[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50933-50939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20165]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-822]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results and 
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2008, 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 
Thailand. This review covers 45 \1\ producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is 
February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. We are rescinding the 
review with respect to

[[Page 50934]]

three companies because these companies had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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: August 29, 2008.

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 45 producers/exporters.\2\ The respondents which 
the Department selected for individual examination are Andaman Seafood 
Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (CFF), Chanthaburi 
Seafoods Co., Ltd., Euro-Asian International Seafoods Co., Ltd., 
Intersia Foods Co., Ltd. (Intersia Foods) (formerly Y2K Frozen Foods 
Co., Ltd. (Y2K Frozen Foods)), Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd., Phattana 
Frozen Food Co., Ltd., S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Seawealth 
Frozen Food Co., Ltd., Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd., 
Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd., and Wales & Co. Universe Limited 
(collectively ``the Rubicon Group''); Pakfood Public Company Limited 
and its affiliated subsidiaries, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company 
Limited, Chaophraya Cold Storage Company Limited, Okeanos Company 
Limited, and Takzin Samut Company Limited (collectively ``Pakfood''); 
Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I-Mei); and Thai Union Frozen 
Products Public Co., Ltd. (TUF), Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. (TUS) 
(collectively ``Thai Union''). The respondents which were not selected 
for individual examination are listed in the ``Final Results of 
Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is rescinding the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on shrimp from Thailand. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12089 (Mar. 6, 2008) 
(Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results. In April 
2008, we received case briefs from the petitioner (i.e., the Ad Hoc 
Shrimp Trade Action Committee), the Louisiana Shrimp Association (LSA), 
Pakfood, the Rubicon Group, Thai I-Mei, and Thai Union. Also in April 
2008, we received rebuttal briefs from each of these parties except the 
LSA. We also received comments on the preliminary results from the 
following interested parties: Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., 
Ltd., Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand), Ltd., The Siam Union Frozen 
Foods Co., Ltd., Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd., The Union Frozen 
Products Co., Ltd., Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd., Kingfisher 
Holdings Ltd., Transamut Food Co., Ltd., Seafresh Industry Public Co., 
Ltd., and Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd. The Department convened a 
hearing in this review on June 18, 2008.
    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, \3\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``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 
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 February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007.

[[Page 50935]]

Partial Rescission of Review

    In February 2007, the Department received timely requests, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), from the petitioner and the LSA 
to conduct a review of Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd. (Lucky Union), 
Songkla Canning PCL (Songkla), and Thai Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(Thai Union Manufacturing), which are affiliated with Thai Union, a 
respondent in this review. The Department initiated a review of these 
three companies and requested that they supply data on the quantity and 
value of their exports of shrimp during the POR. On April 23, 2007, 
Thai Union submitted a response to the Department's quantity and value 
(Q&V) questionnaire, in which it indicated that only two of its 
companies, TUF and TUS, exported subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR, while Lucky Union, Songkla, and Thai Union 
Manufacturing did not produce or export frozen shrimp to the United 
States during the POR. We confirmed this information at Thai Union's 
sales verification. See Memorandum to the File from Irina Itkin and 
Brianne Riker entitled, ``Verification of the Sales Response of Thai 
Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. in 
the Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Thailand'' (``Thai Union Verification Report''), dated 
February 13, 2008, at 3 and 10. Therefore, because Lucky Union, 
Songkla, and Thai Union Manufacturing had no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we 
are rescinding our review with respect to them. See, e.g., Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52065, 
52067 (Sept. 12, 2007) (04-06 Thai Shrimp Final Results); 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).

Successor-in-Interest

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, in April 2007 the Rubicon 
Group informed the Department that its affiliated producer Y2K Frozen 
Foods is now doing business under the name Intersia Foods. Based on the 
Rubicon Group's submissions 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),\4\ in the preliminary results we found that this 
company's organizational structure, management, production facilities, 
supplier relationships, and customers have remained essentially 
unchanged. Further, we found that Intersia Foods operates as the same 
business entity as Y2K Frozen Foods with respect to the production and 
sale of shrimp. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that Intersia 
Foods is the successor-in-interest to Y2K Frozen Foods. See Preliminary 
Results, 73 FR at 12090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 59721 (Oct. 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the preliminary results, no party to this proceeding has 
commented on this issue, and we have received no new information with 
respect to this issue. As a result, we continue to find that Intersia 
Foods is the successor-in-interest to Y2K Frozen Foods.

Application of Weighted-Average Margin to I.T. Foods

    In its April 24, 2007, response to the Q&V questionnaire, I.T. 
Foods claimed that it had no shipments or entries of subject 
merchandise into the United States during the POR. However, when we 
attempted to confirm this claim with data obtained from CBP, we found 
that there were entries of merchandise into the United States produced 
and/or exported by I.T. Foods that appeared to be within the scope of 
the antidumping duty order. See Memorandum to the File from Brianne 
Riker entitled, ``2006-2007 Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Entry Documents from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection,'' dated June 12, 2007. Therefore, on July 16, 2007, 
we requested information from I.T. Foods to explain this discrepancy.
    On August 16, 2007, I.T. Foods provided information to the 
Department indicating that it did, in fact, have reportable 
transactions of subject merchandise during the POR of ``tiny shrimp.''
    See Letter to the Department from I.T. Foods, dated August 16, 
2007. Therefore, we did not rescind the administrative review with 
respect to this company and are assigning to it the weighted-average 
margin calculated for the companies selected for individual examination 
because, based on its response: (1) The discrepancy between the Q&V 
questionnaire response and the CBP data appeared to be an inadvertent 
oversight; (2) the quantity of the exports in question was so small 
that it would not have had an impact on our selection of respondents; 
and (3) the company has been responsive to our requests for 
information. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on I.T. 
Foods' entries of subject merchandise at the weighted-average rate.
    In addition, based on the information provided by I.T. Foods, we 
also have determined certain other merchandise produced/exported by 
I.T. Foods (i.e., ``shrimp balls'') that entered the United States 
during the POR is not subject to the scope of the order because the 
shrimp content of this product is limited to shrimp flavoring. See 
Letter to the Department from I.T. Foods, dated August 16, 2007. 
Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate I.T. Foods' entries of 
non-subject merchandise (i.e., ``shrimp balls'') without regard to 
antidumping duty liability.

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 certain producer/
exporters. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 12091-92. 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.

A. Companies That Failed To Respond to the Q&V Questionnaire

    In April 2007, the Department requested that all companies subject 
to the review respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire for 
purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to 
file a response was April 23, 2007. Of the 142 companies subject to 
this review, 60 companies did not respond to the Department's initial 
request for information. Subsequently in May and June 2007, the 
Department issued two letters to these companies affording them 
additional opportunities to submit a response to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire.

[[Page 50936]]

However, 12 of these companies also failed to respond to the 
Department's additional Q&V questionnaires.\5\ On July 19, 2007, the 
Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of 
the questionnaires to each company. See Memorandum to the File from 
Brianne Riker entitled, ``Placing Delivery Information on the Record of 
the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,'' dated July 19, 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 is 
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These companies are: Applied DB; Chonburi LC; Haitai Seafood 
Co., Ltd. (Haitai); High Way International Co., Ltd. (High Way 
International); Merkur Co., Ltd. (Merkur); Ming Chao Ind Thailand 
(Ming Chao); Nongmon SMJ Products (Nongmon); SCT Co., Ltd. (SCT); 
Search and Serve; Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd. (located at 159 
Surawong Road, Suriyawong, Bangrak, Bangkok 10500 Thailand) 
(Shainlin Bangkok); Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Star Frozen Foods); 
and Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd. (Wann Fisheries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By failing to respond to the Department's requests, the above-
mentioned 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 Applied DB, 
Chonburi LC, Haitai, High Way International, Merkur, Ming Chao, 
Nongmon, SCT, Search and Serve, Shianlin Bangkok, Star Frozen Foods, 
and Wann Fisheries is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(C) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 12091-92.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sep. 13, 2005); 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, at 870 (1994) (SAA), 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. 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, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find that Applied DB, 
Chonburi LC, Haitai, High Way International, Merkur, Ming Chao, 
Nongmon, SCT, Search and Serve, Shianlin Bangkok, Star Frozen Foods, 
and Wann Fisheries 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 and 
provide timely information. Therefore, an adverse inference is 
warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect 
to these companies. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
adverse facts available (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.'' 
See, e.g., 04-06 Thai Shrimp Final Results; Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 
(Nov. 7, 2006).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 57.64 percent, which is 
the highest rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation 
of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, to the non-responsive 
companies (i.e., Applied DB, Chonburi LC, Haitai, High Way 
International, Merkur, Ming Chao, Nongmon, SCT, Search and Serve, 
Shianlin Bangkok, Star Frozen Foods, and Wann Fisheries). See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the 
People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 
3876, 3881 (Jan. 27, 2004). The Department believes that this rate is 
sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available 
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).
    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, 73 FR at 12092. See also 
Memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the File, entitled 
``Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Final 
Preliminary Results in the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,'' dated August 
25, 2008. We note that the company-specific margins calculated for the 
final results continue to corroborate this margin.

B. Thai Union

    We preliminarily determined that it was appropriate to use facts 
available for certain of Thai Union's U.S. sales transactions which had 
not been reported in the U.S. sales listing: (1) Certain export price 
(EP) transactions and constructed export price (CEP) sales made from 
inventory; and (2) certain direct CEP transactions which were sold 
during the POR, but did not enter until after the POR. With respect to 
the sales described in (1) above, for purposes of the final results, we 
have continued to base the margin for these unreported sales on facts 
available because the information necessary to calculate a final 
dumping margin for these U.S. sales is not on the record of this 
review. With respect to certain direct CEP sales, as described in (2) 
above, we note that the Department's instructions in the original 
questionnaire differed from those issued in supplemental questionnaires 
with respect to a key reporting requirement, the universe of sales. 
Because these instructions appear to have confused the respondent, we 
have determined to rely on the direct CEP sales listing as submitted by 
Thai Union for purposes of these final results. Thus, application of 
facts available with respect to certain direct CEP sales is neither 
necessary nor warranted.
    Regarding the unreported EP and CEP inventory sales, in the 
preliminary results, we determined the facts

[[Page 50937]]

available margin using adverse inferences because we found that Thai 
Union failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this review, 
within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. After considering the 
arguments raised by the parties on this issue, we are reversing our 
preliminary decision to base the margin for these unreported sales on 
AFA because: (1) the total value of the unreported sales is small; and 
(2) the Department was satisfied at verification that the universe of 
unreported sales was limited to those examined. As a result, we are now 
basing the final dumping margin for the remaining unreported sales upon 
facts available with no adverse inference. As facts available, we have 
used the weighted-average margin calculated for reported sales. For 
further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision 
Memo) accompanying this notice at Comments 13 and 14.

Duty Absorption

    In the preliminary results, we found that antidumping duties have 
been absorbed by the Rubicon Group, Thai I-Mei, and Thai Union on all 
U.S. sales made through their affiliated importers of record. For the 
percentage of such sales, see Memoranda to the File from Kate Johnson 
and Rebecca Trainor entitled ``Second Administrative Review of Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results Margin 
Calculation for the Rubicon Group,'' dated February, 28, 2008, at 
Attachment 2; ``2006-2007 Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results Margin Calculation 
for Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd'' at Attachment 1; and Memorandum 
to the File from Brianne Riker, entitled ``Calculations Performed for 
Thai Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. for 
the Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
Thailand,'' dated February, 28, 2008, at Attachment 2. We have not 
received any further information regarding this issue for the final 
results. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to find that 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by the Rubicon Group, Thai I-Mei, 
and Thai Union on all U.S. sales made through their affiliated 
importers of record.
    With respect to Pakfood, it did not sell subject merchandise in the 
United States through an affiliated importer. Therefore, it is not 
appropriate to make a duty-absorption determination in this segment of 
the proceeding within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act. See 
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024, 1033 (Fed. 
Cir. 2007).

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether Pakfood, the Rubicon Group, and Thai 
Union made comparison market sales of the foreign like product during 
the POR at prices below their costs of production (COPs) within the 
meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for 
these final results following the same methodology as in the 
Preliminary Results.
    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 
Pakfood, Rubicon, and Thai Union 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 pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

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 1117, 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/ 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 percentage margins 
exist for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand)              2.44
 Company Limited/Chaophraya Cold Storage/Okeanos Company
 Limited/Takzin Samut Company Limited......................
Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd./Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd./        3.77
 Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd./Euro-Asian International
 Seafoods Co., Ltd./Intersia Foods Co., Ltd./Phattana
 Seafood Co., Ltd./Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd./S.C.C.
 Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd./Seawealth Frozen Food Co. Ltd./
 Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd./Thai
 International Seafoods Co., Ltd./Wales & Co. Universe
 Limited...................................................
Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd...........................         3.09
Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union              2.85
 Seafood Co., Ltd..........................................
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following
 Companies: \6\
    Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Company Limited/Asian         3.18
     Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Ltd./STC
     Foodpak Limited.......................................
    Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited/CP                3.18
     Merchandising Co., Ltd./Klang Co., Ltd./Seafoods
     Enterprise Co., Ltd./Thai Prawn Culture Center Co.,
     Ltd...................................................
    Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd..........................         3.18
    CY Frozen Co., Ltd.....................................         3.18
    Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd...............         3.18
    Good Fortune Cold Storage Ltd..........................         3.18
    Good Luck Product Co., Ltd.............................         3.18
    Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd.................         3.18

[[Page 50938]]

 
    I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd.........................         3.18
    Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Company          3.18
     Limited...............................................
    Kingfisher Holdings Limited/KF Foods Limited...........         3.18
    Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd..............         3.18
    Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.........................         3.18
    Marine Gold Products Ltd...............................         3.18
    May Ao Co., Ltd./May Ao Foods Co., Ltd.................         3.18
    Narong Seafood Co., Ltd................................         3.18
    Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Thai-ger Marine Co., Ltd         3.18
    S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd...........................         3.18
    Seafresh Industry Public Company Limited/Seafresh               3.18
     Fisheries.............................................
    Siam Intersea Co., Ltd.................................         3.18
    SMP Food Product Co., Ltd..............................         3.18
    Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd./Surat Seafoods Co., Ltd.         3.18
    Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Chaiwarut Co., Ltd.....         3.18
    Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd........................         3.18
    The Siam Union Frozen Foods Co., Ltd./Kosamut Frozen            3.18
     Foods Co., Ltd........................................
    The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd./Bright Sea Co., Ltd         3.18
    Transamut Food Co., Ltd................................         3.18
    Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd.............................         3.18
    Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd...........................         3.18
AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:
    Applied DB.............................................        57.64
    Chonburi LC............................................        57.64
    Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd................................        57.64
    High Way International Co., Ltd........................        57.64
    Merkur Co., Ltd........................................        57.64
    Ming Chao Ind Thailand.................................        57.64
    Nongmon SMJ Products...................................        57.64
    SCT Co., Ltd...........................................        57.64
    Search and Serve.......................................        57.64
    Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd. (located at 159 Surawong            57.64
     Road, Suriyawong, Bangrak, Bangkok 10500 Thailand)....
    Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.............................        57.64
    Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd................................        57.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department \6\intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
these final results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins 
calculated for those companies selected for individual examination, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), for all of Thai I-Mei's U.S. sales, as well as for 
certain of Pakfood's, the Rubicon Group's, and Thai Union's U.S. sales, 
because these companies reported the entered value, 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 for which entered value 
was reported. For Pakfood's, the Rubicon Group's, and Thai Union's U.S. 
sales without reported 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 
examination, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the 
weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies 
selected for individual examination 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 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 Thailand 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

[[Page 50939]]

companies will be the rates shown above; (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 5.95 percent, the 
``all-others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. 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: August 25, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Offsets for Negative Margins
2. Classification of U.S. Warehousing Expenses as Movement or 
Selling Expenses

Company-Specific Issues

3. U.S. Sales for which Pakfood Public Company Ltd. (Pakfood) Did 
Not Report Entered Value
4. Universe of U.S. Sales for Pakfood
5. CEP Offset for Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Frozen Food 
Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd., Euro-Asian International 
Seafoods Co., Ltd., Intersia Foods Co., Ltd., Phattana Seafood Co., 
Ltd., Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd., S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., 
Ltd., Seawealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd., Thailand Fishery Cold Storage 
Public Co., Ltd., Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd., and Wales & 
Co. Universe Limited (collectively ``the Rubicon Group'')
6. Certain Selling Expenses for the Rubicon Group
7. Certain Clerical Errors for the Rubicon Group
8. CEP Profit Calculation for Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. 
(Thai I-Mei)
9. CEP Offset for Thai I-Mei
10. Calculation of Assessment Rate for Thai I-Mei
11. Constructed Value (CV) Inventory Carrying Costs for Thai I-Mei
12. Universe of Reviewed U.S. Sales for Thai I-Mei
13. Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) for Thai Union 
Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd. (TUF), Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. 
(TUS), (collectively ``Thai Union'') on Unreported CEP Sales
14. Application of AFA for Thai Union's Unreported EP Sales
15. Selection of the AFA Rate for Thai Union and the U.S. Sales 
Value to Which the AFA Rate Was Applied
16. CEP Offset for Thai Union
17. U.S. Warehousing Expenses for Thai Union
18. U.S. Freight Expenses for Thai Union
19. U.S. Discounts for Thai Union
20. Total Cost of Manufacturing Calculation for Thai Union

[FR Doc. E8-20165 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P