[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52055-52061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-840]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:  Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 
India. This review covers 70 producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is August 
4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. We are rescinding the review with 
respect to four companies because these companies had no reportable 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final 
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average 
dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section 
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-3874.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This review covers 70 producers/exporters.\1\ The respondents which 
the Department selected for individual review are Devi Marine Food 
Exports Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private 
Limited, Premier Marine Products, Kader Exports Private Limited, 
Universal Cold Storage Private Limited, and Liberty Frozen Foods 
Private Limited (collectively, ``the Liberty Group''); Falcon Marine 
Exports Limited (Falcon); and Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL). The 
respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in 
the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is rescinding the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on shrimp from India. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 10658 (March 9, 2007) (Preliminary 
Results).
    In April 2007, we received a certification of accuracy from a 
company official employed at Kadalkanny Frozen Foods (Kadalkanny) 
related to Kadalkanny's April 28, 2006, quantity and value (Q&V) 
questionnaire response. Because Kadalkanny provided an adequate 
explanation as to why the Department did not receive this in a timely 
manner, we accepted it as a one-time exception. For further discussion, 
see the ``Facts Available'' section of this notice, below.
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review, 
as well as on the additional information noted above. In April and May 
2007, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner (i.e., 
the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee) and the respondents (i.e., 
Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group).
    On May 29, 2007, we held a hearing at the request of Falcon, HLL, 
and the Liberty Group.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised 
(produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, 
tail-on or tail-off,\2\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes 
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed 
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in 
any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but 
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), 
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp 
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern 
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp 
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white 
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 
indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food 
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than 
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope 
of this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS

[[Page 52056]]

subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in 
the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in 
any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or 
peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp 
and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried 
shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and 8) certain 
battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is 
produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to 
which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 
purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh 
thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp 
content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of 
the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being 
frozen; and 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after 
application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 
product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting 
above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, 
and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006.

Partial Rescission of Review

    Four of the companies that responded to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject 
merchandise into the United States during the POR. These companies are 
Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd., Innovative Foods Limited, Sharat 
Industries Limited, and Triveni Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. However, based on 
information obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it 
appeared that these companies did, in fact, have shipments or entries 
of subject merchandise entered into the United States during the POR. 
As a result, we requested that each of these companies explain the 
entries in question.
    In response to the Department's solicitation, the companies 
demonstrated that the entries at issue were not reportable transactions 
because they were either: 1) a non-paid sample; or 2) reported by 
another company in its Q&V response based on knowledge of destination. 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with 
the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to 
Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd., Innovative Foods Limited, Sharat 
Industries Limited, and Triveni Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. See, e.g., Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To 
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005) (where we rescinded 
the administrative review for companies that demonstrated they had no 
shipments during the POR).

Successor-in-Interest

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, in April 2006, one of the 
producers/exporters named in the notice of initiation, Coastal 
Corporation Ltd. (Coastal Corp.), informed the Department that, prior 
to the POR, it operated under the name Coastal Trawlers Limited 
(Coastal Trawlers). Based on Coastal Corp.'s submission addressing the 
four factors with respect to this change in corporate structure (i.e., 
management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier 
relationships, and customer base),\3\ in the preliminary results we 
preliminarily found that Coastal Corp.'s organizational structure, 
management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and 
customers have remained essentially unchanged. Further, we found that 
Coastal Corp. operates as the same business entity as Coastal Trawlers 
with respect to the production and sale of shrimp. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determined that Coastal Corp. was the successor-in-
interest to Coastal Trawlers. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10660-
61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood 
Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 50299, 50300-01 (Aug. 26, 2005) 
(setting forth the four factors to be considered for successorship 
determinations), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products 
from Canada, 70 FR 54721 (Oct. 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the preliminary results, we requested additional information 
from Coastal Corp. to substantiate its assertions regarding the four 
factors. Although Coastal Corp. did respond to the Department's 
requests for further information, this response was neither properly 
filed nor accompanied by a public version, as required by 19 CFR 
351.304(c). Thus, we are unable to consider this information for 
purposes of the final results. As a result, we find that there is 
insufficient evidence on the record to support our preliminary finding 
that Coastal Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Trawlers, 
and thus we have treated these companies as separate entities for 
purposes of this administrative review. Because the companies responded 
to the Department's request for Q&V data in this review, we have 
assigned both Coastal Corp. and Coastal Trawlers the review-specific 
average rate as separate entities.

Facts Available

    In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was 
appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following 
producer/exporters: Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby 
Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products 
Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & 
R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, 
Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil 
Exports, Premier Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav Sea Foods 
(Vaibhav). See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10661-62.
    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department; 3) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot 
be verified.
    In April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject 
to review respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire for purposes of 
mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a 
response was April 28, 2006. Because numerous companies did not respond 
to this initial request for information, in May 2006 the Department 
issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity 
to submit a response to the Department's Q&V

[[Page 52057]]

questionnaire. However, the following companies failed to respond to 
the Department's second request for Q&V data: Amison Foods Ltd., Amison 
Seafoods Ltd., Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & 
Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Lotus Sea 
Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier 
Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav. On February 6, 2007, the 
Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of 
the questionnaires to each of these companies. See the Memorandum to 
the File from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, ``Placing Delivery 
Information on the Record of the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,'' 
dated February 6, 2007. By failing to respond to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and 
significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because these companies did not 
respond to the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily 
found that the use of total facts available was warranted.
    Furthermore, three additional companies (i.e., Baby Marine 
(Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products) 
claimed that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. Because we were unable to confirm the 
accuracy of their claims with CBP, we requested further information/
clarification from these exporters. However, these companies failed to 
provide the requested information.
    By failing to respond to the Department's requests, these companies 
withheld requested information and significantly impeded the 
proceeding. Therefore, as in the preliminary results, the Department 
finds that the use of total facts available for Amison Foods Ltd., 
Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine 
Exports, and Baby Marine Products, Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), 
Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports 
Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro 
Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, and R F. Exports is 
appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. See 
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10661-62.
    However, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the 
margin for Vaibhav on total facts available. In the preliminary 
results, we assigned Vaibhav a margin based on total facts available 
because the company did not respond to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire. In its case brief, Vaibhav provided information 
documenting that it did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire because 
the company never received it. In fact, Vaibhav demonstrated that it 
ceased operations before the date on which Federal Express delivered 
the Q&V questionnaire to it. Because we find that Vaibhav has 
demonstrated that its failure to respond to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire was due to circumstances beyond its control, we are 
reversing our preliminary decision to base the margin for Vaibhav on 
total facts available. Thus, we are now assigning Vaibhav the review-
specific average rate. For further discussion, see the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (the Decision Memo) at Comment 10.
    Finally, we are also reversing our preliminary decision to base the 
margin for Kadalkanny on total facts available. In the preliminary 
results, we assigned Kadalkanny a margin based on total facts available 
because the company failed to properly file its Q&V questionnaire 
response when it did not submit a company official certification either 
with its submission or in response to the Department's subsequent 
request that it do so. On April 10, 2007, we received the certification 
of accuracy Kadalkanny related to Kadalkanny's April 28, 2006, Q&V 
questionnaire response. In this submission, Kadalkanny informed the 
Department that it intended to send the required certification of 
accuracy via Federal Express, where it could be tracked; however, a 
company employee instead inadvertently sent the document via Indian 
first-class mail and thus Kadalkanny was unaware that the Department 
had not received its certification until the preliminary results. 
Because we find Kadalkanny's explanation adequate, we accepted 
Kadalkanny's submission pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b). Thus, we now 
have a copy of Kadalkanny's certification of accuracy on the record of 
this administrative review and we are reversing our preliminary 
decision to base the margin for Kadalkanny on total facts available. 
Consequently, we are now assigning Kadalkanny the review-specific 
average rate.

Adverse Facts Available

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 
54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 
FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). 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 accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997). See also, Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 
337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find that Amison 
Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby 
Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products Cherukattu Industries (Marine 
Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea 
Exports Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & 
Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, and R F. Exports did not 
act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the 
meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to 
the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse 
inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. See 
Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final 
determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any 
other information placed on the record.
    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among 
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); see also 
Notice

[[Page 52058]]

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 
1998).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 82.30 percent, which was 
the lowest rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation 
of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, to Amison Foods Ltd., 
Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine 
Exports, and Baby Marine Products Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), 
Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports 
Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro 
Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, and R F. Exports.\4\ The 
Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate 
the purpose of the AFA rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high 
enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding 
in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We note that we were unable to corroborate the other margins 
alleged in the petition, and thus we were unable to consider them as 
acceptable sources of facts available information. For further 
discussion, see Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results, we continue to 
find that the information upon which this margin is based has probative 
value and thus satisfies the corroboration requirements of section 
776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10662-63. See also 
the September 5, 2007, memorandum from Nichole Zink to the file 
entitled, ``Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Final 
Results in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.''

Collapsing the Liberty Group and Liberty Oil Mills Limited (LOML)

    The Liberty Group has an affiliate, LOML, which exported some of 
the shrimp produced by the Liberty Group during the POR. In its August 
9, 2006, section A response, as well as its February 15, 2007, response 
and at verification, the Liberty Group provided information regarding 
the relationship between these entities during the POR. After an 
analysis of this information, we preliminarily determined that, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these 
entities for purposes of this review because: 1) certain of the 
directors of LOML are also directors of Liberty Group companies, and 
the family which owns the Liberty Group owns a majority of the shares 
in LOML; 2) LOML exported shrimp produced by the Liberty Group to the 
United States during the POR; and 3) the operations of LOML and the 
Liberty Group are intertwined. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Thus, in our 
preliminary results, we found that there is significant potential for 
manipulation of price if LOML does not receive the same antidumping 
duty rate as the Liberty Group. For further discussion, see the 
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10661.
    Since the preliminary results, no party to this proceeding has 
commented on this issue and we have found no additional information 
that would compel us to reverse our preliminary finding. Thus, we 
continue to find that it is appropriate to collapse these entities for 
purposes of this review.

Cost of Production/Constructed Value (CV)

    As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group 
made third country sales of the foreign like product during the POR at 
prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act. For these final results, we performed the 
cost test following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results, 
except as discussed in the Decision Memo.
    We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given 
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the 
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these 
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
    Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that 
Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group made below-cost sales not in the 
ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for 
each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining normal value (NV) pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    Based on the results of the cost test for Falcon and in accordance 
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we are now basing NV on CV for 
certain products when we were unable to compare Falcon's U.S. sales to 
a comparison market sale of an identical or similar product. In 
calculating CV, we relied on the data reported by Falcon, adjusted as 
described in the Preliminary Results and the Decision Memo. We 
calculated a weighted-average CV based on the sum of the Falcon's 
materials and fabrication costs, selling, general, and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, including interest expenses, packing costs, and 
profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 
SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Falcon 
in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, 
in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison 
market. We based selling expenses on weighted-average actual comparison 
market direct and indirect selling expenses.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale 
in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 
comparisons to export price, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments 
by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market 
sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in 
the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which 
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed 
in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006:

[[Page 52059]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter              Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon Marine Exports Limited.............                          4.39
Hindustan Lever Limited...................                         18.83
The Liberty Group (Devi Marine Food                                 4.03
 Exports Private Limited,.................
Kader Investment and Trading Company
 Private Limited,.........................
Premier Marine Products, Kader Exports
 Private Limited,.........................
Universal Cold Storage Private Limited,
 Liberty Frozen...........................
Foods Private Limited) and Liberty Oil
 Mills Limited............................
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to
 the Following Companies:\5\ .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated
  for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de
  minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanasons Ltd............................                          7.22
Amalgam Foods & Beverages Limited.........                          7.22
Amulya Seafoods...........................                          7.22
Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited.........                          7.22
Baby Marine International.................                          7.22
Baraka Overseas Traders...................                          7.22
Bhatsons Aquatic Products.................                          7.22
Calcutta Seafoods.........................                          7.22
Castlerock Fisheries Ltd..................                          7.22
Coastal Corporation Ltd...................                          7.22
Coastal Trawlers Ltd......................                          7.22
Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd.......                          7.22
Coreline Exports..........................                          7.22
Gajula Exim P Ltd.........................                          7.22
Haripriya Marine Food Exports.............                          7.22
IFB Agro Industries Ltd. (Aquatic & Marine                          7.22
 Products Div.)...........................
ITC Ltd...................................                          7.22
K R M Marine Exports Ltd..................                          7.22
Kadalkanny Frozen Foods...................                          7.22
Kalyanee Marine...........................                          7.22
Kings Marine Products.....................                          7.22
Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd........                          7.22
MSC Marine Exporters......................                          7.22
Magnum Estate Private Limited.............                          7.22
Magnum Exports............................                          7.22
Magnum Seafoods Pvt. Ltd..................                          7.22
Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd........                          7.22
Mangala Sea Products......................                          7.22
N.G.R Aqua International..................                          7.22
Navayuga Exports Ltd......................                          7.22
Nila Seafoods Pvt. Ltd....................                          7.22
Penver Products (P) Ltd...................                          7.22
Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd......................                          7.22
Raju Exports..............................                          7.22
Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd...........                          7.22
Saanthi Seafoods Ltd......................                          7.22
Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd.................                          7.22
Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd.....                          7.22
Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd..........                          7.22
Sun-Bio Techonology Limited...............                          7.22
Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited.....                          7.22
Survarna Rekha Marines P Ltd..............                          7.22
Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd...............                          7.22
Vaibhav Sea Foods.........................                          7.22
Veejay Impex..............................                          7.22
Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd........                          7.22
AFA Rate Applicable to the Following
 Companies:...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amison Foods Ltd..........................                         82.30
Amison Seafoods Ltd.......................                         82.30
Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports.............                         82.30
Baby Marine Exports.......................                         82.30
Baby Marine Products......................                         82.30
Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div)........                         82.30
Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd.............                         82.30
HA & R Enterprises........................                         82.30
InterSea Exports Corporation..............                         82.30
Lotus Sea Farms...........................                         82.30

[[Page 52060]]

 
National Steel............................                         82.30
National Steel & Agro Ind.................                         82.30
Nsil Exports..............................                         82.30
Premier Marine Foods......................                         82.30
R F. Exports..............................                         82.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty 
Group, because these companies reported the entered value for some of 
their U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
the sales which entered value was reported. For Falcon, HLL, and the 
Liberty Group's U.S. sales reported without entered values, we have 
calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by 
aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those 
sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, 
in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), 
we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the 
estimated entered value.
    For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual 
review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted 
average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected 
for individual review excluding any which are de minimis or determined 
entirely on AFA.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for 
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was 
destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to 
POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we 
are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, 
because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of 
subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. 
In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries 
at the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation if there 
is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the 
transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of shrimp from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less 
than 0.50 percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 2) for previously 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer 
of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.17 percent, the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 
FR 5147, 5148 (Feb. 1, 2005). These deposit requirements shall remain 
in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final 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 review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 5, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results

Company-Specific Issues

3. Calculation of the Weighted-Average Payment Date for One of Falcon's 
U.S. Sales
4. Reallocation of Falcon's Costs for Cultivating Shrimp
5. Calculation of Per-Unit Packaging Costs for Falcon
6. Calculation of HLL's General and Administrative Expense Ratio
7. Calculation of HLL's Net Interest Expense Ratio
8. Valuing the Cold Storage Services Provided to the Liberty Group by 
Liberty Cold Storage Private Limited
9. Collapsing of all Liberty Group Entities for Purposes of Calculating 
the Group's Interest Expense Ratio
10. Whether to Based the Final Margin for Vaibhav on AFA
11. Whether to Base the Final Margin for National Steel and Agro 
Industries Ltd.

[[Page 52061]]

and NSIL Exports Limited of India on AFA
12. Whether to Assess at the Antidumping Rate of the Producer Where a 
Producer Sells through an Exporter
[FR Doc. E7-18006 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S