[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53856-53862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21734]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-893]


Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results, Partial Rescission of Sixth 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke 
in Part

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

SUMMARY: On March 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the sixth 
administrative review (``AR'') of the antidumping duty order on certain 
frozen warmwater shrimp from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'').\1\ We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the comments and 
information received, we have determined that the application of total 
adverse facts available (``AFA'') to Hilltop,\2\ as part of the PRC-
wide entity, is appropriate in this review. Additionally, we continue 
to find that Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. 
(``Regal'') has not sold subject merchandise at less than normal value 
(``NV'') during the period of review (``POR''), February 1, 2010, 
through January 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission, 
Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, and Intent to 
Revoke, in Part, of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 77 FR 12801 (March 2, 2012) (``Preliminary Results'').
    \2\ Hilltop International, Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick 
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., Ocean 
Duke Corporation and Kingston Foods Corporation (collectively, 
``Hilltop'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer and Kabir Archuletta, AD/
CVD

[[Page 53857]]

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-
9068 and (202) 482-2593, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 31, 2011, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of 84 producers/exporters of subject merchandise from the 
PRC.\3\ In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily 
rescinded the review with respect to Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company 
which submitted a no shipment certification and for which we have not 
found any information to contradict this claim.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
Requests for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011) (``Initiation'') for a list of 
these companies.
    \4\ See Preliminary Results at 12803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, on March 2, 2012, the Department published the 
Preliminary Results of this administrative review and extended the 
deadline for the final results by 60 days. On April 26, 2012, the 
Petitioner,\5\ Domestic Processors,\6\ and Hilltop submitted additional 
surrogate value information. On May 7, 2012, Domestic Processors and 
Hilltop submitted rebuttal surrogate value information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (hereinafter 
referred to as ``Petitioner'').
    \6\ These domestic parties are the American Shrimp Processors 
Association (hereinafter referred to as ``Domestic Processors'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 19, 2012, the Department issued a letter to all interested 
parties establishing June 26, 2012, and July 2, 2012, as the case and 
rebuttal brief deadlines, respectively, for all issues except those 
concerning Hilltop's U.S. sales and request for company-specific 
revocation.\7\ On June 26, 2012, Petitioner, Domestic Processors and 
Hilltop filed case briefs. On July 2, 2012, Petitioner, Domestic 
Processors, and Hilltop filed rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letter from the Department to All Interested Parties, 
dated June 19, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2012, the Department issued a letter to all interested 
parties establishing July 17, 2012, and July 23, 2012, as the case and 
rebuttal brief deadlines, respectively, for issues pertaining to 
Hilltop's U.S. sales and revocation request.\8\ On July 17, 2012, 
Petitioner, Domestic Processors and Hilltop filed case briefs with 
respect to the Hilltop issues. On July 23, 2012, Petitioner, Domestic 
Processors and Hilltop filed rebuttal briefs with respect to the 
Hilltop issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Letter from the Department to All Interested Parties, 
dated July 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background Regarding Hilltop

    On March 12, 2012, Petitioner submitted information concerning 
recent criminal convictions of entities/persons affiliated with Hilltop 
and allegations of a transshipment scheme of shrimp through the Kingdom 
of Cambodia (``Cambodia'') during the first and second administrative 
reviews of this proceeding. The involved parties included Hilltop, 
Hilltop's U.S. affiliate Ocean Duke Corporation (``Ocean Duke''), and 
Ocean King (Cambodia) Co., Ltd. (``Ocean King''), a Cambodian 
company.\9\ Between March 29 and May 16, 2012, interested parties 
submitted comments regarding these allegations. Between March 16 and 
May 16, 2012, interested parties met with Department officials to 
discuss their submissions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce 
``Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China: Comments On the 
Department's Preliminary Determination to Grant Hilltop's Request 
for Company-Specific Revocation Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec.  
351.222(b)(2) and Comments in Anticipation of Hilltop's Forthcoming 
Verification'' (March 12, 2012) (``Petitioner's March 12 
Submission'').
    \10\ See Memo to the File from Kabir Archuletta, International 
Trade Analyst, Office 9, ``Meeting with Counsel for Petitioner'' 
(March 16, 2012); Memo to the File from Kabir Archuletta, 
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, ``Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Ex Parte Meeting with 
Counsel for Hilltop International'' (April 16, 2012); Memo to the 
File from Kabir Archuletta, International Trade Analyst, Office 9, 
``Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of 
China: Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel for Petitioner'' (May 16, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 17, 2012, the Department placed U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') data on the record of this review for entries of 
shrimp to the United States imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (``HTSUS'') numbers included in the scope of the 
Order with a country-of-origin designation of Cambodia during the 
period January 1, 2003, through May 2, 2012.\11\ Between May 24, 2012, 
and May 31, 2012, interested parties submitted comments regarding the 
Cambodian CBP data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memo to the File from Kabir Archuletta, International 
Trade Analyst, Office 9, ``Customs Data of U.S. Imports of Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Cambodia'' (May 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2012, the Department sent Hilltop a supplemental 
questionnaire addressing a number of the allegations regarding Hilltop 
and potentially undisclosed affiliations, as well as other issues 
brought to light in Petitioner's March 12 Submission.\12\ On June 15, 
2012, Hilltop submitted its response, which largely consisted of a 
``Preliminary Statement,'' in which Hilltop provided an analysis that 
detailed why Hilltop believes the allegations of misconduct prior to 
AR4 are irrelevant to the Department's revocation analysis, argued that 
it is improper for the Department to investigate allegations of 
transshipment in a review proceeding, and stated its refusal to answer 
any questions regarding it activities prior to AR4.\13\ Hilltop also 
stated that it already disclosed all affiliations to the Department and 
that it had no undisclosed Cambodian affiliate during this period of 
review or the two previous review periods (i.e. the revocation period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Letter from the Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, regarding the Sixth Supplemental Questionnaire (June 1, 
2012) (``Hilltop Sixth Supplemental Questionnaire'').
    \13\ See Letter from Hilltop to the Secretary of Commerce 
``Hilltop's Response to June 1, 2012 Supplemental Questionnaire'' 
(June 15, 2012) (``Hilltop Sixth Supplemental Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 19, 2012, the Department placed on the record of this 
review public registration documentation listing To Kam Keung, the 
General Manager \14\ of Hilltop, as an owner and director of Ocean King 
from September 2005 through September 2010, i.e. during AR3-AR5 and 
through the first half of AR6.\15\ On June 19, 2012, the Department 
also issued to Hilltop a supplemental questionnaire requesting that 
Hilltop respond to those questions which it previously refused to 
address and provide additional information related to the public 
registration documentation for Ocean King.\16\ On June 26, 2012, 
Hilltop submitted its response to the Seventh Supplemental 
Questionnaire and again refused to answer those questions it deemed 
irrelevant; however Hilltop admitted that an affiliation with Ocean 
King did exist from September 2005 until September 28, 2010.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Letter from Hilltop to the Secretary of Commerce 
``Section A Response for Hilltop International in the Sixth 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
People's Republic of China'' (June 15, 2011) at Exhibit 2.
    \15\ See Memo to the File from Kabir Archuletta, International 
Trade Analyst, Office 9, ``Public Registration Documents for Ocean 
King (Cambodia) Co., Ltd.'' (June 19, 2012).
    \16\ See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 
9, to Hilltop ``Seventh Supplemental Questionnaire'' (July 19, 2012) 
(``Seventh Supplemental Questionnaire'').
    \17\ See Letter from Hilltop to the Secretary of Commerce 
``Hilltop's Response to June 1, 2012 Supplemental Questionnaire'' 
(June 26, 2012) at pg. 1 (``Hilltop Seventh Supplemental 
Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2012, the Department placed on the record CBP data for 
U.S. imports of subject merchandise from the PRC for the period 
February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008, which is the period 
corresponding with the third

[[Page 53858]]

administrative review of this proceeding. On July 11, 2012, Petitioner 
submitted comments on the AR3 CBP data.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The scope of the 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,\19\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 
processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``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 the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTS''), 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, white-leg 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 the 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 the order.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 
subheading 1605.20.1020); (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 (HTS subheadings 0306.23.0020 and 0306.23.0040); (4) shrimp 
and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.0510); (5) dried 
shrimp and prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee's shrimp sauce; (7) canned warmwater 
shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.1040); (8) certain dusted 
shrimp;\20\ and (9) 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 individually quick frozen (``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ On April 26, 2011, the Department amended the antidumping 
duty order to include dusted shrimp, pursuant to the U.S. Court of 
International Trade (``CIT''') decision in Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 
Action Committee v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2010) 
and the U.S. International Trade Commission (``ITC''') 
determination, which found the domestic like product to include 
dusted shrimp. Because the amendment of the antidumping duty order 
occurred after this POR, dusted shrimp continue to be excluded in 
this review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, 
the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders in Accordance with Final 
Court Decision, 76 FR 23277 (April 26, 2011); see also Ad Hoc Shrimp 
Trade Action Committee v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 
2010) and Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, China, India, 
Thailand, and Vietnam (Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063, 1064, 1066-
1068 (Review), USITC Publication 4221, March 2011. However, we note 
that this review only covers suspended entries that did not include 
dusted shrimp, but cash deposits going forward will apply to dusted 
shrimp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The products covered by the order are currently classified under 
the following HTS subheadings: 0306.13.0003, 0306.13.0006, 
0306.13.0009, 0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015, 0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 
0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 0306.13.0040, 0306.17.0003, 0306.17.0006, 
0306.17.0009, 0306.17.0012, 0306.17.0015, 0306.17.0018, 0306.17.0021, 
0306.17.0024, 0306.17.0027, 0306.17.0040, 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1030, 
1605.21.1030, and 1605.29.1010. These HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but 
rather the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Final Partial Rescission

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded 
this review with respect to Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company. The 
Department determined that it had no shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR.\21\ Subsequent to the Preliminary 
Results, no information was submitted on the record indicating that it 
made sales to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR 
and no party provided written arguments regarding this issue. Thus, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice, 
we are rescinding this review with respect to Shantou Yuexing 
Enterprise Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Preliminary Results at 12801, 12803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the ``Sixth Administrative Review of 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results,'' which is dated 
concurrently with this notice (``I&D Memo''). A list of the issues that 
parties raised and to which we respond in the I&D Memo is attached to 
this notice as Appendix I. The I&D Memo is a public document and is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, 
Room 7046, and is accessible on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from 
parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made three revisions to 
Regal's margin calculation for the final results. First, we have 
corrected an inadvertent error in the calculation of the ice surrogate 
value used in the Preliminary Results. For further information see I&D 
Memo at Comment 14; see also Final SV Memo.\22\ Additionally, we have 
included Kongphop Frozen Foods Company Ltd. (``Kongphop'') and Sea 
Bonanza Frozen Foods Company Limited (``Sea Bonanza'') financial 
statements to calculate the surrogate financial ratios,

[[Page 53859]]

because they are processors of frozen shrimp and their financial 
statements are contemporaneous and complete and indicate that they are 
unsubsidized. For further information see I&D Memo at Comment 12; see 
also Final SV Memo. We have also corrected various errors related to 
the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios using the financial 
statements of Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co. Ltd. 
(``Kiang Huat''). For further information see I&D Memo at Comment 13; 
see also Final SV Memo. The Department's determination to find Hilltop 
to be part of the PRC-wide entity and deny its company-specific 
revocation request from the Order are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Memorandum to the File through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9 from Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, Office 9; 
Sixth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Factor Valuations for the 
Final Results, (``Final SV Memo'') dated concurrently with this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In our Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that Regal 
met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.\23\ We have 
not received any information since the issuance of the Preliminary 
Results that provides a basis for the reconsideration of this 
determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that Regal 
meets the criteria for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Preliminary Results at 12801, 12804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, while we preliminarily determined that Hilltop had 
satisfied the criteria for the application of a separate rate in the 
Preliminary Results, based on information subsequently placed on the 
record, for these final results we find that Hilltop's separate rate 
information is no longer reliable or usable and Hilltop has failed to 
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate. In PRC Shrimp AR5, we 
found Hilltop to be part of a single entity, which included affiliates 
in a third country that had extensive production facilities in the 
PRC.\24\ In the Preliminary Results, we stated that because Hilltop had 
presented no additional evidence to demonstrate that it is not a part 
of this single entity, we continued to find that Hilltop and its 
affiliates were part of a single entity in this review.\25\ While we 
note that Hilltop is located in Hong Kong, its affiliated producers are 
located in the PRC. As we cannot rely on any of the information 
provided in Hilltop's section A questionnaire responses, we cannot 
determine that this single entity of affiliated companies, of which 
Hilltop is a part, has met the criteria for a separate rate. Therefore, 
we are not granting a separate rate to Hilltop and its affiliates and 
we find Hilltop to be part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
8338, 8339 (February 14, 2011), unchanged in Administrative Review 
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 2011) (``PRC Shrimp 
AR5'').
    \25\ See Preliminary Results at 12801, 12803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts Otherwise Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the Act provide that if 
necessary information is not available on the record, or 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, then the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, then the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if (1) the information is submitted by the established deadline; 
(2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so 
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the 
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information 
and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and (5) the 
information can be used without undue difficulties.

Hilltop/PRC-Wide Entity

    As explained further in Comment 1 of the I&D Memo, the Department 
finds that the information to calculate an accurate and otherwise 
reliable margin is not available on the record with respect to Hilltop. 
Because the Department finds that necessary information is not on the 
record, and that Hilltop withheld information that has been requested, 
failed to submit information in a timely manner, significantly impeded 
this proceeding, and provided information that could not be 
verified,\26\ pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (B), (C) and 
(D) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Department is using the facts 
otherwise available. For a more detailed discussion of the Department's 
determination, see I&D Memo at Comment 1 and Hilltop AFA Memo.\27\ 
Further, because we determine that the entirety of Hilltop's data are 
unusable, we also find that Hilltop has failed to demonstrate that it 
is eligible for a separate rate and is therefore part of the PRC-wide 
entity. Accordingly, we are assigning facts available to the PRC-wide 
entity, of which Hilltop is a part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See e.g., Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of the Second 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order, 74 FR 63387 
(December 3, 2009), affirmed in The Watanabe Group v. United States, 
2010 Ct. Int. Trade LEXIS 144, Slip. Op. 2010-139 (2010).
    \27\ See Memorandum to the File through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir Archuletta, Analyst, Office 9, 
re: ``Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
the People's Republic of China: Application of Adverse Facts 
Available to Hilltop International,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice (``Hilltop AFA Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adverse Facts Available

    When relying on facts otherwise available, the Department may apply 
an adverse inference. Section 776(b) of the Act states 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 from the administering authority * * * {the 
Department{time}  * * * may use an inference that is adverse to the 
interests of the party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.'' \28\ 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.'' \29\ In selecting an 
adverse inference, the Department may rely on information derived from 
the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No., 103-316 at 870 
(1994) (``SAA'').
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on record evidence, the Department determines that the PRC-
wide entity, which includes Hilltop, has failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability in providing the requested information. 
Accordingly, pursuant to

[[Page 53860]]

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D), and section 776(b) of the 
Act, we find it appropriate to apply a margin to the PRC-wide entity 
based entirely on facts available with an adverse inference.\31\ By 
doing so, we ensure that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Hilltop, 
will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than 
had it cooperated fully in this review. See I&D Memo at Comment 1 and 
Hilltop AFA Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to apply total 
AFA to the NME-wide entity), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 
First Administrative Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 
52052 (September 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's practice is to select an AFA rate that is 
sufficiently adverse as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner and that ensures 
that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.\32\ In choosing the 
appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to 
respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to 
the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior 
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior 
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if 
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less.'' \33\ Specifically, 
the Department's practice in reviews, when selecting a rate as total 
AFA, is to use the highest rate on the record of the proceeding which, 
to the extent practicable, can be corroborated.\34\ The CIT and U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') have 
affirmed Commerce's practice of selecting the highest margin on the 
record for any segment of the proceeding as the AFA rate.\35\ 
Therefore, we are assigning as AFA to the PRC-wide entity, which 
includes Hilltop, a rate of 112.81%, which is the highest rate on the 
record of this proceeding and which was the rate assigned to the PRC-
wide entity in the less than fair value investigation (``LTFV'') of 
this proceeding.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8911 (February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New 
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005), and SAA at 
870.
    \33\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 
1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
    \34\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
15930, 15934 (April 8, 2009), unchanged in Glycine From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 14, 2009); see also Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (CIT 
August 10, 2009) (''Commerce may, of course, begin its total AFA 
selection process by defaulting to the highest rate in any segment 
of the proceeding, but that selection must then be corroborated, to 
the extent practicable.'').
    \35\ See, e.g., KYD, Inc. v United States, 607 F.3d 760, 766-767 
(CAFC 2010) (``KYD''); see also NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. 
Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA 
rate, the highest available dumping margin calculated for a 
different respondent in the investigation).
    \36\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 42654, 42662 (July 16, 2004) (``PRC Shrimp 
Prelim LTFV''), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70997, 71002 (December 8, 
2004) (``PRC Shrimp Final LTFV'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of PRC-Wide Entity Rate

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that when relying on secondary 
information, the Department must corroborate, to the extent 
practicable, the rate which it applies as AFA. To be considered 
corroborated, the Department must find the information has probative 
value, meaning that the information must be found to be both reliable 
and relevant.\37\ As noted above, we are applying as AFA the highest 
rate from any segment of this proceeding, which is the rate currently 
applicable to all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. Although 
Hilltop has questioned the reliability of the PRC-wide rate because it 
was based on normal values calculated using Indian surrogate 
values,\38\ the Department sees no reason to deviate from its standard 
practice of using petition rates as the rates for applying adverse 
facts available.\39\ The Department's practice is not to recalculate 
margins provided in petitions, but rather to corroborate the applicable 
petition rate when applying that rate as AFA.\40\ The AFA rate in the 
current review (i.e., the PRC-wide rate of 112.81 percent) represents 
the highest rate from the petition in the LTFV investigation and was 
corroborated in the LTFV investigation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter and Components Thereof, From 
Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered 
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter and 
Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
    \38\ See Letter from Hilltop to the Secretary of Commerce, 
``Hilltop-Specific Issues Rebuttal Brief for Hilltop International'' 
(July 23, 2012) at 26.
    \39\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 
FR 32366 (June 8, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2.
    \40\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \41\ See PRC Shrimp Prelim LTFV, unchanged in PRC Shrimp Final 
LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico,\42\ 
the Department disregarded the highest margin on the record as not 
being the best information available (the predecessor to adverse facts 
available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. The information used in calculating this margin was based on 
sales and production data submitted by the petitioner in the LTFV 
investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value 
information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the 
parties in the LTFV investigation.\43\ Furthermore, the calculation of 
this margin was subject to comment from interested parties during the 
investigation after it was selected as the rate for the PRC-wide entity 
in the preliminary results.\44\ This has been the rate applicable to 
the PRC-wide entity since the investigation. As there is no information 
on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not 
appropriate for use as AFA, we determine that this rate continues to be 
relevant. Further, the CIT has held that where a respondent is found to 
be part of the country-wide entity based on adverse inferences, the 
Department need not corroborate the country-wide rate

[[Page 53861]]

with respect to information specific to that respondent because there 
is ``no requirement that the country-wide entity rate based on Adverse 
Facts Available relate specifically to the individual company.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (``Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico'').
    \43\ See PRC Shrimp Prelim LTFV at 42654, 42662.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See Watanabe Group v. United States, 2010 Ct. Int. Trade 
LEXIS 144, Slip. Op. 2010-139 (2010); quoting Peer Bearing Co.-
Changshan v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1327 (CIT 2008); 
Shandong Mach. Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 09-64, 
2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 76, 2009 WL 2017042, at *8 (CIT June 24, 
2009) (``Commerce has no obligation to corroborate the PRC-wide rate 
as to an individual party where that party has failed to qualify for 
a separate rate'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the 112.81 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, we 
determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, 
we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by 
the PRC-wide entity, which includes Hilltop.

Request for Revocation

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that ``pursuant to 
section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) * * * the 
application of the antidumping duty order with respect to Hilltop is no 
longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) The company had a zero 
or de minimis margin for a period of at least three consecutive years; 
(2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if 
the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; 
and, (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise 
necessary to offset dumping.'' \46\ After thorough analysis of the 
record evidence submitted after the Preliminary Results in this review, 
we find that Hilltop, even it were considered to be eligible for a 
separate rate and received a calculated zero or de minimis margin in 
this review, has failed to demonstrate that the ``continued application 
of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping.'' Rather, we 
find that the deficiencies on the record of this review, which also 
implicate prior reviews, preclude the Department from granting 
Hilltop's revocation request, in part due to Hilltop's material 
misrepresentations in this review and its refusal to provide 
information regarding activities relevant to the proceeding. See I&D 
Memo at Comment 2; see also Hilltop AFA Memo. Furthermore, because 
Hilltop (even if it were eligible for a separate rate) receives an AFA 
rate in these final results, it does not satisfy the threshold 
requirement for revocation that a company must have three consecutive 
periods of sales at or above normal value. Thus we find that the 
criteria for revocation have not been satisfied, and we are not 
revoking the Order with regard to Hilltop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Preliminary Results at 12803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

    The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Appendix II--PRC-Wide Entity Companies.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd........        0.00
PRC-Wide Entity \47\........................................      112.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties 
on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with 
the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we 
calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for 
merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an 
ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total 
dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered 
values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates 
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad 
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject 
merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each 
importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for 
reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated 
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this 
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against 
the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to 
antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The 
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of these final results of review.

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 the rate established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required 
for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC 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 PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 112.81 
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which 
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO

[[Page 53862]]

materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 27, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Issues & Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Apply Facts Available With 
an Adverse Inference to Hilltop
Comment 2: Whether Hilltop's Revocation Request Should Be Denied
Comment 3: Whether the Record Suggests a Violation of 18 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1001
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Initiate Changed 
Circumstances Reviews
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Reject Petitioner's 
Untimely Submission of
Factual Evidence
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Formally Cancel 
Verification of Hilltop
Comment 7: Whether To Apply AFA to Regal
Comment 8: Respondent Selection Methodology
Comment 9: Shrimp Larvae
Comment 10: Shrimp Feed
Comment 11: Labor Surrogate Value
Comment 12: Surrogate Financial Statement Selection
Comment 13: Surrogate Financial Ratio Adjustment
Comment 14: Surrogate Value Calculation for Ice

Appendix II--PRC-Wide Entity Companies

    The PRC-wide entity includes Hilltop and the 81 companies 
currently under review that have not established their entitlement 
to a separate rate. Those 81 companies are:

Allied Pacific Aquatic Products Zhanjiang Co Ltd.
Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd.
Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.
Beihai Evergreen Aquatic Product Science And Technology Co Ltd.
Beihai Qinguo Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.
Capital Prospect
Dalian Hualian Foods Co., Ltd.
Dalian Shanhai Seafood Co., Ltd.
Dalian Z&H Seafood Co., Ltd.
Ever Hope International Co., Ltd.
Everflow Ind. Supply
Flags Wins Trading Co., Ltd.
Fuchang Aquatic Products Freezing
Fujian Chaohui International Trading
Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd.
Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.
Fuqing Yiyuan Trading Co., Ltd.
Gallant Ocean (Nanhai), Ltd.
Guangdong Jiahuang Foods
Guangdong Jinhang Foods Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd.
Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd.
Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.
Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd.
Hainan Hailisheng Food Co., Ltd.
Hainan Seaberry Seafoods Corporation
Hainan Xiangtai Fishery Co., Ltd.
Haizhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.
Hua Yang (Dalian) International
Jet Power International Ltd.
Jin Cheng Food Co., Ltd.
Leizhou Yunyuan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.
Maple Leaf Foods International
North Seafood Group Co.
Panasonic Mfg. Xiamen CoPhoenix Intl.
Rizhao Smart Foods
Rui'an Huasheng Aquatic Products Processing Factory
Savvy Seafood Inc.
Sea Trade International Inc.
Shanghai Linghai Fisheries Trading Co. Ltd.
Shanghai Smiling Food Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Zhoulian Foods Co., Ltd.
Shantou Jiazhou Foods Industry
Shantou Jin Cheng Food Co., Ltd.
Shantou Longfeng Foodstuff Co., Ltd.
Shantou Longsheng Aquatic Product Foodstuff Co., Ltd.
Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Company Ltd.
Shantou Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd.
Shantou Xinwanya Aquatic Product Ltd. Company
Shantou Yue Xiang Commercial Trading Co., Ltd.
Shengsi Huali Aquatic Co., Ltd.
SLK Hardware
Thai Royal Frozen Food Zhanjiang Co., Ltd.
Tongwei Hainan Aquatic Products Co. Ltd.
Top One Intl.
Xiamen Granda Import & Export Co., Ltd.
Xinjiang Top Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.
Xinxing Aquatic Products Processing Factory
Yancheng Hi-king Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd.
Yangjiang Wanshida Seafood Co., Ltd.
Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd.
Zhangzhou Xinwanya Aquatic Product
Zhanjiang East Sea Kelon Aquatic Products Co. Ltd
Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.
Zhanjiang Go Harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.
Zhanjiang Haizhou Aquatic Product Co. Ltd.
Zhanjiang Jinguo Marine Foods Co., Ltd.
Zhanjiang Longwei Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd.
Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp.
Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Shaoxing Green Vegetable Instant Freezing Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Zhoufu Food Co., Ltd.
Zhongshan Foodstuffs & Aquatic Imp. & Exp. Group Co. Ltd. of 
Guangdong
Zhoushan City Shengtai Aquatic Co.
Zhoushan Junwei Aquatic Product Co.
Zhoushan Lianghong Aquatic Foods Co. Ltd.
Zhoushan Mingyu Aquatic Product Co. Ltd.
Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd.

[FR Doc. 2012-21734 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P