Notices. Notice

60,783 words·~276 min read·/register/2007/03/09/07-1071·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India with respect to 70 companies. 1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited (DMF), Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Premier Marine Products, Kader Exports Private Limited (KEPL), Universal Cold Storage Private Limited (UCS), and Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited (collectively, “the Liberty Group”), Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon), and Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL).

The respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. This is the first administrative review of this order. The period of review

(POR)is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is preliminarily rescinding the administrative review. We preliminarily determine that sales made by Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group have been made below normal value (NV). In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin for those companies that were not selected for individual review but were responsive to the Department's requests for information. For those companies which were not responsive to the Department's requests for information, we have preliminarily assigned to them a margin based on adverse facts available (AFA). If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3874 or

(202)482-4593, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In February 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain warmwater shrimp from India. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India* , 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005) ( *Shrimp Order* ). Subsequently, on February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (Feb. 1, 2006). Between February 23 and 28, 2006, the Department received timely requests under 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) to conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the following producers/exporters of subject merchandise: Amalgam Foods & Beverages Limted, Ananda Aqua Exports Private Limited, Asvini Exports, Asvini Fisheries Limited, Avanti Feeds Limted, Devi Fisheries Limited, Devi Seafoods Limited, Falcon, Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited, GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd., HLL, Jaya Lakshmi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited, K.R.M. Marine Exports, the Liberty Group, Magnum Estate Private Limited, Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited, Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd., Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd., Sandhya Marines Limited, Satya Seafoods Private Limited, Selvam Exports Private Limited, Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited, Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited, Veejay Impex, Vinner Marine, and Wellcome Fisheries Limited. Also on February 28, 2006, the petitioner 2 submitted a letter timely requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp made by numerous companies during the POR, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). 2 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. On April 7, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review for 347 companies and requested that each provide data on the quantity and value (Q&V) of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR for mandatory respondent selection purposes. These companies are listed in the Department's notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand* , 71 FR 17819 (Apr. 7, 2006) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). During the period April 24 through June 12, 2006, we received responses to the Department's Q&V questionnaire from 59 companies. We were unable to locate 29 companies, and we did not receive responses to this questionnaire from the remaining companies. 3 For further discussion, see the “Application of Facts Available” section of this notice. 3 As discussed below, for certain of these companies, the petitioner subsequently withdrew its request for review. One of the companies that responded to our Q&V questionnaire, Coastal Trawlers Ltd. (Coastal Trawlers), notified us that it had changed its name during the POR, and is now doing business under the name Coastal Corporation Ltd. (Coastal Corp.). As a result, we solicited information on this change from Coastal Corp., which the company supplied in June 2006. After analyzing this information, we preliminarily find that Coastal Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Trawlers. For further discussion, see the “Successor-in-Interest” section of this notice, below. Based upon our consideration of the responses received to the Q&V questionnaire and the resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review was requested. As a result, on July 11, 2006, we selected the three largest producers/exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India during the POR ( *i.e.* , Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group) as the mandatory respondents in this proceeding. *See* the Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Selection of Respondents,” dated July 11, 2006. On this same date, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group. On July 21, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to 268 companies for which the requests for an administrative review were withdrawn in a timely manner, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 41419 (July 21, 2006) ( *Notice of Rescission* ). *See also* the Memorandum to the file from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, “Intent to Rescind in Part the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated June 22, 2006. On August 8, 2006, we received responses to section A of the questionnaire from Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group. On August 11, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments regarding third country market selection and the possible existence of a “particular market situation” with respect to both Falcon and HLL. On August 25, 2006, the Department postponed the preliminary results in this review until no later than February 28, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 50387 (Aug. 25, 2006). We issued supplemental section A questionnaires to HLL, Falcon, and the Liberty Group on August 31, 2006. We received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire from Falcon and HLL on September 6, 2006, and from the Liberty Group on September 7, 2006. Also on September 7, 2006, HLL submitted a response to section D of the questionnaire. On September 14, 2006, we published a notice amending the partial rescission of the administrative review to correct a typographical error. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India; Corrected Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 54268 (Sept. 14, 2006). The petitioner requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of the Liberty Group on September 20, 2006, and of HLL on September 21, 2006. Also on September 21, 2006, we issued a supplemental questionnaire covering sections A through C to the Liberty Group and we received a response to the supplemental section A questionnaire from HLL. We received responses to the supplemental section A questionnaires from Falcon on September 22, 2006, and from the Liberty Group on September 25, 2006. Also on September 25, 2006, we issued a supplemental questionnaire covering sections B and C to Falcon. On September 27, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Falcon, and the petitioner submitted comments on the selection of the appropriate third country comparison markets for Falcon and HLL. On October 4, 2006, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation of the Liberty Group. *See* the Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled, “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for the Liberty Group Frozen Foods,” dated October 4, 2006 (Sales-Below-Cost-Memo for the Liberty Group). On October 5, 2006, we determined that Japan constitutes the appropriate third country comparison market for both Falcon and the Liberty Group, and that France constitutes the appropriate third country comparison market for HLL. *See* the Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India - Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Markets,” dated October 5, 2006 (Selection of Third County Markets Memo). *See also* the “Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. Accordingly, on October 5, 2006, we requested that Falcon and HLL resubmit their responses to section B of the Department's questionnaire to report sales to Japan and France, respectively. Additionally, on October 5, 2006, we issued a supplemental section C questionnaire to HLL. On October 17, 2006, Falcon submitted its supplemental questionnaire response covering sections A through C. On October 20, 2006, Falcon submitted a revised section B questionnaire response reporting sales to Japan. Also on October 20, 2006, Liberty submitted its supplemental questionnaire response covering sections A through C. On October 25, 2006, HLL submitted both a revised section B questionnaire response reporting sales to France and a response to the supplemental section C questionnaire. On November 3, 2006, we determined that the Department's finding in the less-than-fair- value

(LTFV)investigation, that HLL made comparison market sales below the cost of production and that such sales were disregarded, provides sufficient grounds to automatically initiate a sales-below-cost investigation for HLL in this segment of the proceeding. *See* the Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled, “2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India - Cost Allegation for Hindustan Lever Limited,” dated November 3, 2006 (Sales-Below-Cost Memo for HLL). On November 7, 2006, the Liberty Group submitted a response to section D of the questionnaire. Also on November 7, 2006, we issued a supplemental section D questionnaire to HLL. On November 13, 2006, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation for Falcon. See the Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled, “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Falcon Marine Exports Limited,” dated November 13, 2006 (Sales-Below-Cost-Memo for Falcon). On November 29, 2006, we issued a supplemental section D questionnaire to the Liberty Group. On December 5, 2006, we received HLL's response to the supplemental section D questionnaire. On December 12 and 20, 2006, respectively, Falcon and the Liberty Group responded to section D of the questionnaire. On December 22, 26, and 28, 2006, respectively, we issued supplemental section D questionnaires to Falcon, the Liberty Group, and HLL. We received responses to these questionnaires from Falcon and the Liberty Group on January 11, 2007, and from HLL on January 22, 2007. On January 23, 2007, we published a correction to the scope of the order in which we clarified that the scope does not cover warmwater shrimp in non-frozen form. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders* , 72 FR 2857 (Jan. 23, 2007). We issued an additional section D supplemental questionnaire to HLL on February 2, 2007, and to the Liberty Group on February 8, 2007. We received responses to these questionnaires on February 9 and 15, 2007, respectively. Sales and cost verifications were conducted at Falcon and the Liberty Group in January and February 2007. The sales verification reports for Falcon and the Liberty Group were issued in February 2007. On February 8, 2007, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to the Liberty Group regarding its relationship with Liberty Oil Mills Limited (LOML). On February 12, 2007, Falcon submitted a revised cost database which incorporated certain minor corrections to its data discovered at verification. On February 15, 2007, we received the Liberty Group's response to the February 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire. On February 23 and 26, 2007, respectively, the Liberty Group and Falcon submitted revised sales databases which incorporated certain minor corrections to these companies' data discovered at verification. 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, 4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 4 “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. Successor-in-Interest As noted above, in April 2006, Coastal Trawlers informed the Department that it is now doing business under the name Coastal Corp. As a result, on June 1, 2006, we requested that Coastal Corp. address the following four factors with respect to this change in name in order to determine whether Coastal Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Trawlers: management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier relationships, and customer base. On June 15, 2006, Coastal Corp. responded to the Department's request. In this submission, Coastal Corp. stated that, in February 2005, Coastal Trawlers changed its name to Coastal Corp., and that the name change had no effect on the core activity of the company. According to Coastal Corp., there were no changes to Coastal Trawlers' management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier relationships, or customer base as a result of the change in corporate structure. Specifically, Coastal Corp. maintains that the only change in production was that the company ceased its deep sea fishing/trawler activities. Based on our analysis of Coastal Corp.'s June 15, 2006, submission, we preliminarily find that Coastal Trawlers' organizational structure, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have remained essentially unchanged. Further, we preliminarily find that Coastal Corp. operates as the same business entity as Coastal Trawlers with respect to the production and sale of shrimp. Thus, we preliminarily find that Coastal Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Trawlers, and, as a consequence, its exports of shrimp are subject to this proceeding. We note that we intend to solicit further supporting documentation from Coastal Corp. regarding its assertions, and we will make a final finding regarding this successor-in-interest determination no later than the date of the final results. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to James Maeder, Office Director, from Nichole Zink, Analyst, entitled, “Successor-In-Interest Determination for Coastal Trawlers Ltd. and Coastal Corporation Ltd. in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated February 28, 2007. Partial Rescission of Review Eight of the companies that responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. However, based on information obtained from CBP, it appeared that these eight companies did, in fact, have shipments or entries of subject merchandise entered into the United States during the POR. *See* the Memorandum to The File from Jill Pollack entitled, “2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Entry Documents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),” dated July 28, 2006. Based on the CBP information, we requested that each of these eight companies explain the entries in question. In response to the Department's solicitation, only four of the eight companies, Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd., Innovative Foods Limited, Sharat Industries Limited, and Triveni Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., demonstrated that the entries at issue were not reportable transactions because they were either: 1) a non-paid sample; or 2) reported by another company in its Q&V response. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd., Innovative Foods Limited, Sharat Industries Limited, and Triveni Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005). Three of the remaining four exporter/producers, Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products (collectively, “the Baby Marine Group”), failed to respond to the Department's request for additional information. The remaining company, LOML, is an affiliate of the Liberty Group. Therefore, we are not rescinding the administrative review with respect to these companies. For further information, see the “Application of Facts Available” and “Collapsing the Liberty Group and LOML” sections of this notice. Collapsing the Liberty Group and LOML The Liberty Group has an affiliate, LOML, which exported some of the shrimp produced by the Liberty Group during the POR. In its August 9, 2006, section A response, as well as its February 15, 2007, response and at verification, the Liberty Group provided information regarding the relationship between these entities during the POR. After an analysis of this information, we preliminarily determine that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these entities for purposes of this review because: 1) certain of the directors of LOML are also directors of Liberty Group companies, and the family which owns the Liberty Group owns a majority of the shares in LOML; 2) LOML exported shrimp produced by the Liberty Group to the United States during the POR; and 3) the operations of LOML and the Liberty Group are intertwined. Thus, there is significant potential for manipulation of price if LOML does not receive the same antidumping duty rate as the Liberty Group. For further discussion, see the Memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, Office 2, to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, entitled, “Whether to Collapse Liberty Oil Mills Limited with the Liberty Group in the 2004-2006 Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated February 28, 2007. Application of Facts Available 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, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. As discussed in the “Background” section above, in April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a response was April 28, 2006. Of the 347 companies initially subject to review, 213 companies did not respond to the Department's initial requests for information. Subsequently, in May 2006, the Department issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity to submit a response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. However, after rescinding this administrative review for 268 companies in July 2006, there were still several companies which failed to respond to the Department's second request for Q&V data. 5 On February 6, 2007, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of the questionnaires to each of these companies. *See* the Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, “Placing Delivery Information on the Record of the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated February 6, 2007. By failing to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act, because these companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is warranted. 5 These companies are: Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav Sea Foods. Furthermore, three additional companies, all within the Baby Marine Group, claimed that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, because we were unable to confirm the accuracy of the Baby Marine Group's claim with CBP, we requested further information/clarification from these exporters. However, the Baby Marine Group failed to provide the requested information. Finally, an additional exporter, Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, failed to properly file its Q&V response with the Department because it did not submit a company official certification for its Q&V information. Although the Department afforded this exporter an opportunity to correct the procedural deficiencies in its response, it failed to do so. By failing to respond to the Department's requests, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available for the Baby Marine Group and Kadalkanny Frozen Foods is appropriate. 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 also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); and *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 preliminarily find that Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., the Baby Marine Group, Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav Sea Foods did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they could have responded to the Department's requests for information, but failed to do so. 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 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.* , *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 preliminarily assigned a rate of 82.3 percent, which is the lowest rate alleged in the petition (as adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV investigation). *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, 3880 (Jan. 27, 2004) ( *LTFV Notice of Initiation* ). The Department finds 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). Information from the petition constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d); *see also SAA* at 870. To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. To corroborate the margins in the petition, we compared them to the transaction-specific rates calculated for each respondent in this review. We note that we are unable to corroborate the highest rate alleged in the petition (as adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV investigation) using the data of other respondents, as it is significantly higher than the highest non-aberrational transaction-specific rate calculated for any respondent in this review. However, we find that the lowest rate alleged in the petition (as adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV investigation), 82.30 percent, is reliable and relevant because it is similar to several individual transaction margins calculated for the mandatory respondents. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Partial Rescission and Postponement of Final Results: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 71 FR 33964, 33968 (June 12, 2006). Therefore, we have determined that the 82.3 percent margin is appropriate as AFA and are assigning it to the uncooperative companies listed above. Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See* , *e.g.* , *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available. We were unable to find any information that would discredit the selected AFA rate. Because we did not find evidence indicating that the selected margin is not appropriate and because this margin is similar to the range of transactions-specific margins for the mandatory respondents, we have preliminarily determined that the 82.3 percent margin, as alleged in the petition and adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV investigation, is appropriate as AFA. We are assigning this rate to Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., the Baby Marine Group, Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav Sea Foods. For company-specific information used to corroborate this rate, see the Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Results in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated February 28, 2007. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of non-broken shrimp to sales of non-broken shrimp made in Japan (for Falcon and the Liberty Group) and France (for HLL) within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the first U.S. sale until two months after the last U.S. sale. Where there were no non-broken sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group in the following order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic certification, shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp preparation, frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, species, and preservative. Export Price For all U.S. sales made by Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price

(CEP)methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. A. Falcon We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for cold storage expenses, inland freight expenses, wharfage charges, loading expenses, inspection fees, other miscellaneous shipment charges, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also made deductions for export taxes in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(B) of the Act. B. HLL We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for inland freight expenses, port dues, terminal handling charges, other shipment expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also made deductions for export taxes in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(B) of the Act. C. The Liberty Group We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for cold storage charges, inland freight expenses, other shipment and movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, shipment related expenses, international freight expenses, terminal handling charges, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also made deductions for export taxes, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We determined that aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product for Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group was insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, with respect to Falcon and the Liberty Group, we used sales to Japan, and, with respect to HLL, we used sales to France as the basis for comparison-market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404 because, among other things, sales of foreign like product in these third country markets were the most similar to the subject merchandise. *See* the Selection of Third Country Markets Memo for further discussion. B. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* . *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 6 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. * See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States * , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 6 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61732-33. In this administrative review, we obtained information from each respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below. 1. Falcon Falcon reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to trading companies and distributors. Because Falcon reported no difference in the selling activities it performed for these two customer categories, we find that there is only one channel of distribution for Falcon's EP sales. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) invoice issuance; 5) arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; 6) cold storage and inventory maintenance; 7) quality assurance related activities; 8) commission payments; 9) payment receipt; and 10) packaging services. These selling activities can be generally grouped into four core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Falcon performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the third country market, Falcon reported that it made sales to trading companies. We examined the selling activities performed for third country sales, and found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) invoice issuance; 5) arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; 6) cold storage and inventory maintenance; 7) quality assurance related activities; 8) commission payments; 9) payment receipt; and 10) packaging services. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Falcon performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for third country sales. Because all third country sales are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country market for Falcon. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and third country market customers do not differ. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and third country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. 2. HLL HLL reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to distributors. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that HLL performed the following selling functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) production scheduling; 5) arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; 6) quality assurance related activities; 7) arranging for a refrigerated container; and 8) payment receipt. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions noted above, we find that HLL performed sales and marketing and freight and delivery services for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the third country market, HLL reported that it also made sales only to distributors. We examined the selling activities performed for third country sales and found that HLL performed the following selling functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) production scheduling; 5) arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; 6) quality assurance related activities; 7) arranging for a refrigerated container; and 8) payment receipt. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that HLL performed sales and marketing and freight and delivery services for third country sales. Because all third country sales are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country market for HLL. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and third country market customers do not differ. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and third country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. 3. The Liberty Group The Liberty Group reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to trading companies. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that the Liberty Group performed the following selling functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) invoice issuance; 5) arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; 6) cold storage and inventory maintenance; 7) quality assurance related activities; 8) commission payments; 9) payment receipt; and 10) packaging services. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions noted above, we find that the Liberty Group performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the third country market, the Liberty Group reported that it made sales to trading companies. We examined the selling activities performed for third country sales, and found that the Liberty Group performed the following selling functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) invoice issuance; 5) arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; 6) cold storage and inventory maintenance; 7) quality assurance related activities; 8) commission payments; 9) payment receipt; and 10) packaging services. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that the Liberty Group performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for third country sales. Because all third country sales are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country market for the Liberty Group. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and third country market customers do not differ. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and third country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. C. Cost of Production Analysis Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegations, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Falcon and the Liberty Group's sales of frozen warmwater shrimp in the third country comparison markets were made at prices below their cost of production (COP). Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated sales-below-cost investigations to determine whether Falcon's and the Liberty Group's sales were made at prices below their respective COPs. *See* the Sales-Below-Cost Memo for the Liberty Group and the Sales-Below-Cost Memo for Falcon. Regarding HLL, we found that HLL had made sales below the COP in the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of the date the questionnaire was issued in this review, and such sales were disregarded. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India* , 69 FR 47111, 47116-17 (Aug. 4, 2004) ( *LTFV Preliminary Determination* ); unchanged in the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India* , 69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23, 2004) ( *LTFV Final Determination* ). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that HLL made sales in the third country market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest expenses ( *see* “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section, below, for treatment of third country selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, except for the following instances: a. Falcon 1. Falcon did not provide the Department with cost data for a small number of products sold in the comparison market during the window periods. Thus, as neutral facts available, we assigned these products the cost of the most similar product reported in the cost database. 2. Falcon adjusted its standard cost of raw shrimp purchased for each count size to the actual cost of raw shrimp by applying a variance ( *i.e.* , the difference between the total standard costs and total actual costs). In calculating the variance, Falcon multiplied its standard raw material cost for each count size by the corresponding production quantity, including glaze, and compared the resulting total sum to the raw material costs in its financial records. We recalculated the variance using production quantities that were glaze-exclusive and applied the resulting adjusted variance to the standard cost of raw shrimp purchased for each count size. 3. We revised Falcon's raw shrimp cost by reallocating the costs from Falcon's shrimp farms only to those species and count sizes that could have been raised on the farms. 4. We revised the costs for packaging, labor, variable overhead, and fixed overhead

(FOH)to base them on production quantities that were glaze-exclusive. We also revised FOH to allocate depreciation expenses to block frozen, individually quick frozen, and cooked products. 5. We revised the reported G&A expense ratio by reclassifying certain expenses from the cost of goods sold to G&A expenses. 6. We revised the net financial expense ratio by excluding the deduction for the profit on the sale of securities, and only including a deduction for interest income from short-term sources. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Michael P. Harrison, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Falcon Marine Exports,” dated February 28, 2007. b. HLL 1. HLL did not provide the Department with cost data for a small number of products sold in the comparison market during the window periods. Thus, as neutral facts available, we assigned these products the cost of the most similar product reported in the cost database. 2. We adjusted HLL's reported raw shrimp consumption cost to account for an understatement. 3. We revised HLL's reported G&A expense ratio to include in the numerator certain items related to research and development, supply support and chain management, and restructuring costs. Moreover, we included the surplus of fixed assets sold and miscellaneous income as offsets to the G&A expenses. In addition, we excluded from the cost of sales, used as the denominator in calculating the G&A expense ratio, excise duties and packing material costs, and included the 2005 fiscal year increase in finished goods inventory. 4. We revised the net financial expenses to include pension costs and similar obligations. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Sheikh Hannan, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Hindustan Lever Limited,” dated February 28, 2007. c. The Liberty Group 1. We revised the cost data reported for all Liberty Group companies to account for minor corrections found during the cost verification. 2. We revised DMF's shrimp direct material costs to exclude certain by-product revenues. 3. We revised DMF's inner packing costs to exclude the revenue related to the sale of outer packing materials. 4. We revised KEPL's variable overhead costs to exclude premiums paid on duty export passbook benefits. 5. We revised the application of the G&A expense ratio from a single weighted-average rate applied to all Liberty Group companies to applying each Liberty Group entity's specific G&A expense ratio to its specific cost of manufacture. We continued to allocate certain G&A expenses to all Liberty Group companies. We revised each Liberty Group company's costs of sales, used as the denominator in calculating the G&A expense ratio, to include the change in finished goods inventory. We reclassified certain expenses for DMF from production to G&A. Finally, we included certain expenses related to the loss on a sale of a fixed asset in the calculation of PMP's G&A expenses. 6. The Liberty Group does not prepare consolidated financial statements in the normal course of business. Therefore, we revised the application of the financial expense ratio by applying each Liberty Group company's specific financial expense ratio to its specific cost of manufacture. We also revised each Liberty Group company's costs of sales, used as the denominator in calculating the financial expense ratio, to include the change in finished goods inventory. Finally, we included certain bank charges in each entity's financial expenses. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Mark Todd, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Liberty,” dated February 28, 2007. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the third country sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed below under the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section. 3. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard third country sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)or the Act: 1) whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's third country sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales when: 1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(EIA)expenses, export credit guarantee corporation premiums, and outside inspection/lab expenses. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 2. HLL We based NV for HLL on cost and freight, delivered, and free on board prices to unaffiliated customers in the third county market. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for export taxes, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. We also made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight expenses from the plant to the port, other shipment and movement expenses, shipment-related expenses, international freight expenses, and terminal handling charges, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for commissions, credit expenses, bank fees, EIA inspection fees, and outside inspection/lab expenses. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 3. The Liberty Group We based NV for the Liberty Group on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the third country market. We made deductions from the starting price for export taxes, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. We also made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight expenses from the plant to the port, other shipment and movement expenses, clearing and forwarding agency charges, shipment-related expenses, cold storage charges, international freight expenses, and terminal handling charges, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for commissions, credit expenses, bank fees, EIA inspection fees, and outside inspection/lab expenses. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for those frozen warmwater shrimp products for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, above. We based SG&A and profit for each respondent on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars for HLL and the Liberty Group in accordance with section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Regarding Falcon, this respondent reported that it purchased forward exchange contracts which were used to convert the currency in which certain sales transactions were made into home market currency. Under 19 CFR 351.415(b), if a currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale under consideration, the Department is directed to use the exchange rate specified with respect to such foreign currency in the forward sale agreement to convert the foreign currency. *See LTFV Preliminary Determination* , 69 FR at 47118 and *LTFV Final Determination* , and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. Therefore, for Falcon we used the reported forward exchange rates, where applicable, and the Federal Reserve rates for those sales without reported forward exchange contracts, for all currency conversions. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006, as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Falcon Marine Exports Limited 11.09 Hindustan Lever Limited 24.52 The Liberty Group (Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Premier Marine Products, Kader Exports Private Limited, Universal Cold Storage Private Limited, Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited) and Liberty Oil Mills Limited 4.03 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 7 7 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculation for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Allanasons Ltd. 10.54 Amalgam Foods & Beverages Limited 10.54 Amulya Seafoods 10.54 Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited 10.54 Baby Marine International 10.54 Baraka Overseas Traders 10.54 Bhatsons Aquatic Products 10.54 Calcutta Seafoods 10.54 Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. 10.54 Coastal Corporation Ltd. 10.54 Coastal Trawlers Ltd. 10.54 Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. 10.54 Coreline Exports 10.54 Gajula Exim P Ltd. 10.54 Haripriya Marine Food Exports 10.54 IFB Agro Industries Ltd. (Aquatic & Marine Products Div.) 10.54 ITC Ltd. 10.54 K R M Marine Exports Ltd. 10.54 Kalyanee Marine 10.54 Kings Marine Products 10.54 Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. 10.54 MSC Marine Exporters 10.54 Magnum Estate Private Limited 10.54 Magnum Exports 10.54 Magnum Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. 10.54 Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 10.54 Mangala Sea Products 10.54 N.G.R Aqua International 10.54 Navayuga Exports Ltd. 10.54 Nila Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. 10.54 Penver Products

(P)Ltd. 10.54 Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. 10.54 Raju Exports 10.54 Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. 10.54 Saanthi Seafoods Ltd. 10.54 Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 10.54 Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd. 10.54 Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd. 10.54 Sun-Bio Techonology Limited 10.54 Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited 10.54 Survarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. 10.54 Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd. 10.54 Veejay Impex 10.54 Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd. 10.54 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Amison Foods Ltd. 82.30 Amison Seafoods Ltd. 82.30 Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports 82.30 Baby Marine Exports 82.30 Baby Marine Products 82.30 Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div) 82.30 Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd 82.30 HA & R Enterprises 82.30 InterSea ExportsCorporation 82.30 Kadalkanny Frozen Foods 82.30 Lotus Sea Farms 82.30 National Steel 82.30 National Steel & Agro Ind 82.30 Nsil Exports 82.30 Premier Marine Foods 82.30 R F. Exports 82.30 Vaibhav Sea Foods 82.30 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and, 3) a list of issues to be discussed. *Id* . Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group, because these companies reported the entered value for some of their U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales which entered value was reported. For Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group's U.S. sales reported without entered values, we will calculate 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 will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. 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* . 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* . *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). 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 that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 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 original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.17 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See Shrimp Order* , 70 FR at 5148. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 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. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4277 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand with respect to 27 companies. 1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. (Good Luck Product), Pakfood Public Company Limited and its affiliated subsidiaries, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited, Chaophyraya Cold Storage Company Limited, Okeanos Company Limited, and Takzin Samut Company Limited (collectively “Pakfood”), and Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I-Mei). The respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. This is the first administrative review of this order. The review covers the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is preliminarily rescinding the administrative review. We preliminarily determine that sales were made by Good Luck Product, Pakfood, and Thai I-Mei below normal value (NV). In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin for those companies that were not selected for individual review but were responsive to the Department's requests for information. For those companies which were not responsive to the Department's requests for information, we have preliminarily assigned to them a margin based on adverse facts available (AFA). If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0656 or

(202)482-0498, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In February 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,* 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 1, 2005) ( *Shrimp Order* ). On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 5239 (Feb. 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, the petitioner 2 submitted a letter timely requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp made by numerous companies during the period of review (POR), pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). Also, on February 28, 2006, the Department received requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the following producers/exporters of subject merchandise during the POR in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2): Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand), Ltd., Pakfood, Thai I-Mei, Thai Union Frozen Products and Thai Union Seafood (collectively, “Thai Union”), and Union Frozen Products (UFP). 2 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. On April 7, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review for 145 companies and requested that each provide data on the quantity and value (Q&V) of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR for mandatory respondent selection purposes. These companies are listed in the Department's notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand,* 71 FR 17819 (Apr. 7, 2006) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). During the period April 24, 2006, through July 10, 2006, we received responses to the Department's Q&V questionnaire from 106 companies. 3 We were unable to locate six companies, and we did not receive responses to this questionnaire from the remaining companies. 4 For further discussion, see the “Application of Facts Available” section of this notice. 3 We note that we initiated a review on six of these companies ( *i.e.* , Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd., Kingfisher Holdings Limited, Klang Co., Ltd, Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd., Narong Seafood Co., Ltd., Sea Bonanza Foods Co., Ltd.) as if they were two different entities based on the two different addresses on the record for each company. However, we have determined, based on the responses submitted by these companies, that each comprises a single entity with two different addresses. 4 As discussed below, for some of these companies, the petitioner subsequently withdrew its request for review. Based upon our consideration of the responses to the Q&V questionnaire received and the resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review was requested. As a result, on July 11, 2006, we selected the three largest producers/exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand during the POR, Good Luck Product, Pakfood, and Thai I-Mei, as the mandatory respondents in this proceeding. *See* the Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Selection of Respondents,” dated July 11, 2006. On this same date, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Good Luck Product, Pakfood, and Thai I-Mei. On July 20, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to 112 companies for which the requests for an administrative review were withdrawn in a timely manner, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 41200 (July 20, 2006) ( *Partial Rescission Notice* ). *See also,* the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled “Intent to Rescind in Part the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,” dated June 22, 2006. On August 3, 2006, we published a notice amending the partial rescission of the administrative review to correct a typographical error. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Corrected Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 44017 (Aug. 3, 2006). We received responses to section A of the questionnaire from Pakfood on August 8, 2006, and from Good Luck Product and Thai I-Mei on August 16, 2006. On August 25, 2006, the Department postponed the preliminary results in this review until no later than February 28, 2007. * See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Reviews, * 71 FR 50387 (Aug. 25, 2006). On August 29, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments regarding home market viability with respect to Good Luck Product and Pakfood. We received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire from Pakfood and Good Luck Product on September 1 and 5, 2006, respectively. In addition, we received a response to sections C and D of the questionnaire from Thai I-Mei on September 5, 2006. On September 8 and 13, 2006, Pakfood and Good Luck Product, respectively, responded to the petitioner's comments regarding home market viability. For further discussion, see “Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets” section of this notice. On September 14, 2006, we published an additional notice amending the partial rescission of the administrative review to correct a typographical error. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Corrected Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 54268 (Sept. 14, 2006). We received comments from the petitioner on September 15, 2006, regarding the application of the multinational corporation

(MNC)provision in section 773(d) of the Act with respect to Thai I-Mei. On September 19, 2006, we issued a supplemental sales questionnaire to Pakfood. On September 20, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Pakfood. On September 21, 2006, we issued a supplemental sales questionnaire to Thai I-Mei. On September 26, 2006, Thai I-Mei submitted a response to the petitioner's comments regarding the application of the MNC provision in section 773(d) of the Act with respect to Thai I-Mei. On September 27, 2006, we issued a supplemental sales questionnaire to Good Luck Product. We initiated a sales-below-cost investigation for Pakfood on October 3, 2006. *See* the Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled, “Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Pakfood Company Limited” (Pakfood Cost Allegation). We received Pakfood's supplemental response on October 17, 2006. Also on October 17, 2006, we issued a supplemental cost questionnaire to Thai I-Mei. We received supplemental sales responses from Thai I-Mei and Good Luck Product on October 23 and 26, 2006, respectively. On October 27, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Good Luck Product. This investigation for Good Luck Product was initiated on October 30, 2006. *See* the Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations from The Team entitled, “Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Good Luck Product Co., Ltd.” (Good Luck Product Cost Allegation). Pakfood submitted a response to section D of the questionnaire on November 2, 2006. On November 14, 2006, we issued a second sales supplemental questionnaire to Good Luck Product. We received a response to the supplemental cost questionnaire from Thai I-Mei on November 15, 2006. On November 16, 2006, we issued a supplemental cost questionnaire to Pakfood. We received a second supplemental sales response, as well as a response to section D of the questionnaire from Good Luck Product on November 22 and 30, 2006, respectively. On December 7, 2006, we issued a second sales supplemental questionnaire to Thai I-Mei. Also, on December 8, 2006, we issued a supplemental cost questionnaire to Good Luck Product. We received a supplemental cost response from Pakfood on December 14, 2006. On December 21, 2006, we issued a supplemental cost questionnaire to Thai I-Mei. Sales verifications were conducted at Good Luck Product and Pakfood in December 2006. Sales verification reports were issued in January and February 2007 for Pakfood and Good Luck Product, respectively. On January 4, 2007, we received Good Luck Product's supplemental cost response, as well as Thai I-Mei's second supplemental sales response. In addition, we received a supplemental cost response from Thai I-Mei on January 10, 2006. On January 11, 2007, we issued a third supplemental sales questionnaire to Thai I-Mei. On January 19, 2007, based on the information on the record, we found that the MNC provision does not apply to Thai I-Mei. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration from The Team entitled, “Application of the Multinational Corporation Provision,” dated January 19, 2007. We received Thai I-Mei's third supplemental sales response on January 23, 2007. Also on this date, we published a correction to the scope of the order in which we clarified that the scope does not cover warmwater shrimp in non-frozen form. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders,* 72 FR 2857 (Jan. 23, 2007). On January 24 and February 14, 2007, respectively, Pakfood and Good Luck Product submitted revised sales databases which incorporated certain minor corrections to these companies' data discovered at verification. We conducted cost verifications at Good Luck Product and Pakfood in January and February 2007. 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, 5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 5 “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 (HTS 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 (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40);

(4)shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10);

(5)dried shrimp and prawns;

(6)canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS 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

(1)Non-subject merchandise ( *i.e.* , dried shrimp);

(2)a non-paid sample; or,

(3)reported by another company in its Q&V questionnaire. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to these companies. *See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination to Revoke in Part,* 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005). 6 We note that the response from this company indicated that its name is Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. 7 We note that the response from this company indicated that its name is Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd. 8 We note that the response from this company indicated that its name is Thai Agri Foods Co., Ltd. One of the remaining exporters/producers, Siam Intersea Co., Ltd., provided additional information to the Department indicating that it did, in fact, have a reportable transaction during the POR. Therefore, we are not rescinding the administrative review with respect to this company and are preliminarily assigning to it a weighted-average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review 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 impacted our selection of respondents; and,

(3)the company has been responsive to our requests for information. In addition, of the remaining two exporters/producers, NR Instant Produce 9 and Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd. (Surapon) stated that they did not report the entries in question because they claimed that the entries were of non-subject merchandise. Because these goods were entered into the United States as subject merchandise and there is insufficient evidence on the record to conclude otherwise, we preliminarily determine that the merchandise in question is included within the scope of the order. As a result, we are preliminarily assigning NR Instant Produce and Surapon the weighted-average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review because these companies have been responsive to our requests for information. We may request additional information on the products in question. If we ultimately determine the merchandise is not subject to the order, we will rescind the administrative review with respect to NR Instant Produce and Surapon. 9 We note that the response from this company indicated that its name is NR Instant Product Co., Ltd. (NR Instant Produce). Finally, the remaining exporter/producer, Thai World, 10 failed to respond to the Department's request for additional information and, thus, we find that it failed to act to the best of its ability. Therefore, we are not rescinding the administrative review with respect to Thai World. For further information, see the “Application of Facts Available” section of this notice. 10 We note that the response from this company indicated that its name is Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd. (Thai World). Application of Facts Available 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, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act;

(3)significantly impedes a proceeding; or

(4)provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. As discussed in the “Background” section, above, in April 2006, 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 28, 2006. Of the 145 companies subject to review, 32 companies did not respond to the Department's initial requests for information. Subsequently in May 2006, the Department issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity to submit a response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. However, six of these companies also failed to respond to the Department's second questionnaire. 11 On January 31, 2007, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of the questionnaires to each company. *See* the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, “Placing Delivery Information on the Record of the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,” dated January 31, 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 finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. 11 These companies are: Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Anglo-Siam Seafoods), Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Fortune Frozen Foods), Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean), Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Li-Thai), Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd. (Queen Marine Foods), and Smile Heart Foods. Furthermore, one company, Thai World, claimed that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Because we were unable to confirm the accuracy of Thai World's claim with CBP, we requested further information/clarification from it. However, Thai World failed to provide the requested information/clarification. By doing so, Thai World withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act, the Department also preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available with respect to Thai World is appropriate. 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 also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); and *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

(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., 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 preliminarily 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. *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 finds 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). Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d); *see also SAA* at 870. To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. To corroborate the petition margin, we compared it to the transaction-specific rates calculated for each respondent in this review. We find that it is reliable and relevant because the petition rate fell within the range of individual transaction margins calculated for the mandatory respondents. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Partial Rescission and Postponement of Final Results: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 71 FR 33964, 33968 (June 12, 2006). Therefore, we have determined that the 57.64 percent margin is appropriate as AFA and are assigning it to the uncooperative companies listed above. Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available. We were unable to find any information that would discredit the selected AFA rate. Because we did not find evidence indicating that the selected margin is not appropriate and because this margin falls within the range of transaction-specific margins for the mandatory respondents, we have preliminarily determined that the 57.64 percent margin, as alleged in the petition and adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV investigation, is appropriate as AFA. We are assigning this rate to Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Food, Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World. For company-specific information used to corroborate this rate, see the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Results in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,” dated February 28, 2007. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price

(EP)or constructed export price

(CEP)to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price/Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for Good Luck Product and Pakfood, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Regarding Thai I-Mei, we have determined that this company did not have a viable home or third country market during the POR. Therefore, as the basis for NV, we used constructed value

(CV)when making comparisons to CEP for Thai I-Mei in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Good Luck Product and Pakfood covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of shrimp to sales of shrimp made in the home market for Good Luck Product and Pakfood within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of shrimp to sales of shrimp of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. For Good Luck Product and Pakfood, where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise, and for all Thai I-Mei sales, we made product comparisons using CV. With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we compared Pakfood's sales of broken shrimp in the home market to its sales of comparable quality shrimp to the United States. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Good Luck Product and Pakfood in the following order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic certification, shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp preparation, frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, species, and preservative. Constructed Export Price/Export Price For all U.S. sales made by Good Luck Product and Pakfood we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. For U.S. sales made by Thai I-Mei, we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold for the account of Thai I-Mei by its subsidiary, Ocean Duke Corporation, in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. A. Good Luck Product We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses ( *i.e.* , freight from port to warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer), foreign warehousing expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, survey fees, and ocean freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. B. Pakfood We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments and discounts. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, foreign warehousing expenses, gate charges, survey fees, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, U.S. brokerage expenses, and U.S. customs duties, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Regarding warehousing expenses, Pakfood reported that certain of these services were provided by an affiliated party. At verification, we tested the warehousing expenses charged by the affiliated party to determine whether the prices charged were at “arm's length.” Where we found that the prices were not at arm's length, we adjusted them to be equivalent to the market price. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Irina Itkin and Brianne Riker entitled, “Verification of the Sales Response of Pakfood Public Company Limited in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand” (“Pakfood Verification Report”), dated January 19, 2007. C. Thai I-Mei In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for those sales where the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. For Thai I-Mei's direct shipments, we used the earlier of shipment date from Thailand to the customer or the U.S. affiliate's invoice date as the date of sale, in accordance with our practice. *See e.g.* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand* , 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Germany* , 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses), and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses). Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we calculated an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act, we based the CEP profit rate on Thai I-Mei's financial statements because Thai I-Mei made sales during the POR solely to the United States. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Alice Gibbons, Senior Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, “Calculations Performed for Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. for the Preliminary Results in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,” dated February 28, 2007. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that Good Luck Product and Pakfood had viable home markets during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales for these respondents. However, the petitioner has argued throughout this review that a large portion of Pakfood's home market is not legitimate (therefore, making its home market not viable) because there is no significant market for frozen shrimp in Thailand. In response, Pakfood has argued that its reported home market sales are legitimate because they:

(1)Were exclusively of foreign like product;

(2)were for consumption in Thailand; and,

(3)do not constitute a particular market situation. At verification we thoroughly examined this issue and confirmed Pakfood's assertions regarding its home market sales. For further discussion, see the “Pakfood Verification Report.” Further, we determined that Thai I-Mei's aggregate volumes of home and third country market sales of the foreign like product were insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we used CV as the basis for calculating NV for Thai I-Mei, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test During the POR, Good Luck Product and Pakfood sold the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a product-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's practice, where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 percent and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary course of trade and used in the normal value calculation). Sales to affiliated customers in the comparison market that were not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). C. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade

(1)Sales and marketing;

(2)freight and delivery;

(3)inventory maintenance and warehousing; and,

(4)warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Good Luck Product performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the home market, Good Luck Product made sales through the following channels of distribution:

(1)Spot sales;

(2)sales to a Thai retailer; and,

(3)sales through retail arrangements. Good Luck Product stated that its home market sales were made at the same LOT, regardless of distribution channel. We examined the selling activities performed for spot sales and found that Good Luck Product performed the following selling functions: order input/processing, providing direct sales personnel, providing commission payment, claim services ( *i.e.* , return service), and freight and delivery services. Regarding sales both to the Thai retailer and through retail arrangements, we find that Good Luck Product performed the following sales activities: sales forecasting, sales promotion/advertising/trade fairs, packing, providing retail displays/inventory maintenance, order input/processing, providing direct sales personnel, providing rebates, claim services ( *i.e.* , return service), and freight and delivery services. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Good Luck Product performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services in the home market. Although Good Luck Product performed additional sales and marketing functions for its sales both to the Thai retailer and through retail arrangements that it did not perform for its spot sales, we did not find these differences to be material selling function distinctions significant enough to warrant a separate LOT in the home market. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market because Good Luck Product performed essentially the same selling functions for all home market sales. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers do not differ significantly. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. 2. Pakfood Pakfood reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a single channel of distribution ( *i.e.* , direct sales to distributors). We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found that Pakfood performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting/market research, order processing, providing direct sales personnel, providing commission payments, sales promotion/trade shows/advertising, customer contact, price negotiation, invoice issuance, payment receipt, delivery services, and packing. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Pakfood performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the home market, Pakfood made sales to distributors, retailers, and end-users. Pakfood stated that its home market sales were made through a single channel of distribution, regardless of customer category. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found that Pakfood performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting/market research, sales promotion/trade shows/advertising, customer contact, price negotiation, order processing, invoice issuance, delivery services, providing direct sales personnel, payment receipt, and packing. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Pakfood performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing at the same relative level of intensity for all customers in the home market. Because all sales in the home market are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. 3. Thai I-Mei With respect to Thai I-Mei, this exporter had no viable home or third country market during the POR. Therefore, we based NV on CV. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile* , 63 FR 2664 (Jan. 16, 1998), unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile* , 63 FR 31411 (June 9, 1998). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(d), the Department will make its LOT determination under paragraph (d)(2) of this section on the basis of sales of the foreign like product by the producer or exporter. Because we based the selling expenses and profit for Thai I-Mei on the weighted-average selling expenses incurred and profits earned by the other respondents in the administrative review, we are able to determine the LOT of the sales from which we derived selling expenses and profit for CV. Thai I-Mei reported that it made sales through six channels of distribution in the United States; however, it stated that the selling activities it performed did not vary by channel of distribution. Thai I-Mei reported performing the following selling functions for sales to its U.S. affiliate: order input/processing, providing direct sales personnel, warranty service, freight and delivery services, and packing. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Thai I-Mei performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and warranty services for sales to its U.S. affiliate. Because Thai I-Mei's selling activities did not vary by distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. As noted above, we find that Good Luck Product and Pakfood performed the following core selling functions: sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty services. Further, although Good Luck Product and Pakfood performed certain sales and marketing functions ( *e.g.* , sales forecasting/market research, sales promotion/advertising/trade fairs, and retail displays) and inventory maintenance and warehousing functions that Thai I-Mei did not perform, we did not find these differences to be material selling function distinctions significant enough to warrant a separate LOT. Thus, we determine that the NV LOT for Thai I-Mei is the same as the LOT of Thai I-Mei's CEP sales. Because Good Luck Product and Pakfood only made sales at one LOT in their home markets, and there is no additional information on the record that would allow for an LOT adjustment, we determine that no LOT adjustment is warranted for Thai I-Mei. Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as described above, it is appropriate only if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability. Because we find that no difference in LOTs exists, we do not find that a CEP offset is warranted for Thai I-Mei. D. Cost of Production Analysis Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegations, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Good Luck Product's and Pakfood's sales of frozen warmwater shrimp in the home market were made at prices below their cost of production (COP). Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated sales-below-cost investigations to determine whether Good Luck Product's and Pakfood's sales were made at prices below their respective COPs. *See* the Good Luck Product Cost Allegation and the Pakfood Cost Allegation. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest expenses ( *see* “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its most recent supplemental section D questionnaire response for the COP calculation, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: a. Good Luck Product 1. We adjusted Good Luck Product's reported G&A expenses to exclude an offset claimed for trade fair income because the cost of the products sold was already deducted from the reported costs. 2. We adjusted the cost of sales denominator used to calculate the G&A and financial expense ratios to deduct certain shrimp purchases that were erroneously double-booked by Good Luck Product and removed from the reported costs. 3. Good Luck Product did not remove packing costs from the denominator used to calculate the G&A and financial expense ratios. Therefore, we applied these rates to the reported cost of manufacturing, including packing expenses. Our revisions to Good Luck Product's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from Christopher Zimpo, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Good Luck Product Co., Ltd.,” dated February 28, 2007. b. *Pakfood* 1. We adjusted the G&A expense ratios for Pakfood and its affiliates Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited and Takzin Samut Company Limited to include a portion of the affiliate Okeanos Company Limited's administrative expenses. 2. We adjusted Pakfood's G&A expense ratio to:

(1)Exclude the offset for the gain on the sale of marketable securities; and,

(2)include the G&A expenses and cost of sales of an affiliated producer in the numerator and denominator. In addition, we excluded an offset to Pakfood's G&A expenses for rental income received from an affiliated producer. 3. Because Pakfood had net financial income, we did not include an amount for financial expense for COP. This is in accordance with the Department's practice of determining that, when a company earns enough financial income that it recovers all of its financial expense, that company did not have a resulting cost for financing during that period. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 26455, 26460 (May 5, 2006); *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 70 FR 73437 (Dec. 12, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 9 and 25. Our revisions to Pakfood's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from Ernest Gziryan, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost and Constructed Value Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results—Pakfood Public Company Limited,” dated February 28, 2007. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed below under the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than COP, we determined that such sales have been made in “substantial quantities.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Good Luck Product's and Pakfood's sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no useable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. *See* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section below. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices 1. Good Luck Product We based NV for Good Luck Product on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market or prices to affiliated customers in the home market that were determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for discounts and rebates. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight expenses and warehousing expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses and bank charges. Regarding credit expenses, Good Luck Product reported that it had not received full payment for certain home market and U.S. sales. Consequently, for the unpaid portion of these sales, we used a payment date of February 28, 2007 ( *i.e.* , the date of the preliminary results), and recalculated imputed credit expenses accordingly. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of:

(1)The amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or,

(2)the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 2. Pakfood We based NV for Pakfood on ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market or prices to affiliated customers in the home market that were determined to be at arm's length. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight and warehousing expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. Regarding warehousing expenses, Pakfood reported that certain of these services were provided by an affiliated party. At verification, we tested the warehousing expenses charged by the affiliated party to determine whether the prices charged were at “arm's length.” Where we found that the prices were not at arm's length, we adjusted them to be equivalent to the market price. For further discussion, see the “Pakfood Verification Report.” We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses and bank charges. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of:

(1)The amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or,

(2)the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(i)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we calculated Thai I-Mei's CV profit and selling expenses based on alternative

(ii)of this section, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. As a result, we calculated Thai I-Mei's CV profit and selling expenses as a weighted-average of the profit and selling expenses incurred by the two other respondents in this administrative review. Specifically, we calculated the weighted-average profit and selling expenses incurred on home market sales by Good Luck Product and Pakfood. For comparisons to Thai I-Mei's CEP, we deducted from CV direct selling expenses incurred on Good Luck Product's and Pakfood's home market sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(ii)(B) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006, as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin Good Luck Product Co., Ltd 10.75 Pakfood Public Company Limited/Okeanos Company Limited/Takzin Samut Company Limited 4.29 Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 2.34 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 13 13 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 4.24 Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd 4.24 Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd 4.24 Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand), Ltd 4.24 Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd 4.24 Narong Seafood Co., Ltd 4.24 NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd 4.24 Pacific Queen Co., Ltd 4.24 Piti Seafood Co., Ltd 4.24 S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd 4.24 Siam Intersea Co., Ltd 4.24 Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd 4.24 SMP Food Product Co., Ltd 4.24 Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd 4.24 Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd 4.24 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd 57.64 Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd 57.64 Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd 57.64 Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 57.64 Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd 57.64 Smile Heart Foods 57.64 Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd 57.64 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:

(1)A statement of the issue;

(2)a brief summary of the argument; and,

(3)a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1)The party's name, address and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and,

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For certain sales made by Pakfood and all of Thai I-Mei's sales, we note that these companies reported the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. We will calculate 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 examined sales for that importer. For all of Good Luck Product's and certain of Pakfood's sales, we note that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. We will calculate 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 will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. 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 351.106(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). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). 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 that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 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 original 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 made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See Shrimp Order.* These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 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. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4278 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil with respect to 11 companies. 1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda (“Aquatica”) and Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. (“Compescal”). The respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. This is the first administrative review of this order. The period of review (“POR”) covers August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is preliminarily rescinding the administrative review. *See* “Partial Rescission of Review” section for further discussion. We preliminarily determine that sales made by Aquatica and Compescal have been made below normal value (“NV”). In addition, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin for those companies that were not selected for individual review but were responsive to the Department's requests for information based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual review. For those companies which were not responsive to the Department's requests for information, we have preliminarily assigned to them a margin based on adverse facts available (“AFA”). If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4929 or

(202)482-4007, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In February 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain warmwater shrimp from Brazil. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 70 FR 5143 (February 1, 2005) (“ *Shrimp Order* ”). On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, the petitioner 2 submitted a letter timely requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp made by numerous companies during the POR, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). Also, on February 28, 2006, the Department received a timely request under 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) to conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the following affiliated producers/exporters of subject merchandise: CIDA Central De Industrializacao E Distribuicao De Alimentos Ltda. and Produmar Cia Exportadora de Produtos Do Mar (collectively “CIDA”). 2 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. On April 7, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review for 50 companies and requested that each provide data on the quantity and value of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR for mandatory respondent selection purposes. These companies are listed in the Department's notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand* , 71 FR 17819 (April 7, 2006) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). During the period April 28 through June 19, 2006, we received responses to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire from 19 companies. We did not receive responses to this questionnaire from the remaining companies. Subsequently, the Department received withdrawal requests with respect to many of the companies. However, based upon our consideration of the responses to the quantity and value questionnaire and the resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review request remained. As a result, on July 11, 2006, we selected the two largest remaining producers/exporters by export volume of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil during the POR, Aquatica and Compescal, as the mandatory respondents in this review. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Selection of Respondents,” dated July 11, 2006. On this same date, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to Aquatica and Compescal. On July 20, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to 34 companies for which the requests for an administrative review were withdrawn in a timely manner, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* ; 71 FR 41199 (July 20, 2006). We received responses to section A of the questionnaire from Aquatica and Compescal on August 15, 2006. On August 25, 2006, the Department postponed the preliminary results in this review until no later than February 28, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 50387 (August 25, 2006). On August 31, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments regarding third country market selection with respect to Aquatica and the possible existence of a “particular market situation” with respect to Compescal. We received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire from Compescal and Aquatica on September 7 and 8, 2006, respectively. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Aquatica and Compescal on September 28, 2006, and received responses on October 20, 2006. On November 1, 2006, the petitioner submitted additional comments on the appropriate comparison markets to be used for Aquatica and Compescal. On September 20, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Aquatica. On November 6, 2006, we initiated this investigation. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.,” dated November 6, 2006. Also on November 6, 2006, we determined that France constitutes the appropriate comparison market with respect to Aquatica. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil - Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market for Aquatica,” dated November 6, 2006. On November 9, 2006, we found that a particular market situation does not exist which would render Compescal's home market inappropriate for purposes of determining NV in this review. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Home Market as Appropriate Comparison Market for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,” dated November 9, 2006. On November 17, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Compescal. This investigation was initiated on November 28, 2006. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,” dated November 28, 2006. Aquatica and Compescal submitted responses to section D of the questionnaire on December 6 and 28, 2006, respectively. We issued a section D supplemental questionnaire to Aquatica on December 21, 2006, and to Compescal on January 10, 2007. On January 11 and 30, 2007, we received responses to these supplemental questionnaires from Aquatica and Compescal, respectively. We issued a second section D supplemental questionnaire to Aquatica on January 18, 2007, and received a response on February 1, 2007. On January 23, 2007, we published a correction to the scope of the order in which we clarified that the scope does not cover warmwater shrimp in non-frozen form. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders* , 72 FR 2857 (January 23, 2007). Verifications were conducted in January and February 2007. Sales verification reports were issued on February 23, 2007. Cost verification reports will be issued following the preliminary results. 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, 3 shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 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 (HTS 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 (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS 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. Partial Rescission of Review On July 20, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to 34 companies for which the petitioner and CIDA timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review, and because no other interested party requested a review for these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* ; 71 FR 41199 (July 20, 2006). Artico was inadvertently omitted from the list of companies for which the administrative review was rescinded in July 2006. Artico has the same address as Ortico, which was included in our earlier rescission notice. Accordingly, we consider Artico and Ortico to be the same company. In addition, as a result of additional research, we confirmed that Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste and Marine Maricultura Nordeste SA are, in fact, the same company, and that the correct company name is Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, which is no longer in business. We rescinded the administrative review with respect to Marine Maricultura do Nordeste in July 2006, as a result of the petitioner's timely withdrawal of the request for review of this company. For these reasons, we are also preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Artico, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA and Marine Maricultura Nordeste SA. Aquatica's Affiliated Parties Aquatica has three affiliates involved in the production and sale of the subject merchandise, two of which exported shrimp to the United States during the POR. The third affiliate, Aquafeed, which produces feed for larva and shrimp and also sold some frozen shrimp produced by Aquatica to France during the POR, together with Aquatica, submitted a consolidated questionnaire response to the Department. 4 In its August 15 and October 20, 2006, questionnaire responses, Aquatica provided information regarding the relationship between Aquatica and its two affiliated producers/exporters of subject merchandise at issue during the POR. After an analysis of this information, as well as information obtained as a result of additional research, we preliminarily determine that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is not appropriate to collapse these affiliated entities for purposes of this review because: 1) there is no common ownership among the companies; 2) no managerial employees or board members of one firm are associated with any of the other firms; 3) there is no sharing of sales information, involvement in pricing and production decisions, sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between and among the affiliated producers. Thus, there is no potential for manipulation of price or production if Aquatica and its affiliates do not receive the same antidumping duty rate. For further discussion, see the Memorandum from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor, Senior Analysts, Office 2, to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, entitled, “Whether to Collapse Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda. with Its Affiliated Producers/Exporters in the 2004-2006 Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil,” dated February 28, 2007. 4 Based on information submitted in Aquatica's questionnaire responses, as well as information obtained at verification, we have accepted Aquatica's claim that its operations are intertwined with those of Aquafeed such that they essentially function as one company. Application of Facts Available 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, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. As discussed in the “Background” section, above, in April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a response was April 28, 2006. Of the 11 companies subject to review, 5 two companies did not respond to the Department's requests for information: SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. and Valenca da Bahia Maricultura. Subsequently in May 2006, the Department issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity to submit a response to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire. However, these companies also failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire after the Department provided a second opportunity. By failing to respond to the Department's quantity and value 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 finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. 5 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department rescinded this administrative review in July 2006, as well as the companies for which we are preliminarily rescinding this administrative review, as discussed above. 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 also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and *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 (August 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 preliminarily find that SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. and Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting 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 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.* , *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 349 percent, which is the highest rate alleged in the petition. *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 (January 27, 2004). The Department finds 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). Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d); *see also SAA* at 870. To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. To corroborate the petition margin, we compared it to the transaction-specific rates calculated for each respondent in this review. We find that it is reliable and relevant because the petition rate fell within the range of individual transaction margins calculated for the mandatory respondents. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Partial Rescission and Postponement of Final Results: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 71 FR 33964, 33968 (June 12, 2006). Therefore, we have determined that the 349 percent margin is appropriate as AFA and are assigning it to the uncooperative companies listed above. Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See* , *e.g.* , *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). In the instant case, we examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available and were unable to find any information that would discredit the selected AFA rate. Because we did not find evidence indicating that the selected margin is not appropriate and because this margin falls within the range of transaction-specific margins for the mandatory respondents, we have preliminarily determined that the 349 percent margin, as alleged in the petition, is appropriate as AFA. We are assigning this rate to SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. and Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA. For company-specific information used to corroborate this rate, see the Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Corroboration of Data Contained in the Petition for Assigning Facts Available Rates in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil,” dated February 28, 2007. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by Aquatica and Compescal to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. With respect to Compescal, we excluded certain home market sales from our analysis which we verified were either cancelled or outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* Memorandum to The File, from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor entitled “Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. (Compescal),” (“ * Compescal Calculation Memorandum * ”) dated February 28, 2007, for further discussion. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Aquatica and Compescal covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market for Compescal and France for Aquatica within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Aquatica and Compescal in the following order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic certification, shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp preparation, frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, species, and preservative. With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we compared Compescal's sales of broken shrimp in the home market to its sales of comparable quality shrimp to the United States. As Aquatica did not make any sales of broken shrimp in its comparison market, we compared Aquatica's U.S. sales of broken shrimp to constructed value (“CV”). Export Price For all U.S. sales made by Aquatica and Compescal, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price (“CEP”) methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. A. Aquatica We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, insurance, foreign brokerage, port handling and warehousing expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Aquatica reported port handling expenses as direct selling expenses. We reclassified these expenses as movement expenses in accordance with our normal practice. Based on our sales verification findings, we made revisions to the insurance expense reported for certain U.S. sales. *See* Memorandum to The File, from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor entitled “Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda., Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation,” dated February 28, 2007, (“ *Aquatica Calculation Memorandum* ”) for further discussion. B. Compescal We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, insurance, and port expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because Compescal's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that its home market was viable. Therefore, we used home market sales as the basis for NV in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Home Market as Appropriate Comparison Market for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,” dated November 9, 2006. Furthermore, we determined that Aquatica's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, with respect to Aquatica, we used sales to France, Aquatica's largest third country market, as the basis for comparison-market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil - Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market for Aquatica,” dated November 6, 2006. B. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* .; *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (“ *Plate from South Africa* ”). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 6 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 6 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61732-33. In this administrative review, we obtained information from each respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below. 1. Aquatica Aquatica reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a single channel of distribution ( *i.e.* , directly to U.S. customers/distributors). We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that Aquatica performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting and strategic and economic planning, advertising and marketing, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance, order input/processing, guarantees, and invoicing. These selling activities can be generally grouped into three core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, 3) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Aquatica performed sales and marketing, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical support for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. When NV is based on CV, as in this case, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. ( *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile* , 63 FR 2664 (January 16, 1998)). As discussed below, we based the CV selling expenses and profit on the weighted-average selling expenses incurred and profits earned by two respondents in the LTFV investigation. We are unable to determine that the LOT of the sales from which we derived selling expenses and profit for CV is different from the EP LOT. Further, because NV is based on CV, there is only one NV LOT, and there is insufficient information on the record that would enable us to determine that an LOT adjustment is warranted. Therefore, we have no basis upon which to make an LOT adjustment to NV. 2. Compescal Compescal reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a single channel of distribution ( *i.e.* , direct sales to distributors). We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found that Compescal performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting and strategic/economic planning, packing, verbal guarantees, freight and delivery to port, and invoicing. These selling activities can be generally grouped into three core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery services; and, 3) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Compescal performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and warranty and technical support for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the home market, Compescal made sales to final consumers (restaurants and individuals). Compescal stated that its home market sales were made through four channels of distribution: 1) ex-factory; 2) delivery to the Fortaleza business unit; 3) delivery to the Fortaleza business unit and then to the customer; and 4) delivery to the Fortaleza business unit and then to the airport. We examined the selling activities performed for these channels, and found that Compescal performed the following selling functions: packing, verbal guarantees, freight and delivery (excluding ex-factory sales), and invoicing. These selling activities can be generally grouped into three core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery services; and, 3) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Compescal performed sales and marketing and warranty and technical support for all home market sales, and freight and delivery services for certain home market sales. We do not find that the fact that freight and delivery services are not provided for one channel of distribution is sufficient to distinguish it as a separate LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. C. Cost of Production Analysis Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegations, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Aquatica's and Compescal's sales of frozen warmwater shrimp in the third country and home market, respectively, were made at prices below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated sales-below-cost investigations to determine whether Aquatica's and Compescal's sales were made at prices below their respective COPs. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.” dated November 6, 2006; and Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,” dated November 28, 2006. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the respondents' cost of production (“COP”) based on the sum of their costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses and interest expenses. *See* “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market/third country selling expenses. The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its most recent supplemental section D questionnaire response for the COP calculation, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: a. Aquatica 1. We disallowed Aquatica's claimed adjustment to its reported costs for flood and virus losses because Aquatica did not provide sufficient evidence of flood losses and because we determined that the virus was not non-recurring, unforeseen or otherwise extraordinary. 2. We adjusted the cost of larva that was purchased from Aquatica's affiliate to reflect the market value of larva in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act. Our revisions to Aquatica's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from James Balog, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.,” dated February 28, 2007. b. Compescal 1. We disallowed Compescal's offset to the POR larva laboratory and farm costs for losses in productivity experienced as a result of a viral infection because we determined that the virus was not non-recurring, unforeseen, or otherwise extraordinary. 2. We revised the reported total fixed overhead costs to exclude only the 2004 and 2005 construction-in-progress costs that were actually incurred and capitalized during the POR. 3. We increased Compescal's cost of raw shrimp obtained from an affiliated supplier to reflect the market value of this input in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act. 4. We revised Compescal's reported G&A expense rate calculation to include the “revaluation of depreciation expenses” that the company recorded as an administrative expense in their records. In addition, we adjusted the cost of goods sold denominator of the calculation to reflect the same basis as the total cost of manufacturing to which the rate is applied. 5. We adjusted the cost of goods sold denominator of the financial expense rate calculation to reflect the same basis as the total cost of manufacturing to which the rate is applied. Our revisions to Compescal's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from Heidi Schriefer, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,” dated February 28, 2007. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market or third country sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices were inclusive of interest revenue and exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate. With respect to Aquatica, we reclassified certain expenses ( *i.e.* , port handling and brokerage expenses) as movement expenses because Aquatica had incorrectly reported them as direct selling expenses. Based on our sales verification findings for Aquatica, we made minor revisions to port handling fees reported for certain third country sales and to the calculation of indirect selling expenses for all third country sales. *See Aquatica Calculation Memorandum* . 3. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard home market or third country sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act: 1) whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market or third country sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because: 1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and 2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Compescal's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We found that, for all products, Aquatica's third country sales were at prices less than the COP, and in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded all third country sales and used CV as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. With respect to Compescal, for those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no useable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. *See* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section below. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices Compescal We based NV for Compescal on delivered, FOB port, FOB airport, or ex-factory prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for interest revenue. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland freight and warehousing expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We recalculated foreign inland freight and warehousing expenses for all comparison market sales consistent with verification findings. *See Compescal Calculation Memorandum* . We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstance-of-sale (“COS”) for imputed credit expenses, courier fees and documentation fees. We recalculated courier fees for all U.S. sales based on verification findings. We recalculated home market credit expenses using a publicly available average Brazilian short-term lending rate relevant to the POR, in accordance with the Import Administration Policy Bulletin No. 98.2 (February 23, 1998), because Compescal had no home market borrowings during the POR. *See Compescal Calculation Memorandum* . We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for those frozen warmwater shrimp products for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on the CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication, G&A, and interest based on the methodology described in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, above. For Aquatica, because all of its comparison-market sales failed the COP test and, therefore, were outside the ordinary course of trade, we cannot determine selling expenses or profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires sales by the respondent in question in the ordinary course of trade in a comparison market. Likewise, because Aquatica did not have sales of any product in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise, we are unable to apply alternative

(i)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Further, we cannot calculate profit based on alternative

(ii)of this section without violating our responsibility to protect respondent's administrative protective order

(APO)information because Compescal is the only other respondent with viable home market sales (19 CFR 351.405(b) requires that a profit ratio under this alternative be based solely on home market sales). If we were to use Compescal's profit ratio exclusively under this alternative, Aquatica would be able to determine Compsecal's proprietary profit rate. Therefore, we based Aquatica's CV profit and selling expenses on the third alternative, any other reasonable method, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. As a reasonable method, we calculated Aquatica's CV profit and selling expenses based on the weighted-average selling expense and profit rates derived from the comparison-market data of the respondents in the previous segment of this proceeding. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 47081 (August 4, 2004), and Memorandum from James Balog, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.,” dated February 28, 2007. Pursuant to alternative (iii), we have the option of using any other reasonable method, as long as the result is not greater than the amount realized by exporters or producers “in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise,” the “profit cap”. In the instant case, the profit cap cannot be calculated using the available data because using Compescal's home market data, the only information we have to allow us to calculate the amount normally realized by other exporters or producers in connection with the sale, for consumption in the home market, of merchandise in the same general category, would violate our responsibility to protect the respondent's APO information. Therefore, as facts available, we are applying option (iii), without quantifying a profit cap. For Compescal, we based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by Compescal in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for each respondent for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP for Compescal, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. For comparisons to EP for Aquatica, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses derived based on the methodology discussed above, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006, as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda./ Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda. 55.05 Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. 23.11 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 7 7 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Amazonas Industrias Alimenticias 48.13 Bramex Brasil Mercantil S.A. 48.13 Guy Vautrin Importacao & Exportacao 48.13 ITA Fish 48.13 JK Pesca Ltda. 48.13 Lusomar Maricultura Ltda. 48.13 Santa Lavinia Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. 48.13 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. 349.00 Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA 349.00 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of issuance of the last verification report in this case. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of issuance of the last verification report in this case. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For Aquatica and Compescal, because they did not report the entered value of their U.S. sales, we will calculate 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 will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. 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 351.106(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). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). 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 that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 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 original 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 7.05 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See Shrimp Order* . These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 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. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4279 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review and a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”), both covering the period of review (“POR”) of July 16, 2004, through January 1, 2006. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine that certain respondents in these reviews (covering one new shipper review and sixteen companies subject to the administrative review) 1 have not made sales in the United States at prices below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . 1 Further, we preliminarily determine to use total adverse facts available to determine the rate for eleven of the sixteen administrative review companies and the Vietnam-wide entity. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bankhead (respondent Grobest), and Matthew Renkey (respondent Fish One), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-9068 and

(202)482-2312, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Background On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) (“ *VN Shrimp Order* ”). On January 31, 2006, we received a request for a new shipper review from Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (“Grobest”). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the period July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, we received requests to conduct administrative reviews of 83 companies from the Petitioner 2 in addition to requests by certain Vietnamese companies. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China,* 71 FR 17813 (April 7, 2006) (“ *Administrative Review Initiation* ”). On March 17, 2006, the Department also initiated a new shipper review with respect to Grobest. 3 On March 31, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of eighty-four 4 producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Vietnam. *See Administrative Review Initiation.* On May 31, 2006, the Department aligned Grobest's new shipper review with that of Fish One based on a request from Grobest. 5 2 The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is the Petitioner. 3 *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 14834 (March 24, 2006) (“ *New Shipper Initiation* ”). 4 AAAS Logistics, Agrimex, Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.*, American Container Line, Angiang Agricultural Technology Service Company, An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (Agifish), Aquatic Products Trading Company*, Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited*, Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports, Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports, Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex)*, Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (Camimex)*, Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (Camranh Seafoods)*, Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex)*, Can Tho Agricultural Products, Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (Cataco)*, Can Tho Seafood Exports, Cautre Enterprises, Coastal Fishery Development, Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec)*, C P Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd.*, C P Livestock, Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro)*, Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (Seaprodex Danang)*, Dong Phuc Huynh Frozen Seafoods Fty, General Imports & Exports, Grobest & I Mei Industry Vietnam, Hacota Hai Viet, Hai Thuan Export Seaproducts Processing Co. Ltd., Hanoi Sea Products Import Export Corporation*, Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural, Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty, Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (Incomfish)*, Kien Giang Sea Products Import—Export Company (Kisimex)*, Kim Anh Co. Ltd., Khanh Loi Trading, Lamson Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation, Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafoods Processing Joint Stock Company (Minh Hai Jostoco)*, Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Company (Seaprodex Minh Hai)*, Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimiex Co)*, Minh Phat Seafood*, Minh Phu Seafood Corporation*, Minh Qui Seafood*, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods*, Nha Trang Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (Nhtrang Fisco)*, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (Nhatrang Seafoods)*, Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd.*, Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import Export Company Ltd.*, Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.*, Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd., Saigon Orchide, Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Compay (Fimex VN)*, Seafood Processing Imports Exports Vietnam, Seaprodex, Sea Product, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.*, Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (Stampimex)*, Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (Stampimex)*, Sonacos, Special Aquatic Products Joing Stock Company (Seaspimex), Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing Export Company, Thami Shipping & Airfreight, Thanh Long, Thanh Long, Thien Ma Seafood, Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation*, Tourism Material and Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City Branch), Truc An Company, UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company*, Viet Foods Co. Ltd.*, Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One)*, Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co. Ltd., Viet Nhan Company*, Vilfood Co, Vinh Loi Import Export Company (Vimexco)*, Vita, V N Seafoods. (* these companies received a separate rate in the prior segment (the less-than-fair value investigation) of this proceeding. 5 *See Letter from Grobest Re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Grobest's Request for Alignment of New Shipper and Administrative Reviews* , dated May 15, 2006. On July 27, 2006, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we rescinded the administrative review with respect to sixty-eight companies. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 42628 (July 27, 2006) (“ *Rescission Notice* ”). Therefore, these reviews cover 17 6 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise and the Vietnam-wide entity. 6 This includes sixteen companies subject to the administrative review and one new shipper; the administrative review for Grobest was rescinded. On August 21, 2006, the Department extended the preliminary results for the instant reviews until February 28, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 50387 (August 25, 2006). On January 23, 2007, we published a correction to the scope of the order in which we clarified that the scope does not cover warmwater shrimp in non-frozen form. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders* , 72 FR 2857 (Jan. 23, 2007). 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, 7 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 7 “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 (HTS 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 (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40);

(4)shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10);

(5)dried shrimp and prawns;

(6)canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS 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. Respondent Selection On April 3, 2006, the Department sent letters to the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (“VASEP”) and the Ministry of Fisheries in Vietnam requesting assistance with distributing the Department's questionnaire. On April 25, 2006, the Department sent a letter to all interested parties clarifying an aspect of the separate rates application. Between April 27 and May 19, 2006, the Department received Quantity and Value questionnaire (“Q&V”) responses and separate rate certifications from COFIDEC, Seaprodex Hanoi, CATACO, FAQUIMEX, HAVICO, Kim Anh, Fish One, Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. and subsidiary Western Seafood Processing and Exporting Factory, Fimex, Grobest, CAM RANH, Bac Lieu, Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation, Ngoc Sinh, STAPIMEX, UTXI, Amanda, Minh Phu, Nha Trang Fisco, Viet Foods, VIMEXCO, Seaprimexco, Kisimex, Cafatex, Seaprodex Minh Hai, CP Vietnam, Incomfish, Minh Hai Jostco, Phu Cuong, Camimex, Cuu Long Sea Pro, Nha Trang Seafoods, Seaprodex Danang, and CADOVIMEX. On May 22, 2006, the Department resent its Q&V questionnaire and separate rate application via e-mail and overnight express delivery to all companies that did not respond to the Department's original Q&V questionnaire and separate rate application. *See Memorandum to the file, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Issuance of the Second Round of Quantity and Value Questionnaires and Separate Rate Applications/ Certifications.* On May 25, 2006, the Department corrected a mistake to its May 22, 2006, Q&V follow-up letters addressed to VASEP and the Ministry of Fisheries. *See Memorandum to the file, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Quantity and Value Response for Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company.* On May 26, 2006, the Department reissued its Q&V questionnaire and separate rate application to two additional companies. Between June 2 and July 11, 2006, the Petitioner withdrew its request for antidumping administrative reviews for certain companies and certain companies also withdrew their requests for an administrative review. *See Rescission Notice.* On June 6, 2006, the Petitioner filed a letter requesting that the Department select mandatory respondents through a sampling methodology. On June 7, 2006, Pataya Food Industries (Vietnam) Limited filed a letter stating that it had no shipments during the POR. On June 14, 2006, the Department placed on the record a Q&V response from Vilfood Co. Ltd. and Khanh Loi Production & Trading Co., Ltd. *See Memorandum to the file, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: No Shipment Responses from Vilfood Co. Ltd. and Khanh Loi Production & Trading Co., Ltd.* On June 15, 2006, the Department met with the Petitioner to discuss the shrimp administrative reviews. *See Memorandum to the file, from Chris Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Ex Parte Meeting.* On June 16, 2006, the Department issued its respondent selection memorandum stating that we selected Amanda, Fimex, and Phuong Nam as the three mandatory respondents since they were the three largest exporters, by volume, of the remaining companies. *See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, re: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents* (“ *Respondent Selection Memo* ”). On July 11, 2006, the Department selected three new mandatory respondents: Fish One, Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex (the three largest remaining exporters, by volume) based on the withdrawals of requests for review from the three previously selected mandatory respondents. *See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Cindy Lai Robinson, Senior Analyst re: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondents (“Second Respondent Selection Memo”).* Questionnaires The following sixteen companies remain in the administrative review: Aquatic Products Trading Company, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Camranh Seafoods, Seaprodex Hanoi, Incomfish, Kisimex, Nha Trang Company Limited, Nhatrang Fisco, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Vietnam Fish One, Viet Nhan Company, and V N Seafoods. On March 20, 2006, the Department issued Grobest the non-market economy questionnaire. On July 12, 2006, the Department issued its non-market economy questionnaire to the three new mandatory respondents Fish One, Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex. 8 8 Prior to the withdrawal of their requests for review, on June 20, 2006, the Department issued its non-market economy questionnaire to the three mandatory respondents: Amanda, Fimex, and Phuong Nam, in the instant administrative review. Grobest responded to the Department's non-market economy questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between April 2006 and November 2006. Fish One responded to the Department's non-market economy questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between August 2006 and November 2006. Between August and November 2006, the Petitioner submitted comments regarding Fish One's questionnaire responses. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values On June 20, 2006, the Department sent interested parties a letter requesting comments on surrogate country and information pertaining to valuing factors of production. Grobest, Fish One, and the Petitioner submitted surrogate country comments and surrogate value data between November 16, 2006, and February 12, 2007. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides that, if an interested party:

(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department}for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. 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, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), 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; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Furthermore, 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 or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also* Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). 1. Fish One Unreported Factors of Production (“FOPs”) For these preliminary results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for Fish One's unreported consumption of salt2 9 and marinade. 9 Fish One reported using salt in its production of shrimp, however, it also uses salt in its production of ice, which we are referring to as “salt2.” Fish One did not report salt2 or marinade consumption in its three submissions of FOP data dated August 25, 2006, October 26, 2006, and November 21, 2006. At verification, we discovered that Fish One used salt2 and marinade during the production of subject merchandise. *See Fish One Verification Report,* at 10; *see also Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One),* dated February 28, 2007 at 3. Because Fish One withheld this data and failed to report its actual salt2 and marinade consumption to the Department, despite multiple opportunities to provide complete FOP data, 10 we are applying facts available for Fish One's salt2 and marinade consumption pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. 10 August 25, 2006, October 25, 2006, and November 21, 2006 responses to the Department's original and supplemental Section C and D questionnaires. 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 or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also* SAA accompanying the URAA at 870. An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the Petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. In this instance, Fish One failed to act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's repeated requests for information regarding all of its FOP used during the POR, *i.e.* salt2 and marinade. Only at verification did it become clear that these two previously unreported factors of production existed. As noted above, Fish One had several opportunities to provide the information regarding these two FOPs and was the sole entity with both possession and control of this information; however, Fish One failed to report the data for these two FOPs. Throughout the proceeding, Fish One did not indicate that it was unable to submit complete FOP information in the requested form and manner, nor did Fish One provide a full explanation or suggest an alternative form in which to submit the information, in accordance with section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we find that Fish One failed to cooperate to the best of its ability with respect to these FOPs and we are applying AFA for these two factors used by Fish One in these preliminary results, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As partial AFA for Fish One's salt2 and marinade FOPs, we are using the highest single monthly usage rate for these inputs and applying this monthly usage ratio to all months during the POR. 2. Vietnam-Wide Entity and Non-Responsive Companies As mentioned in the “General Background” section above, based on withdrawals and subsequent rescissions, the administrative review covers sixteen companies. Of those sixteen companies, only one mandatory respondent (Fish One) and four separate rate companies (Bac Lieu Fisheries, Camranh Seafoods, Incomfish, and Nhatrang Fisco) chose to participate. The remaining eleven companies did not provide responses to the Department's requests for information. On July 12, 2006, the Department issued the non-market economy questionnaire to mandatory respondents, Kisimex and Seaprodex Hanoi. Neither respondent provided a response to Section A of the Department's antidumping questionnaire by the deadline of August 2, 2006. The Department sent letters to both companies on August 4, 2006, stating that the final opportunity to submit a response to the Department's questionnaire would be August 11, 2006, but neither company responded. Additionally, the nine remaining companies 11 did not respond at any point to the Department's Q&V and separate rate questionnaires, despite the fact that these companies, as outlined above, were given two opportunities to do so. Furthermore, at no point in the administrative review did any of these companies submit comments regarding their status in this proceeding. As such, we find it appropriate to apply facts available to these eleven companies in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(B)of the Act. Moreover, we find that because these eleven companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaires, they did not cooperate to the best of their ability and therefore, adverse facts available is appropriate. As these eleven companies did not provide the information necessary to conduct a separate rate analysis, we also consider these companies as part of the Vietnam-wide entity. Therefore, we are applying an adverse inference to the Vietnam-wide entity (including the eleven non-responsive companies) in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. 12 11 Aquatic Products Trading Company, Nha Trang Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Viet Nhan Company, and V N Seafoods. 12 *See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,* 71 FR 54269 (September 14, 2006) (“ *HFHTs Final 2006* ”) and *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000). As AFA, we are applying the highest rate from any segment of this proceeding which in this case is the rate assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity in the LTFV investigation. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA further provides that the term “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. The AFA rate we are applying for the current review of frozen shrimp was corroborated in the investigation. *See VN Shrimp Order* , 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of the information used for this AFA rate. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. 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: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, * 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co.* v. *United States,* 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here. Moreover, the rate selected ( *i.e.* , 25.76 percent) is the rate currently applicable to the Vietnam-wide entity. The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have demonstrated a lower rate, it would have cooperated. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.* v. *United States,* 899 F2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990); *Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc.* v. *United States,* 24 CIT 841

(2000)(respondents should not benefit from failure to cooperate). As there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA in the current review, we determine that this rate has relevance. As this rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value, and is thus in accordance with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable ( *i.e.* , that it has probative value). Verification Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we conducted verifications of the sales and factors of production (“FOP”) for Grobest 13 and Fish One. 14 The Petitioner submitted pre-verification comments for Fish One on November 20, 2006. 13 The verification of Grobest's sales and FOPs and that of its affiliated United States importer Ocean Duke took place from November 29, 2006, through December 8, 2006. *See Memorandum to the file through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, from Nicole Bankhead, Analyst, Office 9: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (“Grobest”) and its affiliate Ocean Duke in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.* 14 The verification of Fish One's sales and FOPs took place from December 11, 2006, through December 15, 2006. *See Memorandum to the file through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (“Fish One”) in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.* New Shipper Reviews Bona Fide Analysis Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the *bona fide* nature of the sale made by Grobest for the new shipper review. We preliminarily find that the new shipper sale made by Grobest is a *bona fide* transaction. Based on our investigation into the *bona fide* nature of the sale, the questionnaire responses submitted by Grobest, and our verification thereof, as well the company's eligibility for a separate rate ( *see* Separate Rates section below) and the Department's preliminary determination that Grobest was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United States, we preliminarily determine that Grobest has met the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, we are treating Grobest's respective sale of subject merchandise to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this new shipper review. 15 15 *See Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp: Grobest,* dated February 28, 2007 (“ *Grobest Prelim Bona Fide Memo* ”). Non-Market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review,* 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Separate Rates Determination A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within Vietnam are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). A. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; and

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies. In the LTFV investigation for this case, the Department granted separate rates to Fish One, the only mandatory respondent in the instant review, and to the four participating separate rate respondents, Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and Incomfish. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying *Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, NME Unit, Office IX, THROUGH: Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, NME Unit, Office IX , FROM: Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, re: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Determination Separate Rates Memorandum for Section A Respondents; see also VN Shrimp Order,* 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) and accompanying * MEMORANDUM TO: James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, THROUGH: Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, FROM: Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, and Paul Walker, Case Analyst, RE: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations * at Comments 7,8,9,10, and 11. However, it is the Department's policy to evaluate separate rates questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a separate rates claim, regardless of whether the respondent received a separate rate in the past. *See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China, Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). In this review, only Fish One, Grobest, and the four participating separate rate companies submitted complete responses to the separate rates section of the Department's NME questionnaire. The evidence submitted by these companies includes government laws and regulations on corporate ownership, business licenses, and narrative information regarding the companies' operations and selection of management. The evidence provided by these companies supports a finding of a *de jure* absence of governmental control over their export activities. We have no information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of *de jure* government control based on:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's business license; and

(2)the legal authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondents. 16 16 The preliminary finding applies to

(1)the one mandatory participating respondent of this administrative review: Fish One;

(2)the new shipper company under review; Grobest; and

(3)the non-selected respondents of this administrative review seeking a separate rate: Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and Incomfish. B. Absence of De Facto Control The absence of *de facto* governmental control over exports is based on whether the Respondent:

(1)Sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters;

(2)retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;

(3)has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and

(4)has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22587; *Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In their questionnaire responses, Fish One and the separate rate companies submitted evidence indicating an absence of *de facto* governmental control over their export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that:

(1)Each company sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;

(2)each company retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;

(3)each company has a general manager, branch manager or division manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement;

(4)the general manager is selected by the board of directors or company employees, and the general manager appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and

(5)there is no restriction on any of the companies use of export revenues. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Fish One and the separate rate companies have established *prima facie* that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by *Silicon Carbide* and *Sparklers.* Additionally, Grobest reported that it is wholly owned by foreign entities. Therefore, an additional separate-rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether Grobest's export activities are independent from government control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China,* 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, thus, qualified for a separate rate). Separate Rate Calculation Based on timely requests from individual exporters and petitioners, the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 84 companies. During the course of the review, numerous requests for review were withdrawn; however, the Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made. As stated previously, the Department selected three exporters, Fish One, Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex as mandatory respondents in this review. Four additional companies (Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods and Incomfish) submitted timely information as requested by the Department and remain subject to review as cooperative separate rate respondents. Fish One participated fully in this review and is receiving a preliminary antidumping duty rate of zero. As noted above, however, the remaining two mandatory respondents, Seaprodex Hanoi and Kisimex, did not respond to our questionnaires. As a result, these two entities are not entitled to a separate rate in this review and thus are considered to be part of the Vietnam-wide entity. As part of the Vietnam-wide entity, these two companies are receiving a preliminary antidumping duty rate of 25.76 percent. The Department must also assign a rate to the remaining four cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual examination. We note that the statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in this regard, in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the selected companies excluding zero and *de minimis* rates and rates based entirely on adverse facts available. In the instant review, however, the rates for the mandatory respondents include only a single zero rate and a rate for the Vietnam-wide entity based on total AFA. While the statute does not specifically address this particular set of circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act does specify the methodology to be followed when a similar fact pattern arises in the context of the all-others rate established in an investigation. While not entirely analogous to the determination of a rate to be applied to responsive separate rate respondents in the context of a NME review, we find it to be instructive in these circumstances. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that in situations where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* , or are determined entirely under section 776 (facts available section), “the administering authority may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” The Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that in using any reasonable method to calculate the all-others rate, “the expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and *de minimis* margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available.” *See* SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.Doc. 316, Vol 1., 103rd Cong (1994)(SAA) at 203. However, the SAA also provides that: [I]f this method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable means.” *Id.* In this case, because of the nature of the shrimp industry, the Department preliminarily concludes that it cannot accurately determine a margin based on information provided by the separate rate entities, furthermore, we preliminarily find that we cannot employ such alternative methods as weight-averaging AFA, *de minimis* , and zero rates or partial use of the information on the record. Specifically, while the separate rates entities have given us total volume and value information with respect to subject merchandise, we note that shrimp prices vary dramatically, principally due to count-size. Thus, margins calculated on the basis of average prices without regard to count size and other factors do not reflect a meaningful, accurate comparison. Because the Department does not have comparable information with respect to the count sizes sold by the separate entities, we find we must look to other reasonable means to determine an appropriate margin for the separate rate entities subject to this review. The Department has preliminarily determined to apply the margin calculated for cooperative separate rate respondents in the immediately preceding segment of this proceeding, *i.e.* , the margin of 4.57 percent assigned to such companies in the LTFV investigation. We believe this methodology constitutes a reasonable method by which to calculate such rate. The rate of 4.57 percent calculated in the LTFV was based on the Department's thorough examination of several cooperative companies accounting for a majority of exports during the period of investigation. We believe, therefore, that this rate is reflective of the range of commercial behavior demonstrated by exporters of the subject merchandise during a very recent period in time. Therefore, we find it a reasonable means by which to determine a rate for non-examined cooperative separate entities and have employed this methodology for purposes of these preliminary results. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOPs”), valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:

(1)At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and

(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in *Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,* February 28, 2007 (“ *Factor Valuation Memo* ”). As discussed in the “Separate Rates” section, the Department considers Vietnam to be an NME country. The Department has treated Vietnam as an NME country in all previous antidumping proceedings. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding contested such treatment. Accordingly, we treated Vietnam as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs in a surrogate country. The Department determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia are countries comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic development. 17 Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. *See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,* (March 1, 2004) (“ *Policy Bulletin* ”). In this case, we have found that Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India are all significant producers of comparable merchandise. We find Bangladesh to be a reliable source for surrogate values because Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has publicly available and reliable data. *See Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst, Subject: First Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate Country,* (February 28, 2007) (“ *Surrogate Country Memo* ”). Furthermore, we note that Bangladesh has been the primary surrogate country in past segments and both the Petitioner and Respondents submitted surrogate values based on Bangladeshi data that are contemporaneous to the POR, which gives further credence to the use of Bangladesh as a surrogate country. 17 *Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Jim Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: New Shipper Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,* dated June 20, 2006, at Attachment I; *Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Jim Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp (“Shrimp”) from Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries* dated June 20, 2006, at Attachment II (“ *Surrogate Country Lists* ”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review and a new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. U.S. Price A. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the export price (“EP”) for sales to the United States for Fish One because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values. Additionally, for international freight provided by a market economy provider and paid in U.S. dollars, we used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. *See Factor Valuation Memo* for details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. B. Constructed Export Price For Grobest, we based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the Vietnam-based company by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. For Grobest's sales, we based CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign movement expenses, international movement expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling adjustments, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States. We deducted, where appropriate, commissions, inventory carrying costs, credit expenses, and indirect selling expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by Vietnam service providers or paid for in Vietnamese Dong, we valued these services using surrogate values (see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense. Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed description of all adjustments made to U.S. price for Grobest, *see Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (“Grobest”),* dated February 28, 2007. Normal Value 1. Methodology Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. 2. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POR, except as noted above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Bangladeshi surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Bangladeshi import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we calculated freight based on the reported distance from the supplier to the factory. With regard to surrogate values and the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) (“ *CTVs from the PRC* ”) at accompanying issues and decision memorandum at Comment 7; *see also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. The legislative history provides that in making its determination as to whether input values may be subsidized, the Department is not required to conduct a formal investigation, rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. *See* H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Bangladeshi import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Bangladeshi import-based surrogate values to value the input. Except as discussed below, the Department used United Nations ComTrade Statistics (“UN ComTrade”), provided by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs' Statistics Division, as its primary source of Bangladeshi surrogate value data. 18 The data represents cumulative values for the calendar year 2004, for inputs classified by the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (“HS”) number. For each input value, we used the average value per unit for that input imported into Bangladesh from all countries that the Department has not previously determined to be non-market economy (“NME”) countries. Import statistics from countries that the Department has determined to be countries which subsidized exports ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, and India) and imports from unspecified countries also were excluded in the calculation of the average value. *See CTVs from the PRC,* 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). 18 This can be accessed online at: *http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/.* It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index for the subject country. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). However, in this case, a wholesale price index was not available for Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value factors could not be obtained, surrogate values were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) rate for Bangladesh, or the Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) for India or Indonesia (for certain surrogate values where Bangladeshi data could not be obtained), as published in the *International Financial Statistics* (“ *IFS* ”) of the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”). Certain surrogate values were calculated using data from the *2004 Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh* (“Bangladesh Government Statistics”), published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning. The information represents cumulative values for the period of 2004. Certain other Bangladeshi sources were used as well. *See Factor Valuation Memo.* The unit values were initially calculated in takas/unit. Bangladeshi and other surrogate values denominated in foreign currencies were converted to USD using the applicable average exchange rate based on exchange rate data from the Department's Web site. Shrimp Value The value of the main input, head-on, shell-on (“HOSO”) shrimp, is an important factor of production in our dumping calculation as it accounts for a significant percentage of normal value. As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly available data to value surrogate values from the surrogate country to determine factor prices that, among other things represent a broad market average and are contemporaneous with the POR. The Respondents and the Petitioner have placed numerous Bangladeshi shrimp values on the record. In this case, the Department has determined that data contained in a study of the Bangladeshi shrimp industry published by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (“NACA”), an intergovernmental organization affiliated with the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, is a suitable surrogate value for shrimp from the surrogate country, namely, Bangladesh. The Department's practice when selecting the “best available information” for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are: publicly available, product-specific, representative of a broad market average, tax-exclusive and contemporaneous with the POR. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. The data contained in the NACA study appear to satisfy these requirements. To value the by-products, the Department used a surrogate value for shrimp by-products based on a purchase price quote for wet shrimp shells from an Indonesian buyer of crustacean shells. Although we recognize this surrogate value is not from Bangladesh, the primary surrogate, this information represents the best information on the record and is being used for these preliminary results. This information is specific to the by-product in question, shrimp shells, whereas the Bangladeshi data on the record represent a basket category. *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Exhibit 11. To value packing materials, we used UN ComTrade data as the primary source of Bangladeshi surrogate value data. To value factory overhead (“FOH”), Selling, General & Administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit, we used the simple average of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 financial statement of Apex Foods Limited (“Apex”), the 2005 financial statement of Bionic Seafood Exports Limited, and the 2004-2005 financial statement of Gemini Seafood Limited, all of which are Bangladeshi shrimp processors. *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Exhibit 12. Preliminary Results of the Reviews The Department has determined that the following preliminary dumping margins exist for the period July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006: 19 The Vietnam-Wide entity includes Aquatic Products Trading Company, Seaprodex Hanoi, Kisimex, Nha Trang Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Viet Nhan Company, and V N Seafoods. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Produced and Exported by Grobest 1.08. Fish One 0.01 ( *de minimis* ). Nha Trang Fisco 4.57. Bac Lieu Fisheries 4.57. Cam Ranh Seafoods 4.57. Incomfish 4.57. Vietnam-Wide Rate 19 25.76. The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the following information:

(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review and new shipper reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 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* . Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these new shipper reviews for all shipments of subject merchandise from Grobest entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)For subject merchandise produced and exported by Grobest, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in these final results of reviews and

(2)for subject merchandise exported by Grobest, but manufactured by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be Vietnam-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 25.76 percent). Further, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)For subject merchandise exported by Fish One, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in these final results of review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)for all other Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be Vietnam-wide rate of 25.76 percent;

(4)for all non-Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnam exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this 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. This administrative review, the new shipper reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(g), 351.214(h) and 352.221(b)(4). Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4281 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-331-802 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador with respect to 23 companies. 1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are OceanInvest, S.A. (OceanInvest) and Promarisco, S.A. (Promarisco). The respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. This is the first administrative review of this order. The period of review

(POR)covers August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. 1 This figure does not include the company for which the Department is rescinding the administrative review. See “Partial Rescission of Review” section for further discussion. We preliminarily determine that sales made by OceanInvest and Promarisco have been made below normal value (NV). In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin for those companies that were not selected for individual review but were responsive to the Department's requests for information. For those companies which were not responsive to the Department's requests for information, we have preliminarily assigned to them a margin based on adverse facts available (AFA). If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4136 or

(202)482-3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In February 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador* , 70 FR 5156 (February 1, 2005) ( *Shrimp Order* ). On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, the petitioner 2 submitted a letter timely requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp made by numerous companies during the POR, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). Also, on February 28, 2006, the Department received timely requests under 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) to conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the following producers/exporters of subject merchandise: Empacadora del Pacifico S.A., Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda., Exporklore, S.A., Promarisco, and Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A. On April 7, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review for 71 companies and requested that each provide data on the quantity and value of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR for mandatory respondent selection purposes. These companies are listed in the Department's notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand* , 71 FR 17819 (April 7, 2006) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). 2 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. During the period April 27, 2006, through June 13, 2006, we received responses to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire from 59 companies. A number of these companies reported that their names were duplicated in the *Notice of Initiation* . Subsequently, the Department received withdrawal requests with respect to many of the companies. However, based upon our consideration of the responses to the quantity and value questionnaire and the resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review request remained. As a result, on July 11, 2006, we selected the two largest remaining producers/exporters by export volume of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador during the POR, OceanInvest and Promarisco, as the mandatory respondents in this review. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Selection of Respondents,” dated July 11, 2006. On this same date, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to OceanInvest and Promarisco. On July 20, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to 47 companies for which the requests for an administrative review were withdrawn in a timely manner, 3 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 41198 (July 20, 2006). 3 Among the 47 companies referenced in the rescission notice is one company we determined was a duplicate name for another company included in the review. We received responses to section A of the questionnaire from Promarisco and OceanInvest on August 8 and August 15, 2006, respectively. On August 11, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments regarding third country market selection with respect to Promarisco. On August 25, 2006, the Department postponed the preliminary results in this review until no later than February 28, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 50387 (August 25, 2006). We received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire from OceanInvest and Promarisco on September 6, 2006. In addition, on this date Promarisco submitted a response to section D of the questionnaire. On September 19, 2006, we published a notice amending the initiation and partial rescission of the administrative review to include an additional company which was inadvertently omitted. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador; Notice of Amended Initiation and Amended Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 54797 (September 19, 2006). On September 20, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of OceanInvest. On October 20, 2006, we initiated this investigation. See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for OceanInvest S.A.,” dated October 20, 2006 (OceanInvest COP Initiation Memo). On that date, we instructed OceanInvest to respond to the Department's section D questionnaire. We issued a supplemental section A, B, and C questionnaire to OceanInvest on September 21, 2006, and received responses on October 13 and 17, 2006. We issued a supplemental section A, B, and C questionnaire to Promarisco on October 3, 2006, along with an additional information request on October 16, 2006, and received responses on October 11, 23, and 27, 2006. On October 17, 2006, the petitioner submitted additional comments on the appropriate comparison market to be used for Promarisco. Promarisco responded to these comments in its October 23, 2006, submission. On November 6, 2006, we determined that Spain constitutes the appropriate comparison market with respect to Promarisco. See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market for Promarisco,” dated November 6, 2006. OceanInvest submitted its response to section D of the questionnaire on November 16, 2006. In response to Department requests, OceanInvest also submitted additional information concerning its section B and C questionnaire responses on November 9, 20, and 28, 2006. We issued a section D supplemental questionnaire to Promarisco on November 21, 2006, and to OceanInvest on December 19, 2006. On December 22, 2006, and January 18, 2007, respectively, we received responses to these supplemental questionnaires. We issued additional supplemental section D questionnaires to OceanInvest on January 24 and February 5, 2007, and to Promarisco on February 9, 2007. OceanInvest submitted its responses on February 2 and 12, 2007, and Promarisco submitted its response on February 21, 2007. We conducted a verification of OceanInvest's reported sales data in December 2007, and issued our verification report on January 18, 2007. In response to our January 22, 2007, request, OceanInvest submitted revised third-country and U.S. sales data bases reflecting certain verification findings on January 30, 2007. On January 23, 2007, we published a correction to the scope of the order in which we clarified that the scope does not cover warmwater shrimp in non-frozen form. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders* , 72 FR 2857 (January 23, 2007). We conducted a verification of OceanInvest's reported cost data in February 2007. Our cost verification report will be issued following the preliminary results. 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, 4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 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. 4 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 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 (HTS 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 (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS 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. Partial Rescission of Review In response to our quantity and value data solicitation, Studmark, S.A. claimed that the only shipment of subject merchandise it made during the POR was being reviewed in the context of a new shipper review that was initiated prior to the initiation of this administrative review. 5 Having confirmed the accuracy of this claim with CBP, and having issued final results in the new shipper review covering Studmark's single shipment, we are rescinding this review with respect to Studmark, S.A. 5 The final results of this new shipper review were published on September 20, 2006. *See Notice of Final Results of New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador* , 71 FR 54977 (September 20, 2006) ( *NSR* ). Application of Facts Available 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, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. Doblertel, S.A., Pacfish, S.A. ( *Pacfish* ), and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. claimed that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, because we were unable to confirm the accuracy of these companies' claims with CBP, we requested further information/clarification from them. Pacfish responded to our request, 6 but Doblertel, S.A. and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. failed to provide the requested information/clarification. By doing so, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. 6 Pacfish's response states that it erred in initially reporting that it made no shipments during the POR and acknowledges that it made a small quantity of sales during the POR. *See* “Pacfish Response Submission to Department's September 19, 2006, Letter,” and Memorandum to the File dated October 31, 2006. This information was generally consistent with the data obtained from CBP. Accordingly, we have determined that Pacfish was responsive to the Department's request for information, and therefore, are assigning to Pacfish the rate applied to other non-mandatory respondents in this review. 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 also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and 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 (August 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 preliminarily find that Doblertel, S.A. and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting 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 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., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part * , 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006). In selecting an appropriate AFA rate, the Department considered: 1) the rates alleged in the petition ( *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, 3879 (January 27, 2004)); 2) the rates calculated in the final determination of the investigation, which ranged from 2.48 to 4.42 percent ( *see Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador* , 70 FR 5156, 5157 (February 1, 2005) ( *LTFV Amended Final Determination and Order* )); and 3) the rate calculated in the *NSR* , 9.20 percent. As discussed further below, we do not find that the rates alleged in the petition have probative value for purposes of this review. In addition, we find that the weighted-average rates calculated for respondents in previous segments of this proceeding, as well as in the instant review, are not sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule ( *i.e.* , we do not find that any of these rates are high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 48.61 percent as AFA, which is the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for a respondent in this review. The Department has applied this methodology in previous proceedings, such as *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 45012 ( August 8, 2006), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15; and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 39299 (July 12, 2006), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. We consider the 48.61 percent rate to be sufficiently high so as to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d); *see* also *SAA* at 870. With respect to consideration of the rates alleged in the petition, information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and to the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. Because the companies did not submit information to the Department or participate in a previous segment of this proceeding, we do not have such information to consider in determining whether the petition rate is relevant to each of them. To determine whether the margin is reliable and relevant in this administrative review, we examined the transaction-specific rates of the respondents in this administrative review compared to the petition rates and found that they were not relevant for use in this administrative review. The highest transaction-specific rate calculated for a respondent in this review was 48.61 percent, which is substantially lower than the lowest margin alleged in the petition. We then examined the elements of the export price

(EP)and NV calculations on which the margins in the petition were based. The petitioner based EP on the average unit values

(AUVs)for Ecuadorian shrimp of various count sizes as calculated from CBP data and reported on a headless, shell-on

(HLSO)basis. The petitioner based NV on an Italian price list for head-on, shell-on

(HOSO)shrimp of various count sizes and made several adjustments to those prices, including conversion from an HOSO to an HLSO basis. We compared the EPs and NVs in the petition to entered values in the U.S. sales listings for both respondents, and gross unit prices for HLSO shrimp in the Italian market from OceanInvest's sales listing, respectively. Although we found the U.S. entered values reported in this review to be comparable to the AUVs in the petition, OceanInvest's POR sales prices in the Italian market were substantially different from the NVs in the petition. *See* Memorandum to the File entitled “Procedures Conducted to Corroborate Data Contained in Petition for Assignment of Appropriate Adverse Facts Available Rate,” dated February 28, 2007, for further discussion. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the petition rates have probative value for AFA assignment purposes in this review. As noted above, we do not find the weighted-average rates calculated for respondents in this and previous segments of this proceeding to be sufficiently adverse. Therefore, we are applying the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for the mandatory respondents in this review. With respect to corroboration of a rate calculated in a segment of a proceeding, we note that, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive dumping margins. The only source for calculated dumping margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as total AFA a calculated dumping margin from the current or a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. *See, e.g., Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 44283, 44284 (July 28, 2003) (unchanged in final). Therefore, given that we are using the highest of the transaction-specific rates calculated for the mandatory respondents in this administrative review, it is not necessary to question the reliability of this rate. The Department will, however, consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available and have found none. Because we did not find evidence indicating that the margin used as facts available in this proceeding is not appropriate, we have determined that the the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for any mandatory respondent in this administrative review is appropriate as AFA and are assigning this rate to Doblertel, S.A. and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by OceanInvest and Promarisco to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by OceanInvest and Promarisco covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales to sales made in Italy for OceanInvest and Spain for Promarisco within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by OceanInvest and Promarisco in the following order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic certification, shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp preparation, frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, species, and preservative. With respect to Promarisco's U.S. sales of broken shrimp, we compared them to constructed value (CV), as Promarisco did not make any sales of broken shrimp in its comparison market. Export Price For all U.S. sales made by OceanInvest and Promarisco, we applied the EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price ( *CEP* ) methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. A. OceanInvest We based EP on FOB or delivered, duty-paid

(DDP)prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments. We also made deductions to the starting price for demurrage expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, Ecuadorian brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, U.S. customs duties ( *including merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees* ), and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. OceanInvest reported certain price adjustments and demurrage expenses as direct selling expenses. We reclassified these items as billing adjustments and movement expenses, respectively. As noted in the sales verification report ( *see* “Verification of the Sales Response of OceanInvest S.A. in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Administrative Review of Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador,” Memorandum to the File dated January 18, 2007 (OceanInvest SVR)) at page 18, OceanInvest inadvertently reported many adjustments for glazed sales on a glaze-inclusive basis rather than glaze-exclusive basis. We recalculated the per-unit amounts to reflect a glaze-exclusive basis using the methodology outlined in the verification report. Based on our sales verification findings, we made minor revisions to the movement expenses reported for a small number of U.S. sales. *See* Memorandum to the File entitled “OceanInvest S.A., Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation,” dated February 28, 2007 (OceanInvest Preliminary Results Memo). B. Promarisco We based EP on CIF or DDP prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions to the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. In the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation segment of this proceeding, the Department determined that a particular market situation existed which rendered the Ecuadorian market inappropriate for purposes of determining NV for the three respondents in the LTFV investigation, including Promarisco. *See* Memorandum dated June 7, 2004, entitled “Home Market as Appropriate Comparison Market,” as included at Exhibit A-2 of Promarisco's August 8, 2006, section A Questionnaire response. Promarisco reported that the particular market situation still applies to its home market sales and there is no information on the record to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, although the aggregate volume of Promarisco's home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, because of the particular market situation, we could not rely on Promarisco's home market sales for determining NV. Therefore, we used Promarisco's sales to Spain, Promarisco's largest third country market, as the basis for comparison-market sales. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled “Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market for Promarisco,” dated November 8, 2006, for a more detailed discussion of this issue. Furthermore, based on our analysis of OceanInvest's questionnaire responses, we determined that OceanInvest's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 7 Therefore, with respect to OceanInvest, we used sales to Italy, which is OceanInvest's largest third country market, as the basis for comparison-market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404. 7 Because OceanInvest's sales in the home market did not meet the viability threshold, it was unnecessary to address whether a particular market situation existed with respect to such sales. B. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *See* , *id* . *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 8 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 8 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61732-33. In this administrative review, we obtained information from each respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below. 1. OceanInvest OceanInvest sold frozen warmwater shrimp to distributors and traders in the U.S. market, and distributors in the Italian market. OceanInvest reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through two channels of distribution: FOB sales, and DDP. We examined the selling activities performed for these channels, and found that OceanInvest performed the following selling functions for both channels: packing, order input/processing, direct sales personnel services, and claim services ( *i.e.* , billing adjustments). In addition, for DDP sales, OceanInvest made freight and delivery arrangements. These selling activities can be generally grouped into two core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing ( *e.g.* , order input/processing, direct sales personnel services, claim services); and 2) freight and delivery. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that OceanInvest performed sales and marketing for all U.S. sales, and freight and delivery services as well for certain U.S. sales. We do not find that the provision of freight and delivery services for one channel of distribution is sufficient to distinguish it as a separate LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the Italian market, OceanInvest reported one channel of distribution, FOB sales. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found that OceanInvest performed the following selling functions: packing, order input/processing, direct sales personnel services, payment of commissions, and claim services ( *i.e.* , billing adjustments). These selling activities can be generally grouped into one core selling function for analysis: sales and marketing. Accordingly, we find that OceanInvest performed the core selling function of sales and marketing for all customers in the Italian market. Because all sales in the Italian market are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the Italian market. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the comparison market LOT and found that, with the exception of freight and delivery services performed on some U.S. sales, and the payment of commissions on Italian sales, the core selling functions performed for U.S. and Italian market customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and Italian markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. 2. Promarisco Promarisco made direct sales of frozen warmwater shrimp to retailers, food processors, restaurant chains, and distributors in the U.S. market, and food processors and distributors in the Spanish market. Promarisco reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market on a CIF or DDP basis through one channel of distribution. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found that Promarisco performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting, sales promotion, order input/processing, technical assistance, pay commissions, freight and delivery, and claim services. These selling activities can be generally grouped into two core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing ( *e.g.* , order input/processing, sales promotion, claim services); and 2) freight and delivery. Accordingly, we find that Promarisco performed the core selling functions of sales and marketing, and freight and delivery for all customers in the U.S. market. Because all sales in the U.S. market are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the Spanish market, Promarisco reported that it made sales on an FOB, C&F, or CIF basis through one channel of distribution. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found that Promarisco performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting, sales promotion, order input/processing, technical assistance, pay commissions, freight and delivery, and claim services. These selling activities can be generally grouped into two core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing ( *e.g.* , order input/processing, sales promotion, claim services); and 2) freight and delivery. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Promarisco performed sales and marketing for all Spanish sales, and freight and delivery services as well for certain Spanish sales. We do not find that the provision of freight and delivery services for some sales is sufficient to distinguish it as a separate LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the Spanish market. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the comparison-market LOT and found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and Spanish market customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and Spanish markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. C. Cost of Production Analysis Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegations, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that OceanInvest's sales of frozen warmwater shrimp in the third-country market were made at prices below their cost of production (COP). Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether OceanInvest's sales were made at prices below their respective COPs. *See* OceanInvest COP Initiation Memo. In the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of April 7, 2006, the publication date of the initiation of this review, we found that Promarisco had made sales below the cost of production. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador* , 69 FR 47091 (August 4, 2004); unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador* , 69 FR 76913,(December 23, 2004), and *LTFV Amended Final Determination and Order* . Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Promarisco made sales in the third-country market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. Accordingly, we instructed Promarisco to respond to the section D (Cost of Production) questionnaire. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the respondents' COP based on the sum of their costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses ( *see* “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of third country selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its most recent supplemental section D questionnaire response for the COP calculation, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued. a. OceanInvest We made an adjustment to OceanInvest's reported costs of manufacture to account for unreconciled costs. Our revision to OceanInvest's COP data is discussed in the Memorandum from Laurens van Houten, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - OceanInvest, S.A.,” dated February 28, 2007. b. Promarisco We recalculated Promarisco's G0z7 A expense ratio to include research and development expenses. Our revision to Promarisco's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from Frederick W. Mines, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Promarisco S.A.,” dated February 28, 2007. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the third country sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed below under the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section. 3. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard third country sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)or the Act: 1) whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's third country sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because: 1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(COS)for imputed credit expenses, bank fees, testing fees, bill of lading fees, and international courier fees. As discussed above under “Export Price,” we recalculated the per-unit amounts for these expenses to reflect a glaze-exclusive basis. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the other. Specifically, as commissions were granted in the Italian market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV for the lesser of 1) the amount of commission paid in the Italian market, or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. market. We also deducted comparison-market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. OceanInvest reported certain price adjustments relevant to Italian sales as direct selling expenses. We reclassified these items as billing adjustments. We also recalculated the imputed credit expense for both U.S. and Italian sales to account for these items. We recalculated the reported per-unit commission expenses applicable to Italian sales based on our verification findings. *See* OceanInvest SVR at page 23 and OceanInvest Preliminary Results Memo. We recalculated indirect selling expenses to include the cost of a product sample. *See* OceanInvest Preliminary Results Memo. 2. Promarisco We calculated NV based on CIF, C&F or FOB prices to unaffiliated customers in the Spanish market. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses, including inland freight, marine insurance, and international freight, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in COS for imputed credit expenses. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market, or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. In response to the Department's inquiry, Promarisco submitted a letter on February 14, 2007, explaining that three transactions reported in the Spanish sales data base with missing payment dates were actually free product samples. As this information was received too late for consideration in the preliminary results and did not include any supporting documentation, we have included these transactions in our calculation of NV and set the payment date equal to February 28, 2007, the date of the preliminary results, for purposes of calculating imputed credit expenses. Promarisco reported in its December 22, 2006, questionnaire response that it did not recalculate the imputed credit expense after revisions were made to the Spanish market sales file to include certain missing payment dates in its October 27, 2006, questionnaire response. Accordingly, we recalculated the imputed credit expense for the Spanish market sales to account for the revised payment dates, based on Promarisco's methodology described in its response. Promarisco reported certain movement-related insurance expenses incurred on sales to Spain as direct selling expenses. We reclassified these expenses as movement expenses. In addition, we have corrected and recalculated these expenses and marine insurance expenses incurred on certain Spanish sales, in accordance with the information provided in Promarisco's February 12, 2007, submission. We recalculated indirect selling expenses to include certain expenses Promarisco excluded from its indirect selling expense calculation. See Memorandum to the File entitled “Promarisco, S.A. Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation,” dated February 28, 2007. F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for those frozen warmwater shrimp products for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales because there were no useable sales of a comparable product, we based NV on the CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for SG&]A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, above. We based SG&A and profit for each respondent on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison-market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. Currency Conversion We did not make any currency conversions pursuant to section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 because all sales and cost data for both respondents were reported in U.S. dollars. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006, as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin OceanInvest, S.A. 4.54 Promarisco, S.A. 1.02 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 9 9 This rate is based on the weighted-average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Agrol S.A. 2.25 Camarones (Camarones Del Mar COBUS S.A.) 2.25 Comercializadora del Mar COMAR Cia. Ltda. 2.25 Empacadora y Exportadora Calvi Cia. Ltda. 2.25 Emprede S.A. 2.25 Exportadora del Oceano Oceanexa C. A. 2.25 Fortumar Ecuador S.A. 2.25 Gambas del Pacifico 2.25 Hectorosa S.A. 2.25 Inepexa S.A. 2.25 Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez 2.25 Luis Loaiza Alvarez 2.25 Mardex Cia. Ltda. 2.25 Marines C.A. 2.25 Pacfish, S.A. 2.25 PCC Congelados & Frescos SA 2.25 Pescazul S.A. 2.25 Productos Cultivados del Mar “Proculmar” Cia. Ltda. 2.25 Promarosa S.A. 2.25 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Doblertel S.A. 48.61 Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. 48.61 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of issuance of the last verification report in this case. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of issuance of the last verification report in this case. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Regarding OceanInvest, for those sales where it reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we will calculate 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 examined sales for that importer. For those sales where OceanInvest did not report the entered value of its U.S. sales, we will calculate 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 will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. Regarding Promarisco, because it reported the entered value of all of its U.S. sales, we will calculate 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 examined sales for that importer. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. 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 351.106(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). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). 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 that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 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, a prior review, or the original 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 3.58 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See Shrimp Order* . These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 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. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4295 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-337-806 Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3813 or

(202)482-0196, respectively. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Background On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile, covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). The preliminary results for this administrative review are currently due no later than April 2, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The Department requires additional time to review, analyze, and verify the sales and cost information submitted by the parties in this administrative review. Moreover, the Department requires additional time to issue supplemental questionnaires and fully analyze the responses. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time limit ( *i.e.* , April 2, 2007). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to not later than July 31, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 05, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4318 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-809] Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (“seamless line and pressure pipe”) from Argentina. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Siderca S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”). The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. Following the receipt of a certification of no shipments by Siderca, we notified the domestic interested party of the Department's intent to rescind this review and provided an opportunity to comment on the rescission. We received no comments. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0405 and

(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless line and pressure pipe from Argentina for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 31, 2006, United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”), a domestic producer of the subject merchandise, made a timely request that the Department conduct an administrative review of Siderca. On September 29, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On October 4, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Siderca. On October 18, 2006, Siderca submitted a letter to the Department, certifying that the company made no shipments or entries for consumption in the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR. Siderca also certified that the company's U.S. affiliate, Tenaris Global Services U.S.A. Corporation, also did not sell, enter, or import subject merchandise for consumption into the United States during the POR. Scope of the Order The antidumping duty order on imports from Argentina covers small diameter seamless carbon and alloy standard, line, and pressure pipes (“seamless pipes”) produced to the American Standard for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) standards A-335, A-106, A-53, and American Petroleum Institute (“API”) standard API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. For purposes of this order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe, or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thicknesses are commonly referred to as tubes. The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Specifications, Characteristics and Uses The following information further defines the scope of this order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple- certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and offshore), such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the A-335, A-106, A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe that, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to A-335, A-106, A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line or pressure applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG are excluded from this order, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this order when used in standard, line or pressure applications. Finally, also excluded from this order are redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the production of cold-drawn pipe or tube. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Rescission of the Administrative Review As noted above, on October 18, 2006, Siderca submitted a letter to the Department indicating that it did not make any shipments or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In response to the Department's query to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), CBP confirmed that a small quantity of subject merchandise was entered for consumption into the United States during the POR from a third country. On February 8, 2007, the Department placed on the record of this review copies of the entry documents in question. On the basis of these documents, the Department concluded that Siderca could not have known that the merchandise exported to a third country would be re-exported to the United States. On February 20, 2007, the Department notified counsel for U.S. Steel of its intent to rescind this administrative review and requested comments on the intended rescission. Counsel notified the Department on the following day that they would not comment and had no objection to rescission. *See* Memorandum to the File from Helen M. Kramer, Case Analyst, dated February 22, 2007. Based upon Siderca's certification and the evidence on the record, we are satisfied that Siderca had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Although Siderca did not have any sales or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, its subject merchandise entered the United States during the POR under its antidumping case number, without its knowledge, by way of intermediaries. The Department will instruct CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice to liquidate such entries at the “All Others” rate in effect on the date of the entry. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: March 5, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4289 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C-475-819 Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Audrey Twyman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0182 and

(202)482-3534, respectively. Background On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (“pasta” or “subject merchandise”) from Italy. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta From Italy* , 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2005, the period of review (“POR”). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of the review on August 30, 2006 for the 2005 POR. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than April 2, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. We are currently analyzing supplemental information provided by the respondents and the Government of Italy in this review. Because the Department requires additional time to review, analyze, and issue additional supplemental questionnaires, it is not practicable to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by April 2, 2007). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to not later than July 31, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 05, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4315 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee (ETAC); Notice of Open Meeting A meeting of the Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee will be held on Thursday, April 12, 2007 from 1:00-4:00 at the Ronald Reagan Building, Trade Information Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Training Room A. The ETAC is a national advisory committee that advises Department of Commerce officials on the identification of export barriers, and on market expansion activities. With the elimination of textile quotas under the WTO agreement on textiles and clothing, the Administration is committed to encouraging U.S. textile and apparel firms to export and remain competitive in the global market. The meeting will be open to the public with a limited number of seats available. For further information or copies of the minutes, contact Rachel Alarid at

(202)482-5154. Date: March 5, 2007. R. Matthew Priest, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel. [FR Doc.E7-4282 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Mission Statement AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. Healthcare Technologies Trade Mission to Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt October 24 to November 1, 2007 I. Mission Description The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. Commercial Service, Office of Global Trade Programs, in conjunction with the Global Healthcare Team, will lead a healthcare technologies trade mission to Istanbul, Turkey; Amman, Jordan; and Cairo, Egypt from October 24 to November 1, 2007. This mission will allow representatives of U.S. medical equipment and healthcare technology firms interested in entering or expanding existing business in these markets. Companies can choose the stops they wish to visit. However, preference will be given to participants selecting two or more stops. II. Mission Objective This U.S. Department of Commerce trade mission is the ideal way for small and mid-sized companies to evaluate these markets and make important business contacts. During the trade mission participants will receive:

(A)Briefings on local medical markets;

(B)Introductions to potential distributors, facility administrators, and purchasing managers through group events;

(C)Hospital and other site visits, if applicable;

(D)One-on-one meetings tailored to each firm's interests; and

(E)Meetings with local business representatives and government officials, as suitable. The precise schedule will depend on the availability of local government and business officials, specific goals of mission participants, and air travel schedules. Applications for this Mission are available, and may be obtained by contacting: Lisa Huot, USDOC/CS—Room 2118, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. Tel: 202-482-2796; Fax 202-482-0115. E-mail: *lisa.huot@mail.doc.gov.* Lisa Huot, International Trade Specialist, Global Trade Programs. [FR Doc. E7-4316 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-25-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022307A] Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review under the Endangered Species Act for Cusk AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of initiation of a status review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); request for information. SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the initiation of a status review for the cusk and solicit information on the status of, and threats to, the species. DATES: Information regarding the status of, and threats to, the cusk must be received by April 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by any one of the following methods: • Fax: 978-281-9394, Attention: Kim Damon-Randall-Damon • Mail: Information on paper, disk, or CD-ROM should be addressed to the Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. • E-mail: *cuskinfo@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following identifier: cusk status review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Damon-Randall, NMFS Northeast Region, 978-281-9300 ext. 6535; or Marta Nammack, NMFS-HQ, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-1401 ext. 180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Because of concern over declines in abundance, we identified cusk (Brosme brosme) as a species of concern on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975). In May 2003, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) completed a status report for cusk in Canada and assessed the species status as threatened. In April 2006, the Minister of the Environment referred the assessment back to COSEWIC for further information and consideration. It is, therefore, unclear whether cusk will be listed in Canada under the Species at Risk Act. Our Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) autumn bottom trawl survey biomass index for cusk has fluctuated considerably, but a declining trend has been evident since the late 1960s, with all indices remaining at or close to record-low levels from 1985 through 2002 (Sosebee and Cadrin, 2006). The 1998 biomass index is near zero and is the record low. Cusk have been found to be distributed primarily in deeper waters in the central portion of the Gulf of Maine where a declining trend is also apparent on the distribution maps, and where very few fish were caught in 1993-1997 and 1998-2002 (Sosebee and Cadrin, 2006). Mean length has also declined from 24 inches (62 cm) during 1964 to 1987 to 19 inches (50 cm) during the period of 1988 to 1998. In the early 1970s, individual fish weight averaged 3 kg but was reduced by 50 percent to 1.5 kg in the late 1990s. Landings and survey indices have dropped considerably from 1984 to 2004 (NMFS, 2004). The ratio of landings to survey biomass estimates has been increasing since 1986, which implies increased exploitation over that time period. In the United States, the cusk fishery is not presently managed. Fishing was unrestricted in Canada until 1999 when limitations were established for landings in the Scotia-Fundy region. Despite these limitations, fishing continues to be a source of mortality. Fishing mortality is one of the prime factors for the observed decline. This appears to be a transboundary species, and, as such, conservation measures may be needed both in the United States and Canada. Our notice establishing the species of concern list states that as resources permit, we intend to conduct status reviews, collect documentation, and make appropriate amendments relevant to species on the list (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). As such, we are initiating a status review for cusk. We will use the status review report and any other information that we obtain during this process to determine if listing this species under the ESA is warranted or if this species should be retained or removed from the species of concern list. Request for Information To support this status review, we are soliciting information relevant to the status of and threats to the species, including, but not limited to, information on the following topics:

(1)Historical and current abundance and distribution of the species;

(2)potential factors for the species' decline throughout its range;

(3)rates of capture and release of the species from both recreational and commercial fisheries;

(4)post-release mortality;

(5)life history information (size/age at maturity, growth rates, fecundity, reproductive rate/success, etc.);

(6)morphological and molecular information to assist in determining stock structure;

(7)threats to the species, particularly:

(a)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;

(b)over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(c)disease or predation;

(d)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; and

(8)any ongoing conservation efforts for the species. See DATES and ADDRESSES for guidance on and deadlines for submitting information. Dated: March 5, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4260 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030107G] Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; availability of permit upgrades. SUMMARY: NMFS is soliciting applications for American Samoa longline limited entry permit upgrades. Fourteen

(14)permit upgrades will be available in 2007 for Class A vessel permit holders to upgrade to larger vessel size classes (B-1, C-1, or D-1) in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery. The permit upgrades are available only to Class A permit holders who participated in the fishery before March 22, 2002, and the highest priority for receiving a permit upgrade will be given to the person with the earliest date of documented participation. DATES: Completed permit upgrade applications must be received by NMFS by May 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Applicants should send completed applications to NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), ATTN: ASLE Permit Upgrade, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700. Application forms may be obtained from NMFS PIR, ATTN: ASLE Permit Upgrade, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700, or from the NMFS PIR Web site: *http://www.fpir.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Ikehara, NMFS PIR (808)944-2275. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 25, 2005, NMFS published a final rule (70 FR 29646) that established a limited entry program for the pelagic longline fishery based in American Samoa, under Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. American Samoa longline limited entry permits were established for four vessel size classes, based on length: • Class A: less than or equal to 40 ft (12.2 m), • Class B and B-1: over 40 ft (12.2 m) to 50 ft (15.2 m) inclusive, • Class C and C-1: over 50 ft (15.2 m) to 70 ft (21.3 m) inclusive, and • Class D and D-1: over 70 ft (21.3 m). A total of 60 initial American Samoa longline limited entry permits were issued, 22 in Class A, five in Class B, 12 in Class C, and 21 in Class D. These numbers are the vessel size class limits on the number of allowed American Samoa longline limited entry permits, as defined by the regulations setting the maximum limit on permits under the limited entry program. The limited entry program allows for a total of 26 permit upgrades to be made available for the exclusive use of permit holders in Class A, distributed over a four-year period following the issuance of initial limited entry permits. In 2006, eight permit upgrades were available (four in Class B-1, two in Class C-1, and two in Class D-1), but only one Class B-1 upgrade and one Class D-1 upgrade were issued, leaving six unissued. In 2007, 14 permit upgrades will be available (four new and three unissued in Class B-1, two new and two unissued in Class C-1, and two new and one unissued in Class D-1). The Regional Administrator may initially issue Class B-1, C-1 and D-1 permit upgrades only to persons who hold a Class A permit and who participated in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery before March 22, 2002. The highest priority will be given to those with the earliest date of documented participation. Those receiving upgraded permits must surrender their Class A permits and the surrendered permits are deducted from the allowed Class A permit total. This notice announces the availability of permit upgrades and solicits applications for the upgrades. Complete applications must include the completed and signed application form (available from NMFS), legible copies of documents supporting historical participation in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery, and payment for the non-refundable application processing fee. Documents supporting fishery participation should show that fishing was conducted using longline gear. Properly completed applications must be received by NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) by May 8, 2007 to be considered for eligibility for the 2007 permit upgrades. Authoritative additional information on the American Samoa longline limited entry program may be found at 50 CFR part 665. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 5, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4258 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030507F] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee will hold a Population Dynamics Sub-group public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, March 30, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, Baltimore-Washington Airport, 1671 Nursery Rd., Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone:

(410)859-8855. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:

(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:

(302)674-2331, extension 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to address issues related to recruitment dynamics and stock rebuilding for the Atlantic butterfish stock. Additional technical issues concerning standards defining best available scientific data may also be discussed. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Bryan at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office,

(302)674-2331 extension 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 6, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4222 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030507G] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Trawl Survey Advisory Panel, composed of representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and several independent scientific researchers, will hold a public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 4, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Providence Airport, 1850 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886, telephone:

(401)738-4000. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904, telephone:

(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:

(302)674-2331, extension 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to tour the new research vessel FSV Henry B. Bigelow, discuss Protocol Development Cruises, NEFSC's upcoming Calibration Design Workshop, NEAMAP cruise usage in defining differences between inshore and offshore stations, and gear standardization issues. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Bryan at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office,

(302)674-2331 extension 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 6, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4224 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030507E] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Ad Hoc Sector Omnibus Committee (Committee) in March, 2007 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone:

(508)339-2200; fax:

(508)256-2550. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will continue development of sector programs and operational guidelines. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at

(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 6, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4221 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030507H] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings in Anchorage, AK. DATES: The meetings will be held from Monday, March 26 through Tuesday, April 3, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, AK. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Witherell, Council staff, telephone:

(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28, continuing through Tuesday, April 3, 2007. The Council will meet jointly with the Alaska Board of Fisheries from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 28. The agenda will consist of: Halibut Charter Management; Steller Sea Lion

(SSL)Recovery Plan and Biological Opinion (BiOp); Salmon Bycatch; Potential sector split for cod in the Gulf of Alaska

(GOA)and License Limitation Program

(LLP)recency in the GOA and tendering issues; Dark Rockfish in the GOA (and potential state management aspects); Request for closed area around Unalaska Bay; Arctic Management Plan discussion paper. The Council's Advisory Panel

(AP)will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, March 26 and continue through Saturday, March 31. The Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC)will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, March 26 and continue through Wednesday March 28, 2007. The Enforcement Committee will meet Tuesday, March 27, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, in the Birch/Willow Room. The Ecosystem Committee will meet March 27, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., in the Birch/Willow Room. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions. Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified. 1. Reports •Executive Director's Report (including revised National Environmenal Protection Act

(NEPA)process, Statement of Oreganization, Practices, and Procedures). •NMFS Management Report (including National Bycatch Report Updates and annual catch limit guidelines). •U.S. Coast Guard Report. •Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report. •U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report. •Protected Species Report (including update on recovery plan/BiOp). 2. Charter Halibut Management: NMFS Report on International Pacific Halibut Commission

(IPHC)action; receive Stakeholder Committee report, action as necessary; Final action on Moratorium; State/Federal Management - review discussion paper; Review discussion paper on sport fish discard mortality; Initial review of analysis of Area 2C Guideline Harvest Levels

(GHLs)measures; Discussion paper on halibut allocations, action as necessary; Report on Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) logbook data (SSC only). 3. GOA Groundfish Management Review: Review discussion paper on GOA sideboards; review problem statement and develop alternatives GOA sector split; review problem statement and develop alternatives for GOA latent licenses; review discussion paper on Western GOA pollock trip limits and action as necessary. 4. Trawl LLP Recency: Review discussion paper on interactions with other limited entry programs; review discussion paper on implementation issues; action as necessary. 5. Bering Sea Aleutian Island

(BSAI)Crab Management: Review 18-month BSAI Crab Review report, and take action as necessary; review crab data collection protocols, action as necessary. 6. Observer Program: Progress report and action as necessary. 7. Community Development Quota (CDQ): Review of legal opinion about CDQ Program roles and responsibilities, and action as necessary (T). 8. Socioeconomic Data: Receive workgroup report on Comprehensive Socioeconomic Data Collection. 9. Scallop Management: Review and approve Scallop Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation (SAFE). 10. Groundfish Management: Discussion paper on >Other Species= management; final action on Dark Rockfish management; stock assessment review guidelines, action as necessary; SSCs Salmon Bycatch Workshop; action as necessary. 11. Habitat Conservation: Initial Review of Bering Sea habitat conservation measures; review Habitat Area of Particular Concern

(HAPC)priorities and timing, action as necessary; final action on Essential Fish Habitat Aleutian Island open area adjustment. 12. Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP): Initial review of FEP (T). 13. Arctic Management: Review discussion paper, and take action as necessary. 14. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking, and take action as necessary. 15. Other Business. The SSC agenda will include the following issues: 1. Protected Species 2. Charter Halibut Management 3. GOA Groundfish Management 4. BSAI Crab Management 5. Trawl LLP Recency 6. Socioeconomic Data 7. Scallop Management 8. Groundfish Management 9. Habitat Conservation 10. Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan 11. Arctic Management The Advisory Panel will address the same agenda issues as the Council, except for reports. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at

(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 6, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4223 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 07-C0004] Fisher-Price, Inc., a Corporation, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Fisher-Price Inc., a corporation, containing a civil penalty of $975,000. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 07-C0004, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald G. Yelenik, Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7582. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: February 28, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC Docket No. 07-C0004] In the Matter of Fisher-Price, Inc. a Corporation Settlement Agreement and Order 1. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between the staff (the “staff”) of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or the “Commission”) and Fisher-Price, Inc. (“Fisher-Price”), a corporation, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the Commission's Procedures for Investigations, Inspections, and Inquiries under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”). This Settlement Agreement and the incorporated attached Order resolve the staff's allegations set forth below. The Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency responsible for the enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. 3. Fisher-Price is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal corporate office in East Aurora, New York. At all times relevant herein, Fisher-Price designed, imported and sold toys and juvenile products. Staff Allegations 4. Between June 17, 2002 and July 31, 2002, Fisher-Price imported and sold nationwide approximately 67,000 Little People® Animal Sounds Farm toys (the “Farm(s)” or “products”). The Farms are shaped like a barn and make animal sounds when the doors of the cow or horse stall are opened. 5. The Farms are “consumer product(s)” and, at the times relevant herein, Fisher-Price was a “manufacturer” of “consumer product(s),” which were “distributed in commerce” as those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(1), (4),

(11)and

(12)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4),

(11)and (12). 6. The Farms are defective because the ringed nail fasteners used to attach the toy “stall doors” in place can disengage from the product. If this should occur, young children could choke on or aspirate the loose nail fastener. 7. On or about September 11, 2002, Fisher-Price first learned of an incident in which a nail fastener disengaged from one of the stall doors. 8. By November 18, 2002, Fisher-Price had become aware of nine reports of nail fasteners coming loose from the stall doors, including one report from a consumer that a nail fastener came out and that her child placed it in her mouth. 9. By early February of 2003, Fisher-Price was aware of two telephone calls in which consumers indicated a concern that this problem posed a choking hazard to children. 10. On February 14, 2003, Fisher-Price learned of a December 30, 2002 incident in which a 14-month old child aspirated a Farm nail fastener into his lung. The child was taken to a hospital where emergency surgery was performed to remove the nail fastener. 11. Despite being aware of the information set forth in paragraphs 4 through 10, Fisher-Price did not report to the Commission until March 14, 2003. By that time, Fisher-Price was aware of at least 33 reports of incidents in which a nail fastener came loose from the stall doors. These included four reports of children who put a fastener in the mouth (including a report of a child who cut the inside of her mouth), and one report of a child who required emergency surgery to remove an aspirated nail fastener from his lung. 12. Although Fisher-Price had obtained sufficient information to reasonably support the conclusion that the Farms contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, it failed to immediately inform the Commission of such defect or risk as required by sections 15(b)(2) and

(3)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). In failing to do so, Fisher-Price “knowingly” violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). 13. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Fisher-Price is subject to civil penalties for its failure to make a timely report under section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). Response of Fisher-Price 14. Fisher-Price denies that the Farms contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, and denies that it violated the reporting requirements of section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). 15. Fisher-Price believes that the Farms do not violate any CPSC regulations regarding small parts or otherwise and do not violate any applicable safety standards. 16. Fisher-Price denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind. 17. Fisher-Price was not advised of the December 30, 2002 incident, in which a consumer's child was reported to have aspirated a fastener, until February 14, 2003. The consumer advised Fisher-Price that the incident had been reported to the CPSC. Fisher-Price, nevertheless, filed a Full Report with the CPSC pursuant to Section 15(b) of the CPSA on March 14, 2003 and undertook a Fast Track Recall of the product on April 23, 2003. Agreement of the Parties 18. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Fisher-Price under the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. 19. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Fisher-Price agrees to pay a civil penalty of nine hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($975,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Final Order of the Commission accepting this Settlement Agreement. This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 20. The parties enter this Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission by Fisher-Price or a determination by the Commission that Fisher-Price violated the CPSA's reporting requirements. 21. Upon provisional acceptance of this Settlement Agreement and Order by the Commission, the Commission shall place this Agreement and Order on the public record and shall publish it in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedure set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written requests not to accept the Settlement Agreement and Order within 15 calendar days, the Agreement and Order shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f). 22. Upon final acceptance of this Settlement Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Fisher-Price knowingly, voluntarily and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(i)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(ii)judicial review or other challenge or consent of the Commission's actions;

(iii)a determination by the Commission as to whether Fisher-Price failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations;

(iv)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(v)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 23. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order. 24. This Settlement Agreement shall apply to, and be binding upon Fisher-Price and each of its successors and assigns, its parent entity, its parent's subsidiaries, and each of their respective successors and assigns. 25. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the provisions of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084, and a violation of the Order may subject those referenced in paragraph 24 above to appropriate legal action. 26. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations made outside of this Settlement Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or to contradict its terms. 27. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall not be waived, changed, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such amendment, modification, alteration, or waiver is sought to be enforced, and approval by the Commission. 28. If, after the effective date hereof, any provision of this Settlement Agreement and Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The rest of the Settlement Agreement and Order shall remain in full effect, unless the Commission and Fisher-Price determine that severing the provision materially changes the purpose of the Settlement Agreement and Order. Fisher-Price, Inc. Dated: By: Neil Friedman President By: Neil A. Goldberg Goldberg Segalla, LLP 665 Main Street, Suite 400 Buffalo, New York 14203 Counsel for Fisher-Price, Inc. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission John Gibson Mullan Assistant Executive Director Office of Compliance and Field Operations Dated: By: Ronald G. Yelenik Acting Director Legal Division Office of Compliance and Field Operations United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC Docket No. 07-C0004 In the Matter of Fisher-Price, Inc., a Corporation Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Fisher-Price, Inc. (“Fisher-Price”) and the staff of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “Commission”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Fisher-Price, and it appearing the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest, it is *Ordered,* that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is *Further ordered,* that Fisher-Price shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of nine hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($975,000.00). This payment shall be made payable to the order of the United States Treasury within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Final Order of the Commission upon Fisher-Price. Upon the failure of Fisher-Price to make full payment in the prescribed time, interest on the outstanding balance shall accrue and be paid at the federal rate of interest under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 28th day of February, 2007. By Order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 07-1071 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 28

Traces to 28 documents

CFR