[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20990-20991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-801]


Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On March 12, 2020, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in Can Tho Import-Export Joint 
Stock Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 16-00071 (Can Tho II), 
sustaining the Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) remand results for 
the 11th administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on 
certain frozen fish fillets (fish fillets) from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam (Vietnam), covering the period of review (POR) August 1, 
2013 through July 31, 2014. Commerce is notifying the public that the 
CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with the final results of the 
administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results 
with respect to a certain exporter.

DATES: Applicable March 22, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    During the 10th administrative review of the AD order on fish 
fillets from Vietnam, Commerce denied Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock 
Company (Caseamex) separate-rate status. On appeal, the CIT affirmed 
this determination in An Giang Fisheries.\1\ In the 11th administrative 
review, Caseamex submitted a separate rate application which stated 
that the company had no material changes in company structure, 
shareholdings, or operations.\2\ As a result, we continued to deny 
Caseamex separate-rate status.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company 
et al. v. United States, Court No. 15-00044, Slip Op. 18-4 (CIT 
2018) (An Giang Fisheries).
    \2\ See Caseamex's Letter, ``Can Tho Import-Export Seafood Joint 
Stock Company (CASEAMEX) Separate Rate Application: Antidumping 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from The 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Review Period--8/1/2013-7/31/2014,'' 
dated December 1, 2014.
    \3\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 81 FR 17435 (March 29, 2016) (AR11 
Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
(IDM) at Comment VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Caseamex challenged the final results, asserting that it should be 
given a separate rate because Commerce's decision to deny it a separate 
rate relied on a memorandum from the prior administrative review. On 
October 15, 2018, the CIT remanded the Final Results and ordered 
Commerce to reconsider the separate rate issue.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock Company v. United 
States, Court No. 16-00071, Slip Op. 16-71 (October 15, 2018) (First 
Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 2019, Commerce issued the First Remand Results.\5\ 
Commerce explained that it considers Vietnam to be a non-market economy 
(NME) country under section 771(18) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (Act). In AD proceedings involving NME countries, such as 
Vietnam, the rebuttable presumption is that the export activities of 
all firms within the country are subject to government control and 
influence.\6\ On remand, Commerce considered all of the record 
evidence, including Caseamex's 2012 Articles of Association, and found 
that the totality of the evidence continued to demonstrate the 
government of Vietnam had the potential to take an active role as the 
second largest shareholder of the company.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Can Tho 
Import-Export Joint Stock Company v. United States, Court No. 16-
00071 (October 15, 2018) (First Remand Results).
    \6\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 20197 (April 15, 2015), and 
accompanying IDM.
    \7\ See First Remand Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2019, the CIT issued the Second Remand Order, which 
considered Caseamex's continued challenge that it should be given 
separate rate status.\8\ The CIT held that Commerce's remand 
redetermination was not supported by substantial evidence. The CIT 
found that Caseamex's 2012 Articles of Association rebutted the 
presumption of government control.\9\ The CIT ordered that

[[Page 20991]]

Commerce's determination not to grant Caseamex a separate rate be 
remanded for further consideration consistent with its opinion.\10\ In 
the Second Remand Results,\11\ under respectful protest, Commerce 
determined that Caseamex was entitled to a separate rate because no 
further evidence existed beyond the evidence that Commerce had reviewed 
in the First Remand Results. On March 12, 2020, the CIT issued a final 
judgment in Can Tho II sustaining the Second Remand Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock Company v. United 
States, Court No. 16-00071, Slip Op. 19-129 (October 17, 2019) 
(Second Remand Order).
    \9\ Id. at 8-12.
    \10\ Id. at 12.
    \11\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Can Tho 
Import-Export Joint Stock Company, v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 16-00071 (December 16, 2019) (Second Remand Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
the AR11 Final Results with respect to Caseamex. The separate rate 
assigned to Caseamex during the period August 1, 2013 through July 31, 
2014 is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                                                                dumping
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                               (dollars
                                                                  per
                                                               kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock Company (Caseamex)........        0.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Instructions

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess 
antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise 
exported by Caseamex using the assessment rates listed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The cash deposit rate for Caseamex has been superseded by cash 
deposit rates calculated in intervening administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam. Thus, we will not 
alter its cash deposit rate.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 3, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-07934 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P