplemental section D questionnaire response.
    On July 12, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental 
section D questionnaire to QVD. On July 18, 2006, QVD requested a ten-
day extension to submit its third supplemental section D questionnaire 
response.
    On July 19, 2006, the Department granted QVD a six-day extension to 
submit its third supplemental section D questionnaire response from 
July 26, 2006, to August 1, 2006.
    On July 21, 2006, the Department issued a fourth supplemental 
section D questionnaire to QVD. Additionally, on July 21, 2006, QVD 
submitted its second supplemental sections A and C questionnaire 
response.
    On July 26, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental 
section A and C questionnaire to QVD. On August 1, 2006, QVD submitted 
its third and fourth supplemental section D questionnaire responses.
    On August 1, 2006, QVD requested a five-day extension to submit its 
third supplemental section A and C questionnaire response. On August 2, 
2006, the Department granted QVD a four-day extension to submit its 
section A and C questionnaire response from August 4, 2006, to August 
8, 2006.
    On August 2, 2006, QVD submitted a letter to the Department with 
respect to an attachment that was missing from its August 1, 2006, 
third and fourth supplemental section D questionnaire responses. On 
August 2, 2006, the Department issued a fifth supplemental section D 
questionnaire to QVD.

[[Page 53391]]

    On August 8, 2006, QVD submitted its fifth supplemental section D 
questionnaire response. On August 9, 2006, QVD submitted its third 
supplemental sections A and C questionnaire responses.
    On August 14, 2006, the Department issued a letter to QVD regarding 
its section C database requesting the downstream sales to Customer A. 
On August 21, QVD submitted its section C database response. 
Additionally, on August 22, 2006, QVD submitted rebuttal pre-
preliminary comments.

Separate Rate Respondents

    As noted above, on January 13, 2006, the Department selected four 
mandatory respondents. On January 18, 2006, the Department sent section 
A of the Department's NME questionnaire to the three remaining separate 
rate respondents: Afiex, Navico and Phan Quan.

Afiex

    On February 3, 2006, Afiex requested a one-week extension to submit 
its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On February 
6, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a one-week extension to submit 
its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006.
    On February 13, 2006, Afiex requested a second extension of three 
days to submit its section A response. On February 14, 2006, the 
Department granted Afiex a three-day extension to submit its section A 
response from February 14, 2006, to February 17, 2006. On February 17, 
2006, Afiex submitted a section A response.
    On March 2, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A 
questionnaire to Afiex. On March 14, 2006, Afiex requested a one-week 
extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response. 
Additionally, on March 16, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a one-
week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire 
response from March 23, 2006, to March 30, 2006.
    On March 29, 2006, Afiex requested a second one-week extension to 
submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response. On March 30, 
2006, the Department granted Afiex a four-day extension to submit its 
supplemental section A questionnaire response from March 30, 2006, to 
April 3, 2006.
    On April 4, 2006, Afiex submitted its supplemental section A 
questionnaire response. On April 5, 2006, Afiex requested an extension 
to submit documents that were not available when it submitted the 
supplemental section A questionnaire response from April 4, 2006, to 
April 10, 2006. On April 6, 2006, the Department issued a letter to 
Afiex extending the deadline until April 10, 2006. Additionally, in the 
letter to Afiex, the Department issued a second supplemental section A 
questionnaire.
    On April 10, 2006, Afiex requested an extension of two days to 
submit its second supplemental section A questionnaire response. On 
April 11, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a one-day extension to 
submit its supplemental Section A questionnaire response from April 10, 
2006, to April 11, 2006. Additionally, on April 11, 2006, Afiex 
submitted its second supplemental section A questionnaire response.
    On July 7, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental section 
A questionnaire to Afiex. On July 28, 2006, Afiex submitted a letter to 
the Department that it was both not responding to third supplemental 
section A questionnaire and withdrawing from this review.

Navico

    On January 27, 2006, Navico requested a one-week extension to 
submit its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On 
January 31, 2006, the Department granted Navico a one-week extension to 
submit its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 
2006.
    On February 16, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Navico 
noting that it had not received Navico's section A questionnaire 
response, which was due on February 14, 2006, and had not received a 
request for extension. In the letter, the Department requested that, if 
Navico intended to remain in the review, it should submit its section A 
questionnaire response.
    On February 27, 2006, the Department issued a second letter to 
Navico requesting that, if Navico intended to remain as a separate 
rates respondent, Navico should submit a section A response by March 3, 
2006. Additionally, in the letter, the Department requested that if 
Navico was not going to submit a response, Navico should submit a 
letter confirming its decision to not participate in this review.
    On March 7, 2006, the Department place a memorandum to the file on 
the record by the Department noting that via an e-mail received on 
March 6, 2006, Navico confirmed its decision not to participate in this 
administrative review.

Phan Quan

    On February 3, 2006, Phan Quan requested a one-week extension to 
submit its section A response. On February 6, 2006, the Department 
granted Phan Quan a one-week extension to submit its section A response 
from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006.
    On February 13, 2006, Phan Quan requested a second extension of 
three days to submit its section A response. On February 14, 2006, the 
Department granted Phan Quan a three-day extension to submit its 
section A response from February 14, 2006, to February 17, 2006.
    On February 17, 2006, Phan Quan submitted its section A response. 
Also on February 21, 2006, Phan Quan submitted a letter that included 
attachments supplementing its section A response.
    On March 28, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A 
questionnaire to Phan Quan.
    On April 19, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Phan Quan 
noting that it had not received a response from Phan Quan for its 
supplemental section A questionnaire response, which was due on April 
18, 2006. In the letter, the Department granted Phan Quan a second, 
final opportunity to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire 
response by April 21, 2006. On April 26, 2006, Phan Quan submitted a 
letter to the Department that it was not responding to the supplemental 
section A questionnaire and withdrawing from this review.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values

    On January 18, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file 
on the record extending the deadline for submission of factual 
information by 50 days from January 18, 2006, to March 9, 2006. On 
January 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter to the interested 
parties requesting comments on surrogate country selection.
    On February 27, 2006, Petitioners requested an extension of time to 
submit comments on submission of factual information, comments on 
surrogate country selection, and publicly available information to 
value factors of production. On March 1, 2006, the Department issued a 
memorandum to the file extending these deadlines to May 1, 2006.
    On April 26, 2006, Petitioners and QVD requested extensions to 
place factual information on the record, comments on surrogate country 
selection, and publicly available information to value factors of 
production. On April 27, 2006, the Department issued a letter extending 
these deadlines to June 1, 2006.

[[Page 53392]]

    On June 1, 2006, Petitioners and QVD submitted factual information. 
On June 1, 2006, Petitioners and QVD also submitted surrogate value 
information for the Department to consider for these preliminary 
results. Also, on June 1, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments on 
surrogate country selection. No other party submitted surrogate country 
comments.
    On June 12, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments on the 
surrogate value information submitted by QVD.
    On August 1, 2006, the Department selected Bangladesh as the 
surrogate country. On August 15, 2006, Petitioners submitted pre-
preliminary comments.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including 
regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not 
breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius 
Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius 
Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The 
fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the 
belly flap intact (``regular'' fillets), boneless fillets with the 
belly flap removed (``shank'' fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into 
strips (``fillet strips/finger''), which include fillets cut into 
strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically 
excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), 
frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish 
are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-
section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject 
merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen ``basa'' and 
``tra'' fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these 
species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article 
code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius 
including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'').\4\ This order covers all frozen fish fillets 
meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of the Order is 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under 
tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 
0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen 
Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of 
the HTSUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliations

    Section 771(33) of the Act states that the Department considers the 
following as affiliated: (A) Members of a family, including brothers 
and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, 
and lineal descendants; (B) any officer or director of an organization 
and such organization; (C) partners; (D) employer and employee; (E) any 
person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with 
power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or 
shares of any organization and such organization; (F) two or more 
persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under 
common control with, any person; and (G) any person who controls any 
other person and such other person. For purposes of affiliation, 
section 771(33) of the ACT states that a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.
    Based on the evidence on the record in this administrative review, 
we preliminarily find that QVD is affiliated with Dong Thap Food Co., 
Ltd. (``Dong Thap'') and Company A,\5\ pursuant to section 771(33) of 
the Act. For a detailed discussion of our analysis, please see 
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, through Alex 
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Case 
Analyst, Subject: QVD Affiliations Memorandum: 2\nd\ Administrative 
Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets, (August 31, 2006) (``Affiliation 
and Collapsing Memo''). In addition, based on the evidence presented in 
QVD's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that QVD, Dong 
Thap, and Company A should be treated as a single entity for purposes 
of this administrative review. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1); see also, 
Affiliation and Collapsing Memo for a discussion of the proprietary 
aspects of this relationship. With respect to the criterion of 
significant potential for manipulation of price of production, we note 
that the Department normally considers three factors: (1) The level of 
common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or 
board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an 
affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as 
through the sharing of sales, information, involvement in production 
and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or 
significant transactions between the affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because Company A's identity is business proprietary, it 
cannot be disclosed in this notice. See Affiliation and Collapsing 
Memo for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vietnamese Entities

    Based on the information on the record of this proceeding, we 
preliminarily find that QVD, Dong Thap, and Company A should be 
collapsed. Accordingly, the Department should include the factors of 
production for Company A in the Department's calculation of QVD's 
normal value (``NV''). However, the Department does not currently have 
this information on the record of the proceeding. Therefore, the 
Department will request this information from QVD after the issuance of 
these preliminary results. Additionally, we will be issuing an amended 
preliminary calculation for comment after we receive Company A's 
factors of production. Due to the proprietary nature of the information 
with respect to these affiliates, this information cannot be discussed 
herein. See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo for a further discussion of 
this issue.
    In addition, we preliminary find that Choi Moi Farming Cooperative 
(``Choi Moi'') is affiliated with QVD pursuant to section 771(33) of 
the Act. See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo for a further discussion 
of this issue. However, we preliminary find that although Choi Moi is 
affiliated with QVD, the collapsing criteria are not satisfied and 
therefore, Choi Moi has not been collapsed with QVD. Id.
    We also preliminarily find that Company B\6\ and QVD are not 
affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Because Company B's identity is business proprietary, it 
cannot be disclosed in this notice. See Affiliation and Collapsing 
Memo for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Entities

    We preliminarily find that QVD and QVD USA LLC (``QVD USA'') are 
affiliated pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. Id.
    Although the Department received relevant information from QVD USA 
regarding its relationship with Customer A\7\ on August 21, 2006, ten 
days prior

[[Page 53393]]

to the deadline to issue the preliminary results, the Department was 
unable to consider this information for these preliminary results of 
review. For the final results of review, however, the Department will 
fully consider the information submitted by QVD USA on August 21, 2006, 
and possibly request additional information on the relationship with 
QVD USA and Customer A. For these preliminary results, the Department 
will include QVD USA's sales to Customer A in the margin calculation 
for QVD. However, in the event the Department finds Customer A and QVD 
USA affiliated, the Department intends to request the relevant sales to 
the first unaffiliated U.S. customer after such finding. If parties 
fail to provide such data, the Department may apply facts available, 
with an adverse inference, to QVD USA's CEP sales to Customer A for the 
final results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Because Customer A's identity is business proprietary, it 
cannot be disclosed in this notice. See Memorandum from Julia 
Hancock, Case Analyst, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Import 
Administration, Subject: 2nd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memo for QVD Food Company, (August 31, 2006) (``QVD 
Analysis Memo'') for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2006, QVD stated that it was affiliated with 
Beaverstreet Fisheries Inc. (``BSF'') and provided a CEP sales database 
which contained the sales from BSF to the first unaffiliated U.S. 
customer. For these preliminary results, the Department is treating QVD 
USA and BSF as affiliated entities and will characterize BSF sales' as 
CEP sales in the margin calculation for QVD for these preliminary 
results. However, the Department notes that there is insufficient time 
to evaluate whether the claim of affiliation properly fulfills the 
statutory criteria of section 771(33) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Department intends to request further information regarding QVD USA's 
affiliation with BSF, which may affect the use of these sales and the 
margin calculation in the final results of this review. The Department 
also intends to request information on the sales from QVD USA to BSF.

Separate Rates Determination

    In the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation and the first 
administrative review for this Order, the Department treated Vietnam as 
a non-market economy (``NME'') for antidumping purposes. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject 
to review that are located in NME countries a single antidumping duty 
rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of governmental 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
its export activities. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently 
independent of governmental control to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the Department analyzes the exporter using the criteria 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 in 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) (``Silicon Carbide''). Under the 
separate rates criteria established in these cases, the Department 
assigns separate rates to NME exporters only if they can demonstrate 
the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over 
their export activities.

Absence of De Jure Control

    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of the absence 
of de jure governmental 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. See Sparklers, 
56 FR at 20589.
    In the LTFV investigation for this case, the Department granted 
separate rates to the four mandatory respondents, Cataco, Cafatex, 
Mekonimex, and QVD, and two of the separate rate respondents, Afiex and 
Navico. See Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 
(June 23, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comments 5 and 6 (``LTFV FFF Final Determination''). Additionally, in 
the first administrative review of this case, the Department did not 
grant a separate rate to the other separate rate respondent, Phan Quan, 
because it stopped participating in that review. See Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 54007 (September 13, 2005) (``1\st\ Review 
Prelim''). However, it is the Department's policy to evaluate separate 
rates questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a separate 
rates claim, regardless of whether the respondent received a separate 
rate in the past. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of 
China, Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12441 (March 13, 1998).
    In this review only QVD submitted complete responses to the 
separate rates section of the Department's NME questionnaire. The 
evidence submitted by QVD includes government laws and regulations on 
corporate ownership, business licenses, and narrative information 
regarding its company's operations and selection of management. The 
evidence provided by QVD supports a finding of a de jure absence of 
governmental control over its export activities because: (1) There are 
no controls on exports of subject merchandise, such as quotas applied 
to, or licenses required for, exports of the subject merchandise to the 
United States; and (2) the subject merchandise does not appear on any 
government list regarding export provisions or export licensing.

Absence of De Facto Control

    The absence of de facto governmental control over exports is based 
on whether the Respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices independent 
of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from 
its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy 
from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
    In its questionnaire responses, QVD submitted evidence indicating 
an absence of de facto governmental control over its export activities. 
Specifically, this evidence indicates that: (1) The company sets its 
own export prices independent of the government and without the 
approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a 
general manager, branch manager or division manager with the authority 
to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement; (4) the general 
manager is selected by the board of directors or company employees, and 
the general manager appoints the deputy managers and the manager of 
each department; and (5) foreign currency does not need to be sold to 
the government. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found that 
QVD has established primae facie that it qualifies for a separate rate 
under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

[[Page 53394]]

    As discussed below, the Department is not granting the other three 
mandatory respondents, Cataco, Cafatex, and Mekonimex, and the three 
separate rate respondents, Afiex, Phan Quan, and Navico, a separate 
rate because these respondents withdrew from participating in this 
review. As a result, we cannot verify the separate rate information 
that Afiex, Cataco, and Phan Quan submitted in their respective 
questionnaire responses. Moreover, Afiex, Cataco, and Phan Quan, each 
failed to respond to the supplemental questionnaire issued by the 
Department that requested clarification on their respective submitted 
separate rate information. With respect to Cafatex, Mekonimex, and 
Navico, we did not receive separate rate information for consideration 
in these preliminary results.

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) 
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that ``if the 
administrating authority finds that an interested party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information from the administering authority or the 
Commission, the administering authority or the Commission (as the case 
may be), in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may 
use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' See also 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
    In the instant review, three of the mandatory respondents, (i.e., 
Cataco, Cafatex, and Mekonimex), the three separate rate respondents, 
(i.e., Navico, Afiex and Phan Quan), and four other companies under 
review, (i.e., Antesco, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long), 
significantly impeded our ability to complete this administrative 
review pursuant to section 751 of the Act, and one mandatory 
respondent, Cataco, significantly impeded our ability to impose the 
correct antidumping duties, as mandated by section 731 of the Act. As 
discussed below, we preliminarily find that each company's failure to 
cooperate with the Department to the best of their ability in 
responding to the Department's request for information warrant the use 
of adverse facts available (``AFA'') in determining dumping margins for 
their sales of merchandise subject to this Order.

Mekonimex and Cafatex

    As discussed in the ``Case History'' above, on January 17, 2006, 
the Department issued questionnaires to Mekonimex and Cafatex. The 
deadlines for Mekonimex and Cafatex to file a response to Section A of 
the questionnaire were February 7, 2006, and February 14, 2006, 
respectively. The Department did not receive a questionnaire response 
from either company. Instead, Mekonimex submitted two letters on 
February 15, 2006, stating that it was not going to participate and was 
withdrawing from the review. Cafatex faxed a letter, in response to the 
Department's February 16, 2006, letter of Cafatex's non-response, on 
February 21, 2006, stating that it was not going to participate in the 
administrative review. Therefore, we find that facts available are 
warranted for both Mekonimex and Cafatex in accordance with sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.
    By each company stating that they would no longer participate, both 
Mekonimex and Cafatex explicitly impeded this proceeding. Because both 
Mekonimex and Cafatex withdrew from the current administrative review 
with critical data potentially relevant to separate rates still 
outstanding, the Department was prevented from conducting a thorough 
separate rates analysis or from verifying either Mekonimex's or 
Cafatex's information. Because both Cafatex and Mekonimex did not 
respond to the Department's NME questionnaire, the Department has no 
information on the record with which to calculate an antidumping margin 
or determine if either is eligible for a separate rate in this 
proceeding. Therefore, we find that both Mekonimex and Cafatex have not 
demonstrated that each is entitled to a separate rate and thus, each is 
deemed to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. By withdrawing from 
this administrative review over a month after the Department's 
established deadline, which was January 6, 2006, rather than submitting 
a response to the Department's NME questionnaires, both Mekonimex and 
Cafatex have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in this 
proceeding. Accordingly, since both Mekonimex and Cafatex significantly 
impeded the proceeding and failed to cooperate to the best of their 
ability, the application of AFA is appropriate, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act.

Cataco

    During the first administrative review, the Department found Cataco 
had entered into an reimbursement agreement with Customer B.\8\ See 
Memorandum from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, to Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, Import Administration, Subject: 2\nd\ Administrative 
Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Results Analysis Memo for Can Tho Agricultural and 
Animal Products Import Export Company (``Cataco''), (August 31, 2006) 
(``Cataco Analysis Memo''); 1\st\ Supplemental Section C Questionnaire 
to Cataco, (March 20, 2006) at Attachment 2 (Memorandum to the File, 
from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, NME Office 9, RE: Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Verification 
Report Change, (March 13, 2006)). Specifically, the Department noted 
that these reimbursement ``agreements stated that Cataco would 
reimburse any antidumping duties {on basa and tra{time}  exceeding 
X,''\9\ and that these reimbursement ``agreements did not specify an 
expiration date.'' See 1\st\ Supplemental Section C Questionnaire to 
Cataco, at Attachment 2. A day after the Department made this 
discovery, Cataco withdrew from verification. Accordingly, Cataco 
received AFA in the final results of the first administrative review 
because of its termination of verification and as part of the adverse 
inference, the Department determined that ``the reimbursement 
verification findings should be applied to Cataco for cash deposit and 
assessment purposes.'' See Notice of Final Results of the First 
Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006) and accompanying 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2 (``1\st\ AR FFF 
Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Because this information is business proprietary, please see 
Cataco Analysis Memo for further information on Customer B.
    \9\ Because this information is business proprietary, please see 
Cataco Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this administrative review, Cataco admitted from the onset that 
it sold subject merchandise under other commercial names, including 
``frozen grouper'' and ``frozen seafood.'' See Cataco's Quantity and 
Value

[[Page 53395]]

Questionnaire Response, (September 30, 2005) at 1-2; Cataco's Section A 
Questionnaire Response, (February 10, 2006) at Exhibit A-1. However, on 
June 1, 2006, the Department placed on the record entry packages from 
U.S. Customs Border and Protection (CBP) of all entries, classified as 
HTS 304206033, 304206043, 304206057, 304206070, 304206096, that were 
manufactured by Cataco and entered into the United States during the 
POR. A review of the entry packages showed a discrepancy between 
Cataco's reported quantity and value (``Q&V'') of sales of subject 
merchandise under other commercial names, ``frozen grouper'' and 
``frozen seafood,'' and the Q&V of its CBP entries of ``frozen 
grouper'' to Customer B. See Cataco's Section A Questionnaire Response 
at Exhibit A-1; Cataco's 2\nd\ Supplemental Section A and C 
Questionnaire, (June 14, 2006) at 12-13 (``Cataco's 2\nd\ 
Questionnaire''). Moreover, the Department noted that CBP issued a 
Notice of Request for Information and a Notice of Action to Cataco's 
Customer B that certain entries needed to be reclassified as subject 
merchandise. See Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire, at 13; Memorandum to the 
File, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: 2\nd\ Administrative 
Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam (``Vietnam''): Customs Data for Can Tho Agricultural and Animal 
Products Import Export Company, (June 1, 2006). Based on the apparent 
discrepancies with Cataco's reported Q&V of sales of subject 
merchandise under other commercial names, and other issues, including 
Cataco's affiliate and reimbursement of antidumping duties, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Cataco on June 14, 
2006, which was due on July 5, 2006.
    On July 3, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter to the Department that 
it would not be submitting a response to Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire. 
In the letter, Cataco also stated that it was ``withdrawing from the 
current administrative review for all issues except that of 
reimbursement of antidumping duties.'' See Cataco's Letter to the 
Department, RE: June 14, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire, (July 3, 
2006) at 1-2. However, on July 19, 2006, the Department issued a letter 
to Cataco stating that Cataco could not partially withdraw from this 
administrative review. By granting Cataco's partial withdrawal, the 
Department would have allowed Cataco to ``control the results of the 
administrative review by {only{time}  granting partial information'' on 
reimbursement. See Krupp Stahl A.G., et. al vs. United States, 822 F. 
Supp 789, 792 (CIT 1993). Accordingly, the Department granted Cataco a 
final opportunity to submit a full response to Cataco's 2\nd\ 
Questionnaire by July 26, 2006.
    On July 26, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter to the Department 
stating that it had never entered into a ``reimbursement agreement'' 
with its U.S. customer, Valley Fresh, and that it would not be 
submitting a response to the entirety of Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire. 
Additionally, Cataco submitted a June 28, 2006, letter from its 
customer, Valley Fresh. However, the Department rejected Cataco's July 
26, 2006, letter as containing untimely, new information, pursuant to 
section 351.301(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, because Valley 
Fresh's letter had previously been rejected as new information. See 
Letter from the Department to Matthew McConkey, (August 1, 2006) at 1-
2. Specifically, the deadline for submitting factual information was 
June 1, 2006, and as such, Valley Fresh's letter was received twenty-
seven days after the deadline.
    Instead of resubmitting its letter without the letter from Valley 
Fresh, Cataco submitted a letter on August 3, 2006, that contained this 
submission. In its August 3, 2006, letter, Cataco stated that it was 
including the letter from Valley Fresh because it was ``directly 
relevant to the {reimbursement{time}  questions raised'' in the 
Department's June 14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. See Letter from 
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Import Administration, to Matthew 
McConkey, (August 8, 2006) at 2. After review of Cataco's letter, the 
Department issued a letter to Cataco requesting that it resubmit its 
August 3, 2006, letter without the attached submission from Valley 
Fresh. Specifically, the Department noted the reimbursement questions 
from Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire, requested that Cataco provide 
information on its commercial relationships with specific importers, 
not Valley Fresh. Accordingly, the Department continued to find that 
the letter from Valley Fresh was new information and requested that 
Cataco resubmit its August 3, 2006, letter without the letter from 
Valley Fresh by August 11, 2006. The Department did not receive a 
response from Cataco on August 11, 2006.
    Based upon Cataco's refusal to submit a full response to Cataco's 
2\nd\ Questionnaire, the Department finds that Cataco failed to provide 
the information in a timely manner and in the form requested and 
significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(B) and 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Specifically, the Department 
twice granted Cataco the opportunity to submit a full response to 
Cataco's 2nd Questionnaire. Cataco decided not to: (1) submit a 
response to Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire, but rather attempt to 
partially withdraw from this review except with respect to 
reimbursement; and (2) respond to the entirety of Cataco's 2\nd\ 
Questionnaire except regarding those questions on reimbursement. 
Additionally, the Department notes that statements submitted by Cataco 
on reimbursement were incomplete because Cataco did not submit 
information requested on the specific importers, including Cataco's 
Customer B. See Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire, at 22-23. Accordingly, 
the Department finds that Cataco failed to provide a full response to 
Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire in a timely manner. Moreover, the 
Department finds that Cataco has significantly impeded this proceeding 
by picking and choosing the questions that it would respond to from 
Cataco's 2\nd\ Questionnaire. Specifically, antidumping law ``does not 
permit a party to pick and choose information it wishes to present'' to 
the Department. See Brother Industries, Ltd. vs. United States, 771 F. 
Supp. 374, 383 (CIT 1991). Furthermore, the questions that Cataco 
refused to answer, specifically questions regarding reimbursement from 
Customer B and the discrepancies in Cataco's reported sales of ``frozen 
grouper'' and ``frozen seafood,'' needed to be answered in order for 
the Department to calculate a margin for Cataco for these preliminary 
results. Because Cataco refused to submit a full response to Cataco's 
2\nd\ Questionnaire, the application of facts available is warranted, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
    Further, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' 
the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of 
that party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the URAA, 
H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). An adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination in the investigation, any

[[Page 53396]]

previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act.
    For these preliminary results, the Department finds that Cataco has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Specifically, the 
Department finds that Cataco did not respond to the Department's 
request for clarification on certain issues, including its reported 
sales of ``frozen grouper'' and ``frozen seafood'' and whether it 
reimbursed certain importers, as requested in Cataco's 2\nd\ 
Supplemental Questionnaire. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 
337 F. 3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon Steel''). Because 
Cataco refused to answer the entirety of Cataco's 2\nd\ Supplemental 
Questionnaire, the Department finds that Cataco has failed to cooperate 
to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
    As an adverse inference, the Department is assigning to Cataco's 
sales of subject merchandise an individual rate of 80.88 percent, which 
is the highest established rate on the record of this proceeding, and, 
we note, the rate applied to Cataco in the first administrative review. 
See 1\st\ AR FFF Final, 71 FR 14170 at Comments 1 and 2. During the 
course of this administrative review, Cataco was unable to provide 
information regarding the reimbursement agreements, found at the 
verification of the first administrative review, which had no 
expiration date, and were not still in effect during this 
administrative review. Therefore, inclusive in our adverse inference is 
a presumption that Cataco continued to reimburse antidumping duties 
during this POR.
    While it would be consistent with the Department's normal practice 
for Cataco to be subject to the same rate as all other exporters that 
are part of the Vietnam-Wide Entity, because Cataco failed to cooperate 
to the best of its ability and significantly impeded this proceeding, 
and because as AFA, the Department presumes Cataco's agreement to 
reimburse its importer(s) continued throughout this POR, Cataco is 
receiving the individual rate of 80.88 percent. The Department finds 
that, for cash deposit purposes, it must take into account the 
reimbursement provision and assign Cataco an individual rate for future 
entries. Reimbursement, however, is necessarily exporter-importer 
specific, and is treated as a unique adjustment. Moreover, the 
reimbursement adjustment is exogenous to the normal calculation of the 
dumping margin. Therefore, in order to properly account for 
reimbursement, the Department has adjusted Cataco's cash deposit and 
assessment rates, but not applied the adjustment to the rest of the 
Vietnam-Wide Entity. Consequently, the cash deposit rate assigned to 
Cataco for these preliminary results is 80.88 percent. See Cataco 
Analysis Memo.

ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long

    We note, as mentioned in the ``Case History'' section above, the 
Department initiated this administrative review with respect to 29 
companies, including ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long. On 
September 14, 2005, we issued a Q&V questionnaire to all of the 
companies identified in the notice of initiation. See Initiation 
Notice. On February 7, 2006, the Department rescinded, in part, the 
review on 18 of the 29 companies, but noted that 11 companies, 
including ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long, were still subject 
to review. See Partial Rescission and Extension of Preliminary Results. 
Further, each of these companies identified in our notice of rescission 
did not respond to our September 14, 2005, Q&V questionnaire nor did 
these companies respond to the Department's second Q&V questionnaire 
issued to these companies on October 6, 2006. The Department placed 
information on the record confirming the delivery of the first and 
second Q&V questionnaire to each company. See Memorandum to the File, 
through Cindy Robinson, Acting Program Manager, from Julia Hancock, 
Case Analyst, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''): Initial Questionnaires Timeline, 
(September 28, 2005); Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: Certain 
Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(``Vietnam''): 2\nd\ Q&V Questionnaire Timeline, (November 9, 2005).
    Because these four companies were non-responsive to the 
Department's two requests for Q&V information, the Department finds 
that they are not entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, by neither 
responding to the Department's first nor second Q&V questionnaire, each 
company failed to provide critical information to be used for the 
Department's respondent selection process. Therefore, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A)(B) and (C), the Department finds that facts 
available is appropriate. In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, the Department may apply adverse facts available if it finds a 
respondent has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information from the Department. 
By failing to respond to the Department's first and second Q&V 
questionnaire, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long have failed to 
act to the best of their ability in this segment of the proceeding. 
Moreover, because ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long did not 
participate in the respondent selection exercise, the Department did 
not send them a questionnaire and was unable to determine whether or 
not they qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, ANTESCO, Anhaco, 
Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long are not eligible to receive a separate rate 
and will be part of the Vietnam-wide entity, subject to the Vietnam-
wide rate.

Afiex

    Between February and April 2006, the Department issued two 
supplemental questionnaires to Afiex regarding their response to 
section A of the Department's NME questionnaire. On July 7, 2006, the 
Department issued a third supplemental section A questionnaire to 
Afiex. However, on July 28, 2006, Afiex submitted a letter stating that 
it was not submitting a response and was withdrawing from this 
administrative review. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)(B) 
and (C) of the Act, the Department finds that facts available is 
appropriate.
    Because Afiex failed to submit a questionnaire response critical 
data potentially relevant to separate rates remain. Therefore, the 
Department was prevented from conducting a thorough separate rates 
analysis of Afiex's information. Therefore, we find that Afiex has not 
demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate and is thus deemed 
to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. Moreover, Afiex has failed 
to cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, since Afiex both 
significantly impeded the proceeding and failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability, the application of AFA is appropriate, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (b) of the Act.

Navico

    As discussed in the ``Case History'' section above, on January 18, 
2006, the Department sent section A of the Department's NME 
questionnaire to Navico. The deadline for Navico to file a response to 
section A of the NME questionnaire was February 14, 2006, but the 
Department did not receive a response. Between February 16 and 27, 
2006, the Department issued two letters to Navico that it had not 
received a section A response and requested that Navico either submit a 
response or a

[[Page 53397]]

letter stating that it was not going to participate. On March 6, 2006, 
Navico notified the Department via email that it was not going to 
participate and was withdrawing from the administrative review. 
Therefore, we find that facts available are warranted for Navico in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A)(B) and (C).
    Because Navico failed to submit a questionnaire response, critical 
data relevant to separate rates remain. Therefore, the Department was 
prevented from conducting a thorough separate rates analysis of 
Navico's information. Accordingly, we find that Navico has not 
demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate and thus, is deemed 
to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. Moreover, Navico has failed 
to cooperate to best of its ability by withdrawing from this 
administrative review over two months after the Department's 
established deadline, which was January 6, 2006. Because Navico has 
both significantly impeded this proceeding and failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability, the Department finds that the application of 
AFA is appropriate, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(a) and (b) of the 
Act.

Phan Quan

    Between January and March 2006, the Department issued two 
questionnaires to Phan Quan on Section A of the Department's NME 
questionnaire. However, on April 26, 2006, Phan Quan submitted a letter 
stating that it was not submitting a response to the Department's March 
28, 2006, supplemental questionnaire and was withdrawing from this 
administrative review. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)(B) 
and (C) of the Act, the Department finds that facts available is 
appropriate.
    Because Phan Quan failed to submit a questionnaire response, 
critical data potentially relevant to separate rates remain. Therefore, 
the Department was prevented from conducting a thorough separate rates 
analysis of Phan Quan's information. Therefore, we find that Phan Quan 
has not demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate and is thus 
deemed to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. Moreover, Phan Quan 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, since 
Phan Quan both significantly impeded the proceeding and failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability, the application of AFA is 
appropriate, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (b) of the Act.

Vietnam-wide Entity

    Because the Vietnam-wide entity (including Cafatex, Mekonimex, 
Navico, Phan Quan and Afiex) has failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability in providing the requested information, we find it appropriate, 
in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 
776(b), of the Act, to assign total AFA to the Vietnam-wide entity. By 
doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the Vietnam-
wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority, or (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or 
in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) 
of section 782 of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 
782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title. Furthermore, under section 
782(c) of the Act, a Respondent has a responsibility not only to notify 
the Department if it is unable to provide the requested information but 
also to provide a full explanation as to why it cannot provide the 
information and suggest alternative forms in which it is able to submit 
the information. Because these four companies did not establish their 
entitlement to a separate rate and failed to provide requested 
information, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) of the Act, it is appropriate to base the Vietnam-wide margin in 
this review on facts available. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/ Exporters: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 
50184 (August 17, 2000).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as the facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
SAA accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA, information 
derived from the petition, the final determination in the LTFV 
investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record.
    Section 776(b)(4) of the Act permits the Department to use as AFA 
information derived in the LTFV investigation or any prior review. 
Thus, in selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to 
assign Respondents, who fail to cooperate with the Department's 
requests for information, the highest margin determined for any party 
in the LTFV investigation or in any administrative review. See 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan; Preliminary Results and 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 
5789 (February 7, 2002). As AFA, we are assigning the Vietnam-wide 
entity (which includes Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan and Afiex) 
the 66.34 percent which is the rate calculated in this review for QVD 
as this rate now replaces the Vietnam-wide entity rate as the highest 
rate available.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP''), 
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 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or 
more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate 
values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the 
``Normal Value'' Section below.
    As discussed in the ``Separate Rates'' section, the Department 
considers Vietnam to be an NME country. The Department has treated 
Vietnam as an NME country in all previous antidumping proceedings. In 
accordance with 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 parties to this 
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we treated 
Vietnam as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated 
NV, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs in a 
surrogate country.
    The Department determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, 
Indonesia, and Sri Lanka are countries comparable to Vietnam in terms 
of economic development. See Memorandum from

[[Page 53398]]

Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program 
Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Administrative Review 
of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets (``Frozen Fish'') from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, 
(December 16, 2005) (``Surrogate Country List''). We select an 
appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability 
of data from the countries. See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: 
Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004) 
(``Policy Bulletin''). In this case, we have found that Bangladesh is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, is at a similar level 
of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, and has 
publically available and reliable data. See Memorandum to the File, 
through James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Import 
Administration, and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from 
Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: 2\nd\ Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate Country, (August 1, 2006) 
(``Surrogate Country Memo''). Thus, we have selected Bangladesh as the 
primary surrogate country for this administrative review. However, in 
certain instances where Bangladeshi data was not available, we used 
data from Indian or Indonesian sources.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by QVD to the 
United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the company's 
export prices (``EP'') or constructed export prices (``CEP'') to NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

    For QVD's EP sale, we used EP methodology, pursuant to section 
772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser 
was made prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted by 
the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the free-on-board 
(``FOB'') foreign port price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. For this EP sale, we also deducted foreign inland 
freight, foreign cold storage, and international ocean freight from the 
starting price (or gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) 
of the Act.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP 
methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred 
after importation of the merchandise into the United States. We 
calculated CEP for certain U.S. sales made QVD through its U.S. 
affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
    For QVD's CEP sales, we made adjustments to the gross unit price 
for billing adjustments, rebates, foreign inland freight, international 
freight, foreign cold storage, U.S. marine insurance, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. warehousing, U.S. inland insurance, other U.S. 
transportation expenses, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including commissions, credit expenses, advertising expenses, indirect 
selling expenses, inventory carry costs, and U.S. re-packing costs. We 
also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) 
of the Act.
    Where movement expenses were provided by NME-service providers or 
paid for in NME currency, we valued these services using either 
Bangladeshi or Indian surrogate values. See Memorandum to the File, 
through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, 
Case Analyst, Subject: 2\nd\ Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''): 
Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, (August 31, 2006) 
(``Surrogate Value Memo''). Where applicable, we used the actual 
reported expense for those movement expenses provided by market economy 
(``ME'') suppliers and paid for in a ME currency.

Zero-Priced Transactions

    During the course of this review, QVD reported a number of zero-
priced transactions to their U.S. customers. See QVD's Supplemental 
Section C Response, at 8 and Exhibit S-9. An analysis of QVD's section 
C database reveals that QVD made a number of zero-priced transactions 
with customers that had purchased the same merchandise in commercial 
quantities. See QVD's Analysis Memo at Attachment I. In the 2\nd\ 
Review of Tables and Chairs, the Department included zero-priced 
transactions in the margin calculation stating that the record 
demonstrated that: (1) The respondent provided many pieces of the same 
product, indicating that these ``samples'' did not primarily serve for 
evaluation or testing of the merchandise; (2) the respondent provided 
significant numbers of the same product to its U.S. customer while that 
customer was purchasing that same product; (3) the respondent provided 
``samples'' to the same customers to whom it was selling the same 
products in commercial quantities; (4) the respondent acknowledged that 
it gave these products at zero price to its U.S. customers (already 
purchasing the same items) to sell to their own customers. See Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 2905 
(January 18, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 
Comment 4 (``2\nd\ Review of Tables and Chairs'').
    The Federal Circuit has not required the Department to exclude 
zero-priced or de minimis priced sales from its analysis, but rather, 
has defined a sale as requiring ``both a transfer of ownership to an 
unrelated party and consideration.'' See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 
F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The CIT in NSK Ltd. v. United States 
stated that it saw ``little reason in supplying and re-supplying and 
yet re-supplying the same product to the same customer in order to 
solicit sales if the supplies are made in reasonably short periods of 
time,'' and that ``it would be even less logical to supply a sample to 
a client that has made a recent bulk purchase of the very item being 
sampled by the client.'' See NSK Ltd v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 
1291, 1311-1312 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the Courts have consistently 
ruled that the burden rests with a respondent to demonstrate that it 
received no consideration in return for its provision of purported 
samples. See Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 
1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the burden of evidentiary 
production belongs ``to the party in possession of the necessary 
information''). See Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United 
States, 806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (``The burden of creating an 
adequate record lies with respondents and not with {the 
Department{time} .'') (citation omitted). Moreover, ``{e{time} ven 
where the Department does not ask a respondent for specific information 
that would enable it to make an exclusion determination in the 
respondent's favor, the respondent has the burden of proof to present 
the information in the first place with its request for exclusion.'' 
See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: 
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

[[Page 53399]]

Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8 
(citing NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United States, 997 F. 2d 1453, 
1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
    An analysis of QVD's section C computer sales listings reveals that 
QVD provided zero-priced merchandise to the same customers to whom it 
was selling or had sold the same products in commercial quantities, 
with the exception of a few of QVD's customers, who did not make any 
purchases of subject merchandise during the POR. See QVD Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I. Consequently, based on the facts 
cited above, the guidance of past CIT decisions, and consistent with 
the Department's prior case precedent, for the preliminary results of 
this review, we have not excluded zero-priced transactions from the 
margin calculation of this case for QVD, with the exception of certain 
sales that QVD made to new customers that did not purchase any subject 
merchandise during the POR.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the 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. Because 
information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using 
home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value and no 
party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by 
QVD, pursuant to sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.408(c).
    As the basis for NV, QVD provided FOPs used in each of the stages 
for processing frozen fish fillets. However, QVD also reported that it 
is an integrated producer, (i.e., it farms and processes the whole fish 
input), but that its affiliated farming facility, Choi Moi, did not 
supply the majority of the whole fish used during the production of the 
subject merchandise. See QVD's Section D Questionnaire Response, (March 
8, 2006) at 3. In response to a supplemental questionnaire, QVD also 
provided factors of production information used in each of the 
production stages, from the fingerling stage to the frozen fish fillet 
processing stage, separately. Although QVD reported the inputs used to 
produce the main input to the processing stage (whole fish), for the 
purposes of these preliminary results, we are not valuing those inputs 
when calculating NV. Rather, our NV calculation begins with a valuation 
of the fish input (whole fish) used to produce the merchandise under 
investigation.
    Our general policy, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act, is to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to produce the subject 
merchandise. If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take 
into account the factors utilized in each stage of the production 
process. For example, in a previous aquaculture case, Shrimp from PRC 
Final, one of the respondents, Zhanjiang Guolian, was a fully 
integrated firm, and the Department valued both the farming and 
processing FOPs because Zhanjiang Guolian bore all the costs related to 
growing the shrimp. See Notice of Final Determination at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9(e) (``Shrimp from PRC 
Final'').
    Unlike Zhanjiang Guolian in Shrimp from the PRC Final, QVD is not a 
fully integrated firm. Although QVD is affiliated with Choi Moi, QVD 
purchased the whole fish input from Choi Moi. Accordingly, QVD did not 
bear all the costs related to growing the fish input. Therefore, we 
will apply a surrogate value to the whole fish input that QVD purchased 
from Choi Moi, rather than valuing the factors of production incurred 
by Choi Moi in calculating QVD's NV.
    To calculate NV, QVD's reported per-unit factor quantities were 
valued using publicly available Bangladeshi, Indian, and Indonesian 
surrogate values. In selecting surrogate values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the available values. As 
appropriate, we adjusted the value of material inputs to account for 
delivery costs. Specifically, we added surrogate freight costs to 
surrogate values using the reported distances from the Vietnam port to 
the Vietnam factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory, 
where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC'') in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
    For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for 
inflation using data published in the International Monetary Fund 
(``IMF'')'s International Financial Statistics. We excluded from the 
surrogate country import data used in our calculations imports from 
South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and India due to generally available 
export subsidies. See China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United 
States, CIT 01-1114, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. 
Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries and imports that 
were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were 
excluded from the average value. The Department excluded these imports 
because it could not ascertain whether they were not from either an NME 
country or a country with general export subsidies. Finally, we also 
disregarded prices from North Korea, as the Department has in a 
previous case. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's 
Republic of China, 61 FR 58514 (November 15, 1996). We converted the 
surrogate values to U.S. dollars as appropriate, using the official 
exchange rate recorded on the dates of sale of subject merchandise in 
this case, obtained from Import Administration's website at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. For further detail, see 
Surrogate Values Memo.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily find that the following 
margins exist for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cataco..............................................               80.88
QVD.................................................               66.34
Vietnam-wide Rate\10\...............................               66.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Vietnam-wide rate includes Mekonimex, Cafatex, Afiex, Navico,
  Phan Quan, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh and Vinh Long.

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within ten 
days of the date of announcement of the preliminary results. An 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may 
submit written comments (case briefs) within 20 days of

[[Page 53400]]

publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal 
briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, 
within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of 
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the 
public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue 
the final results of this administrative review, including the results 
of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, 
within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on 
the final results of this review.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all 
appropriate entries. For QVD, the only respondent receiving a 
calculated rate in this review, we will calculate importer-specific 
duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
volume of the examined sales for that importer. For Cataco, to ensure 
proper assessment, the Department has adjusted the total volume of the 
examined sales for Cataco as outlined in the Cataco Analysis Memo. 
Where the assessment rate is de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise 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 the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed Vietnam and non-Vietnam exporters not listed 
above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to 
be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) 
for all Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not been 
found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be 
the Vietnam-wide rate of 66.34 percent, which was calculated in this 
review for QVD; and (4) for all non-Vietnam exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnam exporters that supplied 
that non-Vietnam exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this POR. 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-15003 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S