Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-09-12 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice

35,818 words·~163 min read·/register/2007/09/12/07-4464·

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-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and First New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the first administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 10689 (March 9, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the margin calculations for the final results. We find that certain manufacturers/exporters sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (“POR”) July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bankhead or Matthew Renkey, 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: Background On May 15, 2007, we extended the time limit for the completion of the final results of these reviews, including our analysis of issues raised in case or rebuttal briefs, until September 5, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Thailand; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 27286 (May 15, 2007). We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results.* On March 29, 2007, Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (“Grobest”) and Petitioners 1 filed surrogate values. Grobest, Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (“Fish One”), and Petitioners 2 filed case briefs on April 16, 2007, and rebuttal briefs on May 1, 2007. 1 *Ad Hoc* Shrimp Trade Action Committee. 2 Petitioners re-filed their case brief on April 27, 2007, based on a letter issued by the Department requiring that they correct their bracketing. *See* Letter from Alex Villanueva to Brad Ward, Re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Refiling of Case Brief, dated April 23, 2007. The Department placed Petitioners'case brief on the record of the new shipper review, as they originally only filed it on the record of the administrative review. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these reviews are addressed in the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, dated September 5, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memo”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit CRU, Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at *http://www.trade.gov/ia* . The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of information on the record of these reviews, and comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for certain respondents. We have revalued several of the surrogate values used in the *Preliminary Results.* The values that were modified for these final results are those for leaflets and surrogate financial ratios. For further details *see* Issues and Decision Memo at Comments 10 and 11 and Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Final Results, dated September 5, 2007. In addition, we have made some company-specific changes since the *Preliminary Results.* Specifically, we have incorporated, where applicable, post-preliminary clarifications, and performed clerical error corrections for both Grobest and Fish One. For further details on these company-specific changes, *see* Issues and Decision Memo at Comments 9 through 11. 3 3 The specific calculation changes for Fish One can be found in Memorandum First Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Analysis for the Final Results of Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd., dated September 5, 2007. The specific calculation changes for Grobest can be found in Memorandum First New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Analysis for the Final Results of Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., dated September 5, 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, 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 (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. Separate Rates In our Preliminary Results, we determined that Fish One 5 and Grobest, 6 in addition to Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and Incomfish, 7 met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. We have not received any information or comments since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for reconsideration of these determinations. Therefore, the Department continues to find each of these entities meet the criteria for a separate rate. 5 The one mandatory participating respondent of this administrative review. 6 The new shipper company under review. 7 The non-selected respondents of this administrative review seeking a separate rate. Fish One In the *Preliminary Results* we found that Fish One failed to act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information regarding certain factors of production. We therefore applied partial adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) and
(b)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), to Fish One for salt2 and marinade for the reasons set out in the *Preliminary Results. See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10692. Fish One filed comments regarding the application of partial adverse facts available; however, we continue to find that partial adverse facts available is appropriate. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. Final Results of the Reviews The Department has determined that the following final dumping margins exist for the period July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006: 8 *See Preliminary Results* at 10695 for a discussion of how the Department determined the separate rate margin for cooperative companies. 9 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 0.00 Fish One 0.00 Nha Trang Fisco 8 4.57 Bac Lieu Fisheries 4.57 Cam Ranh Seafoods 4.57 Incomfish 4.57 Vietnam-Wide Rate 9 25.76 The Department will disclose calculations performed for these final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“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. 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 these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For subject merchandise produced and exported by Grobest, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in these final results of new shipper reviews;
(2)for subject merchandise exported by Grobest but not manufactured by Grobest, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the Vietnamese-wide rate ( *i.e.,* 25.76 percent);
(3)for the other exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(4)for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(5)for all Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the Vietnamese-wide rate of 25.76 percent; and
(6)for all non-Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporters that supplied that non-Vietnamese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice of final results of this administrative review and new shipper review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(C) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 351.214(j). Dated: September 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I I. General Issues Comment 1: Shrimp Surrogate Value Comment 2: Surrogate Financial Companies A. Multiple Financial Statements from a Single Company B. Zero/Negative Profit C. Subsidies Comment 3: Zeroing Comment 4: Exclusion of “Aberrational” Bangladeshi Import Data from Surrogate Values Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Labor Comment 6: By-Product Surrogate Value Comment 7: Truck Freight Surrogate Value II. Company-Specific Issues Comment 8: Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available to Fish One's “Salt2” and Marinade Factors of Production Comment 9: Leaflet Surrogate Value for Fish One Comment 10: Fish One's STPP Calculation Comment 11: Grobest's Shrimp Surrogate Value [FR Doc. E7-17991 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India. This review covers 70 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review
(POR)is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. We are rescinding the review with respect to four companies because these companies had no reportable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-3874. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers 70 producers/exporters. 1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Premier Marine Products, Kader Exports Private Limited, Universal Cold Storage Private Limited, and Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited (collectively, “the Liberty Group”); Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon); and Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL). The respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is rescinding the administrative review. On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from India. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10658 (March 9, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). In April 2007, we received a certification of accuracy from a company official employed at Kadalkanny Frozen Foods (Kadalkanny) related to Kadalkanny's April 28, 2006, quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire response. Because Kadalkanny provided an adequate explanation as to why the Department did not receive this in a timely manner, we accepted it as a one-time exception. For further discussion, *see* the “Facts Available” section of this notice, below. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review, as well as on the additional information noted above. In April and May 2007, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner ( *i.e.* , the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee) and the respondents ( *i.e.* , Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group). On May 29, 2007, we held a hearing at the request of Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 2 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 2 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the *Penaeidae* family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *Penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn ( *Penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *Macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *Penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *Penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *Penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *Penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *Trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *Penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *Penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *Penaeus occidentalis* ), and Indian white prawn ( *Penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the *Pandalidae* family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. Partial Rescission of Review Four of the companies that responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. These companies are Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd., Innovative Foods Limited, Sharat Industries Limited, and Triveni Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. However, based on information obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it appeared that these companies did, in fact, have shipments or entries of subject merchandise entered into the United States during the POR. As a result, we requested that each of these companies explain the entries in question. In response to the Department's solicitation, the companies demonstrated that the entries at issue were not reportable transactions because they were either: 1) a non-paid sample; or 2) reported by another company in its Q&V response based on knowledge of destination. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd., Innovative Foods Limited, Sharat Industries Limited, and Triveni Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. *See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005) (where we rescinded the administrative review for companies that demonstrated they had no shipments during the POR). Successor-in-Interest As noted in the *Preliminary Results* , in April 2006, one of the producers/exporters named in the notice of initiation, Coastal Corporation Ltd. (Coastal Corp.), informed the Department that, prior to the POR, it operated under the name Coastal Trawlers Limited (Coastal Trawlers). Based on Coastal Corp.'s submission addressing the four factors with respect to this change in corporate structure ( *i.e.* , management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier relationships, and customer base), 3 in the preliminary results we preliminarily found that Coastal Corp.'s organizational structure, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have remained essentially unchanged. Further, we found that Coastal Corp. operates as the same business entity as Coastal Trawlers with respect to the production and sale of shrimp. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that Coastal Corp. was the successor-in-interest to Coastal Trawlers. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10660-61. 3 *See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 50299, 50300-01 (Aug. 26, 2005) (setting forth the four factors to be considered for successorship determinations), unchanged in *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 54721 (Oct. 13, 2005). Since the preliminary results, we requested additional information from Coastal Corp. to substantiate its assertions regarding the four factors. Although Coastal Corp. did respond to the Department's requests for further information, this response was neither properly filed nor accompanied by a public version, as required by 19 CFR 351.304(c). Thus, we are unable to consider this information for purposes of the final results. As a result, we find that there is insufficient evidence on the record to support our preliminary finding that Coastal Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Trawlers, and thus we have treated these companies as separate entities for purposes of this administrative review. Because the companies responded to the Department's request for Q&V data in this review, we have assigned both Coastal Corp. and Coastal Trawlers the review-specific average rate as separate entities. Facts Available In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following producer/exporters: Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav Sea Foods (Vaibhav). *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10661-62. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. In April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a response was April 28, 2006. Because numerous companies did not respond to this initial request for information, in May 2006 the Department issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity to submit a response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. However, the following companies failed to respond to the Department's second request for Q&V data: Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav. On February 6, 2007, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of the questionnaires to each of these companies. See the Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, “Placing Delivery Information on the Record of the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated February 6, 2007. By failing to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, because these companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily found that the use of total facts available was warranted. Furthermore, three additional companies ( *i.e.* , Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products) claimed that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Because we were unable to confirm the accuracy of their claims with CBP, we requested further information/clarification from these exporters. However, these companies failed to provide the requested information. By failing to respond to the Department's requests, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the preliminary results, the Department finds that the use of total facts available for Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products, Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, and R F. Exports is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10661-62. However, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the margin for Vaibhav on total facts available. In the preliminary results, we assigned Vaibhav a margin based on total facts available because the company did not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. In its case brief, Vaibhav provided information documenting that it did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire because the company never received it. In fact, Vaibhav demonstrated that it ceased operations before the date on which Federal Express delivered the Q&V questionnaire to it. Because we find that Vaibhav has demonstrated that its failure to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire was due to circumstances beyond its control, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the margin for Vaibhav on total facts available. Thus, we are now assigning Vaibhav the review-specific average rate. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (the Decision Memo) at Comment 10. Finally, we are also reversing our preliminary decision to base the margin for Kadalkanny on total facts available. In the preliminary results, we assigned Kadalkanny a margin based on total facts available because the company failed to properly file its Q&V questionnaire response when it did not submit a company official certification either with its submission or in response to the Department's subsequent request that it do so. On April 10, 2007, we received the certification of accuracy Kadalkanny related to Kadalkanny's April 28, 2006, Q&V questionnaire response. In this submission, Kadalkanny informed the Department that it intended to send the required certification of accuracy via Federal Express, where it could be tracked; however, a company employee instead inadvertently sent the document via Indian first-class mail and thus Kadalkanny was unaware that the Department had not received its certification until the preliminary results. Because we find Kadalkanny's explanation adequate, we accepted Kadalkanny's submission pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b). Thus, we now have a copy of Kadalkanny's certification of accuracy on the record of this administrative review and we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the margin for Kadalkanny on total facts available. Consequently, we are now assigning Kadalkanny the review-specific average rate. Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). *See also, Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We find that Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, and R F. Exports did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances* , 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); * see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan * , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 82.30 percent, which was the lowest rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, to Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby Marine Products Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, and R F. Exports. 4 The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule ( *i.e.* , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). 4 We note that we were unable to corroborate the other margins alleged in the petition, and thus we were unable to consider them as acceptable sources of facts available information. For further discussion, see *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10662. For the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results* , we continue to find that the information upon which this margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies the corroboration requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10662-63. *See also* the September 5, 2007, memorandum from Nichole Zink to the file entitled, “Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Final Results in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.” Collapsing the Liberty Group and Liberty Oil Mills Limited
(LOML)The Liberty Group has an affiliate, LOML, which exported some of the shrimp produced by the Liberty Group during the POR. In its August 9, 2006, section A response, as well as its February 15, 2007, response and at verification, the Liberty Group provided information regarding the relationship between these entities during the POR. After an analysis of this information, we preliminarily determined that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these entities for purposes of this review because: 1) certain of the directors of LOML are also directors of Liberty Group companies, and the family which owns the Liberty Group owns a majority of the shares in LOML; 2) LOML exported shrimp produced by the Liberty Group to the United States during the POR; and 3) the operations of LOML and the Liberty Group are intertwined. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Thus, in our preliminary results, we found that there is significant potential for manipulation of price if LOML does not receive the same antidumping duty rate as the Liberty Group. For further discussion, see the *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10661. Since the preliminary results, no party to this proceeding has commented on this issue and we have found no additional information that would compel us to reverse our preliminary finding. Thus, we continue to find that it is appropriate to collapse these entities for purposes of this review. Cost of Production/Constructed Value
(CV)As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group made third country sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production
(COP)within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the *Preliminary Results* , except as discussed in the Decision Memo. We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. *See* sections 773(b)(2)(B) -
(D)of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value
(NV)pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Based on the results of the cost test for Falcon and in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we are now basing NV on CV for certain products when we were unable to compare Falcon's U.S. sales to a comparison market sale of an identical or similar product. In calculating CV, we relied on the data reported by Falcon, adjusted as described in the *Preliminary Results* and the Decision Memo. We calculated a weighted-average CV based on the sum of the Falcon's materials and fabrication costs, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, including interest expenses, packing costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Falcon in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison market. We based selling expenses on weighted-average actual comparison market direct and indirect selling expenses. We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to export price, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage Falcon Marine Exports Limited 4.39 Hindustan Lever Limited 18.83 The Liberty Group (Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, 4.03 Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Premier Marine Products, Kader Exports Private Limited, Universal Cold Storage Private Limited, Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited) and Liberty Oil Mills Limited Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 5 5 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Allanasons Ltd. 7.22 Amalgam Foods & Beverages Limited 7.22 Amulya Seafoods 7.22 Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited 7.22 Baby Marine International 7.22 Baraka Overseas Traders 7.22 Bhatsons Aquatic Products 7.22 Calcutta Seafoods 7.22 Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. 7.22 Coastal Corporation Ltd. 7.22 Coastal Trawlers Ltd. 7.22 Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. 7.22 Coreline Exports 7.22 Gajula Exim P Ltd. 7.22 Haripriya Marine Food Exports 7.22 IFB Agro Industries Ltd. (Aquatic & Marine Products Div.) 7.22 ITC Ltd. 7.22 K R M Marine Exports Ltd. 7.22 Kadalkanny Frozen Foods 7.22 Kalyanee Marine 7.22 Kings Marine Products 7.22 Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. 7.22 MSC Marine Exporters 7.22 Magnum Estate Private Limited 7.22 Magnum Exports 7.22 Magnum Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. 7.22 Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 7.22 Mangala Sea Products 7.22 N.G.R Aqua International 7.22 Navayuga Exports Ltd. 7.22 Nila Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. 7.22 Penver Products
(P)Ltd. 7.22 Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. 7.22 Raju Exports 7.22 Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. 7.22 Saanthi Seafoods Ltd. 7.22 Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 7.22 Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd. 7.22 Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd. 7.22 Sun-Bio Techonology Limited 7.22 Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited 7.22 Survarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. 7.22 Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd. 7.22 Vaibhav Sea Foods 7.22 Veejay Impex 7.22 Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd. 7.22 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Amison Foods Ltd. 82.30 Amison Seafoods Ltd. 82.30 Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports 82.30 Baby Marine Exports 82.30 Baby Marine Products 82.30 Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div) 82.30 Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd 82.30 HA & R Enterprises 82.30 InterSea Exports Corporation 82.30 Lotus Sea Farms 82.30 National Steel 82.30 National Steel & Agro Ind 82.30 Nsil Exports 82.30 Premier Marine Foods 82.30 R F. Exports 82.30 Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group, because these companies reported the entered value for some of their U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales which entered value was reported. For Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty Group's U.S. sales reported without entered values, we have calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis (i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of shrimp from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.17 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India* , 70 FR 5147, 5148 (Feb. 1, 2005). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues 1. Offsetting of Negative Margins 2. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results Company-Specific Issues 3. Calculation of the Weighted-Average Payment Date for One of Falcon's U.S. Sales 4. Reallocation of Falcon's Costs for Cultivating Shrimp 5. Calculation of Per-Unit Packaging Costs for Falcon 6. Calculation of HLL's General and Administrative Expense Ratio 7. Calculation of HLL's Net Interest Expense Ratio 8. Valuing the Cold Storage Services Provided to the Liberty Group by Liberty Cold Storage Private Limited 9. Collapsing of all Liberty Group Entities for Purposes of Calculating the Group's Interest Expense Ratio 10. Whether to Based the Final Margin for Vaibhav on AFA 11. Whether to Base the Final Margin for National Steel and Agro Industries Ltd. and NSIL Exports Limited of India on AFA 12. Whether to Assess at the Antidumping Rate of the Producer Where a Producer Sells through an Exporter [FR Doc. E7-18006 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Brazil. This review covers 11 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review
(POR)is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. We are rescinding the review with respect to three companies. One company was inadvertently omitted from the list of companies for which the administrative review was rescinded in July 2006, and the other two companies were duplicate names for a company for which the administrative review was also rescinded in July 2006. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-4929 and
(202)482-4007, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers 11 producers/exporters. 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 “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Brazil. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10680 (March 9, 2007) (Preliminary Results). 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is rescinding the administrative review. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. On April 23, 2007, we received case briefs from the mandatory respondents ( *i.e.* , Aquatica and Compescal) and Valença da Bahia Maricultura (Valença), a respondent which was not selected for individual review. On May 7, we received a rebuttal brief from the petitioner ( *i.e.* , the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee). On May 31, 2007, we held a hearing at the request of Aquatica and Compescal. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 2 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 2 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the *Penaeidae* family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *Penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *Penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *Penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *Macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *Penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *Penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *Penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *Penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *Trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *Penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *Penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *Penaeus occidentalis* ), and Indian white prawn ( *Penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the *Pandalidae* family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. Partial Rescission of Review In the *Preliminary Results* , we preliminarily rescinded this review with respect to Artico, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, and Marine Maricultura Nordeste SA. 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 rescinding this review with respect to Artico, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, and Marine Maricultura Nordeste SA. Facts Available In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. (SM Pescados) and Valenca da Bahia Maricultura S.A. (Valenca). *See Preliminary Results* at 10682-83. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. In April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a response was April 28, 2006. Because numerous companies did not respond to this initial request for information, in May 2006 the Department issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity to submit a response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. However, both SM Pescados and Valenca failed to respond to the Department's second request for Q&V data. By failing to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, because these companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily found that the use of total facts available was warranted. *See Preliminary Results* at 10682-83. By failing to respond to the Department's requests, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the *Preliminary Results* , the Department finds that the use of total facts available for SM Pescados and Valenca is appropriate for purposes of the final results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act. Application of Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). *See also, Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We find that SM Pescados and Valenca 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 the facts otherwise available. *See Nippon* , 337 F. 3d at 1382-83. In the *Preliminary Results* , we assigned to the uncooperative companies an adverse facts available
(AFA)rate of 349 percent, which is the highest rate alleged in the petition, and which we were able to corroborate against the preliminary transaction-specific margins calculated for the mandatory respondents in this administrative review. However, given the changes made to the margin calculations for the mandatory respondents since the *Preliminary Results* , we are no longer able to corroborate the petition margins using this method, as discussed below. Therefore, for the final results, we have applied an AFA margin of 67.80 percent, which is the highest rate calculated for any respondent in a prior segment of the proceeding ( *i.e.* , the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation). The Court of International Trade
(CIT)and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld this approach. *See NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in an LTFV investigation). 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 AFA 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 LTFV investigation, which ranged from 9.69 to 67.80 percent ( *see Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 70 FR 5143 (February 1, 2005) ( *LTFV Amended Final Determination and Order* )); and 3) the rates calculated in the current administrative review. As discussed further below, we no longer find that the rates alleged in the petition have probative value for purposes of this review. In addition, we find that the rates calculated for the respondents in this review are not sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule ( *i.e.* , we do not find that 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 assigned a rate of 67.80 percent as AFA, which is the highest margin determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding ( *i.e.* , the LTFV investigation). 3 We consider the 67.80-percent rate to be sufficiently high so as to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding. 3 This margin was based on the rate we calculated for respondent Norte Pesca S.A. in the preliminary determination of the LTFV investigation, based on information it submitted in its questionnaire responses. Although this company withdrew from the investigation after the preliminary determination, this rate was used as the AFA rate in the final determination. *See LTFV Amended Final Determination and Order* . Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available 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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870
(1994)(SAA). 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. For purposes of the final results, we did not use either of the two highest of the three petition rates ( *i.e.* , 320 percent and 349 percent) because we were unable to corroborate them with independent information reasonably at our disposal, *i.e.* , the transaction-specific margins in the current administrative review. We did not use the remaining petition rate ( *i.e.* , 32 percent) because it was lower than the selected AFA rate, and as such would not accomplish the objectives of AFA, stated above. Moreover, we have an alternative that we find to be sufficiently adverse to effectuate the purpose of the AFA provision of the statute. The reliability of the selected AFA rate was determined by the calculation of the margin for Norte Pesca, as published in the *LTFV Amended Final Determination and Order* . 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) and *Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 60080 (October 21, 2003) (unchanged in final). Therefore, given that we are using the highest margin calculated for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of this rate. The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. However, because neither SM Pescados nor Valença submitted information to the Department or participated in a previous segment of this proceeding, we do not have information specific to the two companies to consider in determining whether the 67.80-percent margin is relevant to each of them. Therefore, to determine whether the 67.80-percent margin is relevant in this administrative review, we compared this rate to the transaction-specific rates calculated for each mandatory respondent in this review. Based on this comparison, we find that the selected AFA rate is relevant because it fell within the range of individual transaction margins calculated for one of the mandatory respondents. *See* Memorandum to The File from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor entitled “Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Final Results in the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil,” dated September 5, 2007. *See also 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). 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). For the instant review, 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 selected as AFA in this review is not appropriate, we have determined that the highest margin calculated for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding ( *i.e.* , 67.80 percent) is appropriate to use as AFA, and are assigning this rate to SM Pescados and Valenca in the final results of this review. Aquatica's Affiliated Parties Aquatica provided information regarding the relationship between Aquatica and its two affiliated producers/exporters of subject merchandise at issue during the POR. 4 After an analysis of this information, as well as information obtained as a result of additional research, we preliminarily determined 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. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10682. 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. Since the *Preliminary Results* , no party to this proceeding has commented on this issue and we have found no additional information that would compel us to reverse our preliminary finding. Thus, for purposes of these final results, we continue to find that it is not appropriate to collapse these entities for purposes of this review. Cost of Production As discussed in the *Preliminary Results* , we conducted an investigation to determine whether Aquatica and Compescal made third country or home market sales, respectively, of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production
(COP)within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the *Preliminary Results* , except as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice (the Decision Memo). For both Compescal and Aquatica, we found that 20 percent or more of comparison market sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. *See* sections 773(b)(2)(B) -
(D)of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that both respondents made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade during the POR. Consequently, we disregarded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda./Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda. 4.62 Compescal - Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. 15.41 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 5 5 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Amazonas Industrias Alimenticias - AMASA 6.96 Bramex Brasil Mercantil S.A. 6.96 Guy Vautrin Importacao & Exportacao 6.96 ITA Fish-S.W.F. Importacao E Exportacao Ltda. 6.96 JK Pesca Ltda. 6.96 Lusomar Maricultura Ltda. 6.96 Santa Lavinia Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. 6.96 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. 67.80 Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA 67.80 Assessment The Department shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Aquatica and Compescal, because they did not report the entered value of their U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. 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 Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *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 established in the LTFV investigation 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 Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of shrimp from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.05 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: September 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues 1. Offset for Productivity Losses from Viral Infection 2. Zeroing Negative Margins Company-Specific Issues Compescal: 3. Calculation of Offset for Losses from Viral Infection 4. Calculation of Constructed Value Profit 5. Depreciation on Fixed Asset Revaluations 6. Treatment of Prime Quality Shrimp Aquatica: 7. Adjustment Methodology for Losses from Viral Infection 8. Aquatica's Shrimp Cost Allocation Methodology 9. Changes in Inventories in Cost Calculation 10. Purchases from Affiliates 11. CV Profit and Selling Rates 12. Foreign Exchange Loss 13. Treatment of Broken Shrimp Valença: 14. Adverse Facts Available Rate Assigned to Valenca da Bahia Maricultura S.A. 15. Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available Rate Assigned to Valenca da Bahia Maricultura S.A. [FR Doc. E7-18009 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand. This review covers 24 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review
(POR)is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. We are rescinding the review with respect to five companies because these companies had no reportable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-0656. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers 24 producers/exporters. 1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. (Good Luck Product); Pakfood Public Company Limited and it affiliated subsidiaries, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited, Chaopraya 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 “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is rescinding the administrative review. On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Thailand. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10669 (Mar. 9, 2007) (Preliminary Results). On March 12, 2007, we received a quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire response from Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Fortune Frozen Foods). Because Fortune Frozen Foods: 1) had previously submitted a timely Q&V questionnaire response that was rejected by the Department due to procedural deficiencies; and 2) provided an adequate explanation as to why the Department did not receive its re-filed Q&V questionnaire response in a timely manner, we accepted Fortune Frozen Foods' Q&V questionnaire response. For further discussion, see the “Facts Available” section of this notice, below. In addition, on March 12 and 14, 2007, Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Anglo-Siam Seafoods) contacted the Department regarding the rate based on adverse facts available
(AFA)that it was assigned in the preliminary results. Further on March 27, 2007, Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean), which also was assigned a rate based on AFA in the preliminary results, submitted a Q&V questionnaire response. However, because Anglo-Siam Seafoods and Gallant Ocean had not attempted to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire prior to the deadline, we informed them that the deadline for submitting new factual information had passed and we would not accept their Q&V questionnaire responses. On April 2, 2007, we returned Gallant Ocean's Q&V questionnaire response. For further discussion, see the “Facts Available” section of this notice, below. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results, as well as on the additional information noted above. In April 2007, we received case briefs from the petitioner ( *i.e.* , the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee), Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant Ocean, Good Luck Product, Pakfood, and Thai I-Mei. In May 2007, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner, Pakfood, Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd. (Surapon Nichirei), and Thai I-Mei. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 2 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 2 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *Penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *Penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *Penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *Macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *Penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *Penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *Penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *Penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *Trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *Penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *Penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *Penaeus occidentalis* ), and Indian white prawn ( *Penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the *Pandalidae* family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and, 8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and, 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. Partial Rescission of Review Eight of the producers/exporters that responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. These companies are: Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd. (Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product), NR Instant Produce, 3 Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. (Siam Intersea), Siam Ocean, Surapon Nichirei, Tep Kinsho, Thai Agri, and Thai World Imports and Exports. 4 However, based on information obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it appeared that these companies did, in fact, have shipments or entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. As a result, we requested that seven of these companies explain the entries in question. We did not request information from Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product because, based on CBP information, we found that the merchandise ( *i.e.* , dried shrimp) was outside the scope of the order. 3 We note that the response from this company indicated that its name is NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. 4 We note that the responses from these companies indicated that their names are Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd., Thai Agri Foods Co., Ltd., and Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd., respectively. In response to the Department's solicitation and/or based on information from CBP, we continue to find that the entries at issue were not reportable transactions for four of the eight companies because they were either: 1) non-subject merchandise ( *i.e.* , dried shrimp); 2) a non-paid sample; or 3) reported by another company in its Q&V response based on knowledge of destination. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product, Siam Ocean, Tep Kinsho, and Thai Agri. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 71 FR 65082, 65083 (Nov. 7, 2006). One of the remaining exporters/producers, Siam Intersea, provided additional information to the Department indicating that it did, in fact, have a reportable transaction during the POR. We are not rescinding the administrative review with respect to this company and are assigning to it the weighted-average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review because we find: 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, the remaining two exporters/producers, NR Instant Produce and Surapon Nichirei, stated that they did not report the entries in question because they claimed that the entries were of non-subject merchandise. We preliminarily found that, because these companies' merchandise entered into the United States as subject merchandise and there was insufficient evidence on the record to conclude otherwise, the merchandise in question was included within the scope of the order. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10672. Regarding NR Instant Produce, because we have received no further information demonstrating that the merchandise exported by this company is not subject to the order, we are continuing to assign it the weighted-average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review. Regarding Surapon Nichirei, however, we have now determined that this merchandise constitutes a prepared meal based on information provided by Surapon Nichirei and is, therefore, excluded from the scope of the order. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice we are rescinding the review with respect to Surapon Nichirei. For further information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) accompanying this notice at Comment 4. Finally, the remaining exporter/producer, Thai World Imports and Exports, 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 Imports and Exports. For further information, see the “Facts Available” section of this notice. Facts Available In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following producer/exporters: Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Li-Thai), Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd. (Queen Marine Foods), Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10673-74. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. In April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a response was April 28, 2006. Because numerous companies did not respond to this initial request for information, in May 2006 the Department issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity to submit a response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. However, the following companies failed to respond to the Department's second request for Q&V data: Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Foods, and Smile Heart Foods. On January 31, 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 Brianne Riker 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 found that the use of total facts available was warranted. Moreover, in May 2006, Thai World Imports and Exports 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 this claim with CBP, we requested further information/clarification from this producer/exporter. However, Thai World Imports and Exports failed to provide the requested information. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, because Thai World Import and Export did not respond to the Department's request for additional information, the Department also preliminarily found that the use of total facts available was warranted for it. By failing to respond to the Department's requests, the above-mentioned companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the preliminary results, the Department finds that the use of total facts available for Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10673-74. We note that, while Anglo-Siam Seafoods and Gallant Ocean attempted to provide Q&V questionnaire responses after the preliminary results, we did not accept this information because it was untimely, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d)(1)(i). Therefore, we find that these companies were not responsive to the Department's requests for information. For further discussion regarding Gallant Ocean, see the Decision Memo at Comment 8. Finally, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the margin for Fortune Frozen Foods on total facts available. In the preliminary results, we assigned Fortune Frozen Foods a margin based on total facts available because the company failed to properly file its Q&V questionnaire response. On March 2, 2007, Fortune Frozen Foods contacted the Department regarding its rejected Q&V submission. Subsequently, on March 12, 2007, Fortune Frozen Foods submitted a Q&V questionnaire response, as well as a request that the Department consider it for purposes of the final results. In this submission, Fortune Frozen Foods explained to the Department that it re-filed its original Q&V questionnaire response before the deadline given by the Department; however, a company employee inadvertently sent the document via Thai first-class mail rather than an international courier service. Because: 1) Fortune Frozen Foods had previously submitted a timely Q&V questionnaire response that was rejected by the Department due to procedural deficiencies; 2) we find Fortune Frozen Foods' explanation plausible; and 3) we now have a copy of Fortune Frozen Foods' Q&V questionnaire response on the record of this administrative review, we are accepting Fortune Frozen Foods Q&V questionnaire response. Therefore, we will not base the margin for Fortune Frozen Foods on total facts available. Rather, we have now assigned Fortune Frozen Foods the weighted-average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review. For further information, see the Decision Memo at Comment 7. Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); *see also* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). *See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We find that Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports did not act to the best of their ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA information derived from:
(1)the petition;
(2)the final determination in the investigation;
(3)any previous review; or
(4)any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances* , 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 57.64 percent, which was the highest rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, to Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports. The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule ( *i.e.* , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). We continue to find that the information upon which this margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10673-74. For further information regarding corroboration of the AFA rate, see the Decision Memo at Comment 2. Cost of Production As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Good Luck Product and Pakfood made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production
(COPs)within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the *Preliminary Results* . We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. *See* sections 773(b)(2)(B) -
(D)of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Good Luck Product and Pakfood made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value
(NV)pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Regarding Thai I-Mei, as discussed in the preliminary results, we based NV on constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act because there was no viable home or third country market. Therefore, we did not perform the cost test for this company. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Because the margin calculations for Good Luck Product and Pakfood have not changed from the preliminary results, the preliminary calculations placed on the record of this administrative review are adopted as the final margin calculations. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. 10.75 Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited/Chaopraya Cold Storage Company Limited/Okeanos Company Limited/Takzin Samut Company Limited 4.29 Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co.,Ltd. 2.58 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 5 5 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.4.31 Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd. 4.31 Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 4.31 Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd. 4.31 Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand), Ltd. 4.31 Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd. 4.31 Narong Seafood Co., Ltd. 4.31 NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. 4.31 Pacific Queen Co., Ltd. 4.31 Piti Seafood Co., Ltd. 4.31 S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd. 4.31 Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. 4.31 Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd. 4.31 SMP Food Product Co., Ltd. 4.31 Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd. 4.31 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Anglo-Siam Seafoods 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 Assessment The Department shall 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 these final results of review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for certain of Pakfood's U.S. sales and all of Thai I-Mei's U.S. sales, because these companies reported the entered value, we have calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. For certain of Pakfood's U.S. sales without reported entered values and for all Good Luck Product's sales, we have calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are de minimis or determined entirely on AFA. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of shrimp from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero;
(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues 1. Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales 2. Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available
(AFA)Rate 3. The Placement of Species Within the Matching Hierarchy 4. Whether Entries Made by NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. (NR Instant Produce) and Surapon Nicherei Foods Co., Ltd. (Surapon Nichirei) Are Within the Scope of the Order Company-Specific Issues 5. Final Rate Assigned to Gallant Ocean Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean) 6. Home Market Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade for Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. (Good Luck Product) 7. Classification of Certain of Good Luck Product's Selling Expenses as Direct 8. Acceptance of Quantity and Value (Q&V) Data Submitted by Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Fortune Frozen Foods) 9. Verification Changes for Pakfood Public Company, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited, Takzin Samut Company Limited, Okeanos Company Limited, Chaopraya Cold Storage, and Singkara Company Limited (collectively “Pakfood”) 10. Application of the Multinational Corporation
(MNC)Provision to Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I-Mei) 11. Date-of-Sale Methodology for Thai I-Mei 12. Calculation of Warehousing Expenses for Thai I-Mei 13. Constructed Export Price
(CEP)Offset for Thai I-Mei 14. Calculation of CEP Profit for Thai I-Mei 15. Source of General and Administrative (G&A) Expense Data for Thai I-Mei 16. The G&A and Interest Expense Ratio Denominator for Thai I-Mei 17. Calculation of Constructed Value
(CV)Profit for Thai I-Mei 18. Calculation of the Assessment Rate for Thai I-Mei [FR Doc. E7-18010 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-331-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Ecuador. This review covers 23 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review
(POR)is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-4136 and
(202)482-3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers 23 producers/exporters. The respondents selected for individual review are OceanInvest, S.A. (OceanInvest) and Promarisco, S.A. (Promarisco). The respondents not selected for individual review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Ecuador. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10658 (March 9, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Promarisco on March 9, 2007, in order to clarify certain reported data in the sales listings. We received a response to this supplemental questionnaire on March 19, 2007. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review, as well as on the additional information noted above. In April and May 2007, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner ( *i.e.* , the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee) and the respondents ( *i.e.* , Promarisco and OceanInvest). The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 1 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 1 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *Penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *Penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *Penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *Macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *Penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *Penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *Penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *Penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *Trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *Penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *Penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *Penaeus occidentalis* ), and Indian white prawn ( *Penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the *Pandalidae* family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. Application of Facts Available In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following producer/exporters: Doblertel, S.A. (Doblertel) and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. (Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico). *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10700-01. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. Doblertel and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico 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 Customs and Border Protection (CBP), we requested further information/clarification from them. Doblertel and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico failed to provide the requested information/clarification. By doing so, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the *Preliminary Results* , the Department finds that the use of total facts available for Doblertel and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10700-01. Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994)(SAA). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); *see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We find that Doblertel and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *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 assigned the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for a respondent in this review. As discussed in detail in the *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 10701, and the 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, the Department preliminarily found that the highest transaction-specific rate of 48.61 percent was sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule ( *i.e.* , we found that this rate was high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act), and that the information upon which this margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. For the final results, we have applied the same AFA rate selection methodology for the same reasons as those articulated in the *Preliminary Results* . However, as a result of changes made to the respondents' margin calculations since the *Preliminary Results* , the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for a respondent in this review has changed. For the final results, the highest transaction-specific rate calculated is 35.00 percent. We find that this rate is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation in future segments of this proceeding, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, and that the information upon which this margin is based also has probative value and thus satisfies the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. Cost of Production As discussed in the *Preliminary Results* , we conducted an investigation to determine whether OceanInvest and Promarisco made third country sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production
(COP)within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the *Preliminary Results* , except as discussed in the decision memorandum accompanying this notice (the Decision Memo). We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. *See* Sections 773(b)(2)(B) -
(D)of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we find that OceanInvest and Promarisco made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (the Decision Memo), which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage OceanInvest, S.A. 3.69 Promarisco, S.A. 0.39 ( *de minimis* ) Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 2 2 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. As the final results rate for Promarisco is *de minimis* , the rate applicable to these companies is the final results rate calculated for OceanInvest. Manufacturer/Exporter Margin Percentage Agrol S.A. 3.69 Camarones (Camarones Del Mar COBUS S.A.) 3.69 Comercializadora del Mar COMAR Cia. Ltda. 3.69 Empacadora y Exportadora Calvi Cia. Ltda. 3.69 Emprede S.A. 3.69 Exportadora del Oceano Oceanexa C. A. 3.69 Fortumar Ecuador S.A. 3.69 Gambas del Pacifico 3.69 Hectorosa S.A. 3.69 Inepexa S.A. 3.69 Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez 3.69 Luis Loaiza Alvarez 3.69 Mardex Cia. Ltda. 3.69 Marines C.A. 3.69 Pacfish, S.A. 3.69 PCC Congelados & Frescos SA 3.69 Pescazul S.A. 3.69 Productos Cultivados del Mar “Proculmar” Cia. Ltda. 3.69 Promarosa S.A. 3.69 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Doblertel S.A. 35.00 Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. 35.00 Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue liquidation and assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for OceanInvest, because this company reported the entered value for some of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. For OceanInvest's U.S. sales reported without entered values, we calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. For Promarisco, because it reported the entered value of all of its U.S. sales, we have calculated the importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rate 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. As discussed in the Memorandum to the File dated September 5, 2007, entitled “Supplementary Discussion of Promarisco Issues in Final Results,” we have calculated a single importer-specific assessment rate for Promarisco, consistent with our practice in *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Singapore: Final Results of the Antidumping Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Review in part, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part* , 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9B; and *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 69 FR 75921 (December 20, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 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). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Discontinuation of Cash Deposit Requirements Pursuant to the *Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States - Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador: Notice of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador* , 72 FR 48257 (August 23, 2007), effective August 15, 2007, we have revoked the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: September 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues 1. “Zeroing” Methodology in Administrative Reviews Company-Specific Issues 2. Treatment of Sales and Certain Costs of Promarisco Ceviche Products 3. Third-Country Market Selection for Promarisco 4. Treatment of Certain Promarisco U.S. Sales 5. Allocation of Certain Promarisco Processing Costs 6. OceanInvest's Reported COP Methodology 7. CV Profit Rates for OceanInvest's Value-Added and Non-Value-Added Products 8. Treatment of OceanInvest's Commission Expenses [FR Doc. E7-18041 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-822] Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on helical spring lock washers (“HSLWs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below normal value (“NV”) by Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. (“HSW”) (also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd.). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Charles Riggle at, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2336 or
(202)482-0650, respectively. Background On October 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain HSLWs from the PRC, as amended on November 23, 1993. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China,* 58 FR 53914 (October 19, 1993), and *Amended Final Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China,* 58 FR 61859 (November 23, 1993). On October 2, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), the following requests were made:
(1)On October 25, 2006, HSW, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of HSW;
(2)on October 30, 2006, Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (“Shakeproof” or “Petitioner”), a domestic interested party, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of HSW. On November 27, 2006, the Department published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on HSLWs from the PRC covering the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to HSW on December 26, 2006. The Department informed interested parties that surrogate value information, submitted by April 19, 2007, would be considered for the preliminary results and requested parties provide surrogate country selection comments by April 7, 2007. *See* Letter from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Interested Parties, regarding surrogate factors of production (“FOP”) values (February 9, 2007); and Letter from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Interested Parties, regarding surrogate country selection (February 9, 2007). On April 19, 2007, HSW and Petitioner provided comments on publicly available information to value the FOP. Neither of the interested parties provided comments on the selection of a surrogate country. On May 25 and July 24, 2007, HSW provided additional comments on publicly available information to value the FOP. On June 6, 2007, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review until September 4, 2007. *See Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 31278 (June 6, 2007). Verification of Responses As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by HSW. The Department conducted the sales and FOP verification using standard verification procedures at HSW's facilities in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province from June 11 through 15, 2007. Our verification results are outlined in the Memorandum to the File from Marin Weaver and Jennifer Moats, International Trade Compliance Analysts, Re: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Review of Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China (August 28, 2007) (“Verification Report”). Any changes made as a result of verification have been identified in our Memorandum to the File from Marin Weaver, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Re: Calculation of Preliminary Margin for Hangzhou Spring Washer Plant, also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd. (September 4, 2007) (“Calculation Memo”). Period of Review The POR is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are HSLWs of carbon steel, of carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are designed to:
(1)Function as a spring to compensate for developed looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly;
(2)distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and
(3)provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made of other metals, such as copper. HSLWs subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 7318.21.0030 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Non-Market Economy Country Status HSW did not contest the Department's treatment of the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”), and the Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case. See, e.g., *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,* 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (“ *Sawblades* ”). No interested party in this case has argued that we should do otherwise. Designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's FOP, 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 FOP, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOP 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 Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 8, Re: Administrative Review of Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China; Request for a List of Surrogate Countries (December 21, 2006) (“Surrogate Country Memorandum”). Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the Surrogate Country Memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See* Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Marin Weaver, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Re: Administrative Review of Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country (September 4, 2007) (“Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum”). The Department used India as the primary surrogate country and, accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producer's FOP, when available and appropriate. *See* Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum, and Memorandum to Wendy Frankel from Marin Weaver, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Re: Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Factors-of-Production Valuation for Preliminary Results (“FOP Memo”) (September 4, 2007). We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section, below, and in the FOP Memo. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOP within 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria 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) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified in *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* ”). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of absence of *de jure* government control over export activities includes:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. Absence of *de facto* government control over exports is based on four factors:
(1)Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of losses;
(3)whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22587, and *Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589. In May 1999, HSW was sold to five individuals and became a limited liability company. HSW has placed on the record documents to demonstrate the absence of *de jure* control and the Department took further documentation at verification. These documents included its list of shareholders, business license, Company Law, and Public Sales Agreement. Other than limiting HSW to activities referenced in the business license, we found no restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous cases the Department has analyzed the Company Law and found that it establishes an absence of *de jure* control. See, *e.g. Sawblades,* 71 FR 29303, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9. We have no information in this segment of the proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of *de jure* control for HSW. With regard to *de facto* control, HSW reported the following:
(1)It sets prices to the United States through negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any government organization;
(2)the PRC government does not coordinate the export activities of HSW;
(3)HSW's general manager and deputy general manager have the authority to contractually bind the company to sell subject merchandise;
(4)the board of directors has appointed the general manager, and the other managers are appointed either by the board of directors or the general manager;
(5)there is no restriction on its use of export revenues;
(6)HSW's management decides how to dispose of the profits. Additionally, HSW's questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters nor does it reveal other information indicating government control of export activities. Furthermore, we did not find any evidence at verification indicating government control of export activities or that pricing is coordinated among exporters. *See* Verification Report. Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de facto* government control over HSW's export functions. In the instant administrative review, we find an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to HSW's export activities according to the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and an absence of government control with respect to the additional criteria identified in *Silicon Carbide.* Therefore, we have assigned HSW a separate rate. Date of Sale 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the normal course of business. However, the Department may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Department is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001). After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that HSW placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale, except where the shipment date precedes the invoice date for export price (“EP”) sales. We made this determination based on record evidence which demonstrates that HSW's invoices establish the material terms of sale to the extent required by our regulations. We also determine that for EP sales, the terms of sale cannot be established after the date of shipment. Accordingly, where the shipment date precedes the invoice date, the Department considers the shipping date to be the date of sale. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China,* 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in the final determination). Normal Value Comparisons Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine NV using an FOP 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 will base NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). To determine whether POR sales of HSLWs to the United States by HSW were made at less than NV, we compared EP to NV, as described below. Export Price Because HSW sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States) and use of a constructed export price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we have used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP based on the free on board or delivered price, as appropriate, to unaffiliated purchasers for HSW. From this price, we deducted amounts for domestic movement expenses ( *i.e.* , PRC inland freight), brokerage and handling, and, where applicable, commissions, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. *See* Calculation Memo. To value truck freight used in the inland freight calculation, we used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange, available at *http://www.infreight.com.* The truck freight rates are from January to October 2005; therefore, we made adjustments for inflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. *See* FOP Memo. The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses:
(1)Data from the January 9, 2006 public version of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejirwal Paper Ltd. (“Kejirwal”); 1 and
(2)data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for the period of review February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005 ( *see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) (unchanged in final results)). The Department adjusted these data for inflation and used a simple average of the data as its brokerage and handling surrogate value. *See* FOP Memo. 1 Kejirwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper products from India investigation for which the period of investigation was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India* , 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in final determination). Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP reported by HSW for the POR. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, publicly available surrogate values which are average non-export values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004) (unchanged in the final determination). Where contemporaneous data were not available for the POR, we have inflated the surrogate values in the manner described in the FOP Memo. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian surrogate values. As appropriate, we added to Indian 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). For these preliminary results we have: • Used data from the *Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India* , as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and available from *World Trade Atlas* (disregarding import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized or are from an NME country) and *Chemical Weekly* , an Indian publication containing domestic ( *i.e.* , Indian) prices for chemicals, to calculate surrogate values for HSW's material inputs and packing inputs; • For all types of labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), used the PRC regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries as reported on Import Administration's home page. *See* “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries” (revised January 2007), available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* ; • Valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price rates from *Key World Energy Statistics 2003,* published by the International Energy Agency, available at *http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html;* • Valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *http://www.midcindia.org* ) since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs; • Determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from *http://www.infreight.com,* which is described in the “Export Price” section, above; • Valued the cost of transporting materials by rail using the rates charged by Indian Railways, available at *http://www.indianrailways.gov.in;* • Determined the best available information for valuing barge freight is Inland Waterways Authority of India as submitted by HSW on June 25, 2001, in the 1999-2000 administrative review of HSLWs from the PRC; • Valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, using Suchi Fasteners Private Ltd.'s financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2005. This company produces nuts and washers, including spring lock washers, which are identical to HSW's product lines. For a more detailed discussion of our choices of Indian surrogate values, *see* FOP Memo. Currency Conversion We converted all surrogate values denominated in rupees to U.S. dollars using the average daily exchange rate for the POR, which we calculated using the official daily exchange rates from the Department's Web site. 2 2 *See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/india.txt* . Application of Facts Available Sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person
(A)Withholds information that has been requested,
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2), 776(b) and 782(d) of the Act, the use of partial AFA is appropriate for the preliminary results for HSW. 1. Application of Facts Available in Part HSW reported one packing configuration for each product code in its May 25, 2007, response at Exhibit 7. At verification, in reviewing the sales traces, we noticed that while HSW had reported only one packing configuration per product code, the packing lists showed that a substantial number of sales observations used packing configurations different from those reported for their particular product type. *See* Verification Report. At verification we asked company officials if they had identified and reported instances when specialized packing configurations were used to pack the subject merchandise shipped to the United States. Company officials stated that they had only reported one packing configuration per product. We examined HSW's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses with regard to packing, and none of the narration provided indicated that the company used multiple packing configurations for its products. Therefore, we find that the application of facts available to the packing usage rates of those sales whose packing configuration we did not verify is warranted. First, HSW withheld from the Department the correct information regarding the packing of its HSLWs. Second, HSW failed to provide information within the deadlines established. Specifically, in this case the deadline for new factual information was March 20, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). Furthermore, while information for minor corrections is accepted at the start of verification, HSW was reminded in the verification outline issued on June 1, 2007, that verification is not intended to be an opportunity for submission of new factual information. 3 Third, because we discovered during the verification that multiple packing configurations were used, due to the statutory deadlines, it was not practicable to provide HSW the opportunity to remedy its incomplete reporting. Fourth, because HSW withheld packing configuration information related to its sales, we were unable to verify the packing usage rates for observations which used different packing configurations than the standard configurations reported by HSW. *See* Verification Report. 3 As discussed below, the packing configuration information in question was not presented to us by HSW at the start of verification or any other time. Rather, it was discovered during the course of verification. 2. Use of Adverse Inferences We also find it appropriate to apply an adverse inference of facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to the packing usage rates of sales whose packing configuration we did not examine in the course of verification. As discussed above, in its questionnaire responses HSW did not inform us that it used multiple packing configurations for its HSLWs. We discovered this at verification. Furthermore, upon discovery, we questioned HSW about its configurations and company officials stated that one or two customers request specialized packing. However, while reviewing the sales traces, we found instances where sales to customers other than those named by company officials also used packing configurations which varied from the reported configuration. *See* Verification Report. Of the sampling of sales observations we examined, we found that a large percentage (measured by quantity) had used a packing configuration different from the reported standard configurations. *See* Verification Report. Therefore, as the use of different packing configurations was common company officials should have been aware of and should have notified the Department of these different configurations. At verification, company officials said that they felt it would have been too difficult to report the specialized packing configurations. *See* Verification Report. This statement shows that company officials were well aware that multiple packing configurations were used and chose not to inform the Department of this fact. By not informing us in its questionnaire responses or in the minor corrections at verification that it used multiple packing configurations based on customer requests, HSW has not cooperated to the best of its ability. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of the Act. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany,* 64 FR 30710, 30724-30728, at Comment 3 (June 8, 1999); *see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 67 FR 6682 (February 13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 24. Because HSW failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, we find it necessary to use an AFA, in part, with regard to the packing usage rates for the sales which we did not verify. Specifically, the verification report contains a chart for those sales that we verified that used different packing configurations from the reported standard configuration, and lists the percentage difference between the actual configuration and the reported packing configuration. *See* Verification Report. We have taken a simple average of these percentage differences and used this to inflate the packing usage rates of all the sales we did not verify. *See* Calculation Memo. For those sales we verified that used different packing configurations than those used in the reported standard configuration, we have adjusted the packing rate by the actual percentage difference found. For those sales we verified which used the reported standard configuration, we made no adjustment to the reported packing usage rate. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin Hangzhou Spring Washer Co. Ltd. (also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd.) 0.00 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, should be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department requests that parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, 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 appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit value or *ad valorum* rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For HSW, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , zero cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding), the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 70.71 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash 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 preliminary results of review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 4, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17989 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results for Eleventh Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Mark Manning, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3936 and
(202)482-5253, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC, covering the period of review (“POR”) February 1, 2006, to January 31, 2007, on Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Ayecue”). *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review,* 72 FR 15657 (April 2, 2007). Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.214(i)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department shall issue preliminary results in a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. The Act and regulations further provide, however, that the Department may extend that 180-day period to 300 days if it determines that this review is extraordinarily complicated. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2) and 751 (a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. The Department finds that this review is extraordinarily complicated and that it is not practicable to complete this new shipper review within the foregoing time period. Specifically, the Department must issue supplemental questionnaires to obtain additional information about
(1)Ayecue's complex methodology for allocating consumption rates of factors of production, and
(2)the *bona fides* of its U.S. sale. In addition, the Department needs additional time to conduct verification of the submitted information. Accordingly, the Department finds that additional time is needed in order to complete these preliminary results. Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2) allow the Department to extend the deadline for the preliminary results to a maximum of 300 days from the date of initiation of the new shipper review. For the reasons noted above, we are extending the deadline for the completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper review to 300 days, *i.e.* , from September 24, 2007, until no later than January 22, 2008. 1 The deadline for the final results of this new shipper review continues to be 90 days after the publication of the preliminary results. 1 January 21, 2008, is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which is a federal holiday. Therefore, the deadline for completing the preliminary results of this new shipper review shall be the next business day, January 22, 2008. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and section 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). Dated: September 7, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17999 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-810] Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2006 New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, 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)482-3853 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) of the Department of Commerce's (Department) regulations require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated, and the final results of review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. However, if the Department determines that the issues are extraordinarily complicated, 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2) allow the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to up to 150 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. Background On September 26, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India for Ambica Steels Limited (Ambica), covering the period February 1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 56105 (September 26, 2006). On July 17, 2007, the Department issued the preliminary results of review. The preliminary results were published on July 23, 2007. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 40113 (July 23, 2007). The final results for this review are currently due no later than October 15, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the final results of a new shipper review if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire (dealing with sales and cost issues) to Ambica following the preliminary results, and the Department needs additional time to analyze Ambica's response. In addition, the Department is planning to conduct a sales and cost verification of Ambica in September. As a result, the Department has determined that this review is extraordinarily complicated, and the final results of this new shipper review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 90 days. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results by 60 days, until no later than December 14, 2007. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 5, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17992 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-808] Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrativereview of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India in response to a request from an interested party. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Mukand Limited. The period of review is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that Mukand Limited made sales at less than normal value. The Department of Commerce intends to rescind the administrative review with respect to Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. See “Intent to Rescind Administrative Review” section below. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of each issue and a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Callen, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-0180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 20, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire rods (wire rods) from India. See *Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India* , 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). On December 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping duty order. See *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). On December 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Mukand Limited (Mukand), a producer and exporter, requested an administrative review under section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), of the antidumping duty order on wire rods from India. On December 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce received a request to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India from Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Sunflag). On February 2, 2007, in accordance with 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. We are conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Intent to Rescind Administrative Review Sunflag also requested a new-shipper review, which we initiated on March 20, 2007. See *Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review* , 72 FR 13088 (March 20, 2007). Because we are proceeding with the new-shipper review and because the administrative review covers entries during the same period of time as the new-shipper review, we intend to rescind the administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j). Scope of the Order The merchandise under review is wire rods, which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of wire rods sold in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter. The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review. Comparison-Market Sales In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of wire rods in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Mukand's quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market.Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities of the comparison-market (i.e., India) and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determined that Mukand's home market was viable during the POR. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S.-price sales. Export Price We calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because Mukand sold the merchandise to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. We based export price on the packed, delivered, duty unpaid price to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. No other adjustments were claimed. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the scope of the order which were produced and sold by Mukand in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to wire rods sold in the United States. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison market within the contemporaneous window period. Mukand had only one entry of subject merchandise during the POR and on January 29, 2007, Mukand sought permission to report only home-market sales it made during the period July 2005 through December 2005, which covers the three months preceding and two months after this entry. We agreed to this request. See letter from Laurie Parkhill to Mukand dated February 26, 2007. Because there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to Mukand's U.S. sale, we compared its U.S. sale to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making product comparisons, we defined identical and most similar foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Mukand in the following order of importance: grade, diameter, and type of final finishing operation. For more information, page 2 of memorandum entitled “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India - Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for Mukand” dated August 30, 2007 ( *Prelim Memo* ). Cost of Production In the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which Mukand participated, we disregarded certain sales made by Mukand in the home market that failed the cost test and we excluded such sales from the calculation of normal value. See 69 FR 29923 (May 26, 2004). Therefore, consistent with Section 773 (b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act we are conducting a cost-of-production investigation of Mukand's home-market sales. On January 29, 2007, Mukand sought permission to report cost-of-production data for the prior POR (December 1, 2004 - November 30, 2005) because the U.S. sale at issue involved merchandise that entered the United States during the current POR but was produced and shipped to the United States during the prior period. We agreed to that request. See letter from Laurie Parkhill to Mukand dated March 9, 2007. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the cost of production
(COP)based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-market sales and COP information provided by Mukand in its questionnaire responses, including its home-market and COP data bases. See Mukand's March 15, 2007, June 15, 2007, and July 30, 2007, responses and accompanying data bases. We relied on the COP data submitted by Mukand, except for the changes identified below: 1. Under section 773(f)(3) of the Act (i.e., the “Major Input Rule”), we increased Mukand's reported cost of direct materials based on the difference between its affiliated supplier's cost of grade 201 and 410 billets and the transfer prices charged to Mukand for such billets. 2. We increased Mukand's general and administrative expense ratio to include “exceptional” expenses recognized in Mukand's financial statements for fiscal year 2004-2005. See *Prelim Memo* at 2. After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested home-market sales of the foreign like product to determine if they were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. The home-market prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, discounts, and indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of Mukand'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 the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of Mukand's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that these below-cost sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See *Prelim Memo* . Consequently, we disregarded Mukand's below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, in accordance with 773(b)(1) of the Act. Normal Value We based normal value for Mukand on the prices of the foreign like products sold to its comparison-market customers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to export price, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal value. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on sales at the same level of trade as the export price. See the “Level of Trade” section below. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade as the export-price sales. The normal value level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales in the home market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For export price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market. To determine whether normal value sales are at a different level of trade than the export- price sales, the Department examines stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade than the export-price sales and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested by a pattern of consistent price differences between comparison-market sales at the normal value level of trade and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, the Department makes a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See *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). In determining whether Mukand made sales at different levels of trade, we obtained information from Mukand regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and home-market sales, including a description of the selling activities it performed for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same, the selling functions and activities of the seller at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar. In the home market, Mukand reported four levels of trade: sales to end-user via an agent, sales to end-users without an agent, sales to traders without an agent, and sales to traders with an agent. See Mukand's questionnaire response, dated March 15, 2007 ( *Mukand Response* ), at B-20. Mukand reported five channels of distribution: sales to traders or end-users, sales to distributors through a del credre agent (similar to a consignment agent except that Mukand and agent finalize price with customer and Mukand ships directly to the customer), sales to end-users through consignment agents, sales through “stock yards” (i.e., warehouses) with an agent and sales through warehouses without an agent. See *Mukand Response* at A-7-8. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities associated with sales reported by Mukand to its five channels of distribution in the home market, and where appropriate, to distinct customer categories within these channels. We found that for sales to traders or end-users, sales to distributors through a del credre agent, and sales to end-users through consignment agents (distribution channels 1, 2, and 3), Mukand provided similar selling activities with respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services and, therefore, sales to these three channels constituted one distinct level of trade. We found that for sales through warehouses with an agent and sales through warehouses without an agent (distribution channels 4 and 5) Mukand provided similar selling activities with respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services and, therefore, sales to these two channels constituted another, distinct level of trade. Based upon our overall analysis in the home market, we found that these two levels of trade constituted two different levels of trade. Mukand reported one export-price sale through one channel of distribution. To the extent practicable, we compare normal value at the same level of trade as the sale to the United States. The export-price level of trade is similar to the first level of trade in the home market (channels 1, 2, and 3) with respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services. The export-price level of trade differed from the second level of trade in the home-market (channels 4 and 5) with respect to freight, delivery, and warehousing. We matched the export-price sale to a home-market sale at the same level of trade and did not make a level-of-trade adjustment. Currency Conversion Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin on stainless steel wire rods from India for the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006, for Mukand Limited is 11.56 percent. Public Comment We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in the **Federal Register** . See section 751(c)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for these preliminary results of review. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis (i.e., 0.50* percent *ad valorem* or greater), we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were entered by the importer or sold to the customer. After 15 days of publication of the final results of review, the Department will issue instructions to CBP directing it to assess the final assessment rates (if above *de minimis* ) uniformly on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer or sold to the relevant customer during the POR. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by Mukand where Mukand did not know that its merchandise 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 intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 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)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash-deposit rate for Mukand will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except that if the rate is *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair value
(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 subject merchandise; and
(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 48.80 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash-deposit rates, 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)(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 occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. September 4, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17993 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received timely requests to conduct new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating new shipper reviews for Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Bon Ten”) and Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Mu Si”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Hua Lu, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4474 or
(202)482-6478, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department received timely requests from Bon Ten and Mu Si on July 27, 2007, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), in their requests for new shipper reviews, Bon Ten and Mu Si certified that they did not export wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”); that since the initiation of the investigation they have never been affiliated with any company that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI; and that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Bon Ten and Mu Si submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the date on which they first shipped wooden bedroom furniture for export to the United States;
(2)the volume of their first shipment; and
(3)the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted customs queries to confirm that the shipment of Bon Ten and Mu Si had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the customs database by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). We note that although Bon Ten and Mu Si submitted documentation regarding the volume of their shipments and the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States, our customs query shows that Bon Ten's and Mu Si's shipments entered the United States shortly after the anniversary month. Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the period of review (“POR”), but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department=s regulations. The preamble to the Department=s regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur during the POR, and that under “appropriate” circumstances the Department has the flexibility to extend the POR. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27319-27320 (May 19, 1997). In this instance, Bon Ten's and Mu Si's shipments entered in the month following the end of the POR. The Department does not find that this delay prevents the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department=s regulations. Initiation of New Shipper Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we find that Bon Ten's and Mu Si's requests meet the initiation threshold requirements and we are initiating new shipper reviews for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture produced and exported by Bon Ten and Mu Si. *See* Memoranda to the File through Wendy J. Frankel, Director, New Shipper Initiation Checklist, dated August 31, 2007. The Department will conduct these new shipper reviews according to the deadlines set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the POR for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semi-annual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semi-annual anniversary month. As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214 (f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper reviews of Bon Ten and Mu Si is January 1 through July 31, 2007. It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Bon Ten and Mu Si, including a separate-rate section. The reviews will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Bon Ten and Mu Si are not subject to either *de jure* or *de facto* government control with respect to their exports of wooden bedroom furniture. However, if Bon Ten or Mu Si does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, it will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI, and its new shipper review will be rescinded. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond or other security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of wooden bedroom furniture produced and exported by Bon Ten and Mu Si must continue to post cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise ( *i.e.* , wooden bedroom furniture) at the PRC-wide entity rate of 216.01 percent. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are issued in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: August 31, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17995 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Public Law 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and
(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2104, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, at the above address. *Docket Number:* 07-056. *Applicant:* Illinois Institute of Technology, 3300 South Federal Street, Chicago, IL 60616. *Instrument:* Micro Test Pendulum with Hot-Stage Extension & Spherical Indenters. *Manufacturer:* Micro Materials Ltd., United Kingdom. *Intended Use:* The instrument is intended to be used to investigate the micro-mechanical properties of metallic and inter-metallic material systems for structural applications. (2-3,5) Elevated temperature (>700 °C) micro-indentation tests will be performed on a range of experimental alloys and compounds to assist in an alloy development program. The System will be used to train graduate students and post-doctoral researchers as part of a research program on understanding the fundamental deformation mechanisms of high temperature structural materials. The micro test pendulum with hot-stage extension and spherical indenters is capable of testing materials at temperatures in excess of 700 °C or at a load capacity of 10kN. Both of these features are critical in the assessment of mechanical properties of high strength materials at elevated temperature. Also, the horizontal design of the System enables the insertion of a heat shield that prevents radiative heating of the sensitive electronics and allows for testing of specimens at temperatures in excess of 750 °C. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 12, 2007. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-18015 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Rob Andrews, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, Phone:
(301)713-2328, ext. 148 or *Rob.Andrews@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Marine recreational anglers are surveyed for catch and effort data, fish biology data, and angler socioeconomic characteristics. These data are required to carry out provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA)(16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), as amended, regarding conservation and management of fishery resources. Marine recreational fishing catch and effort data are collected through a combination of telephone surveys and on-site intercept surveys with recreational anglers. The current telephone surveys rely on random contacts with residents of coastal county households (Random Digit Dialing, or RDD). This method is extremely inefficient as a relatively small percentage of contacted households reports fishing during any survey period. The recent amendments to the MSA require that future surveys of fishing effort target anglers registered or licensed at the State or Federal level. Such licensed-based surveys will greatly increase the efficiency of data collection as a much larger percentage of contacted individuals are likely to report fishing activity. However, most current saltwater licensing programs exempt large sections of the population from licensing requirements (age, military and disability exemptions). To compensate for gaps in survey coverage created by these exemptions, a dual-frame methodology has been developed that integrates licensed-based sampling with RDD sampling. The resulting survey provides an efficient means of collecting fishing effort data while maintaining nearly complete coverage of the angling population. II. Method of Collection Information is collected by means of telephone interviews. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0052. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 723,325. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 8 minutes for fishing households; 1 minute for non-fishing households. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 44,677. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: September 6, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-17918 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC45 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received an application from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW)for an incidental take permit pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The duration of the proposed Permit is 5- years. This document serves to notify the public of the availability for comment of the permit application and of the associated draft environmental assessment
(EA)before a final decision on whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact and the permit is made by NMFS. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. DATES: Written comments on the application and draft EA must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific time on October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the application should be sent to Kristine Petersen, Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 NE., Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to: *UCRFisheries.nwr@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following identifier: Comments on UCR recreational fisheries. Comments may also be sent via facsimile
(fax)to
(503)872-2737. Requests for copies of the permit application should be directed to the Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 NE., Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. The documents are also available on the Internet at *http://www.nwr.noaa.gov* . Comments received will also be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by calling
(503)230-5409. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristine Petersen at
(503)230-5409 or e-mail: *kristine.petersen@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is relevant to the following species and evolutionarily significant units
(ESUs)or distinct population segments (DPSs): Steelhead ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ): endangered, naturally produced and artificially propagated Upper Columbia River
(UCR)and threatened Middle Columbia River. Chinook salmon ( *O. tshawytscha* ): endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run and threatened Snake River fall-run. Background Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits to non-Federal entities to take ESA-listed species if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307. The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) submittal received from the applicant. Therefore, the Service is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives. On September 12, 2005, the WDFW submitted an application to NMFS for an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental take of ESA-listed anadromous fish species associated with recreational fishery programs in the upper Columbia River and its tributaries for a 5-year period. The receipt of the application was noticed in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 71087, November 11, 2005), and no comments were received. On February 2, 2007, the WDFW submitted a request to adjust the boundaries of one fishery previously proposed in the 2005 application. The application is being made available for comment a second time due to the addition of the fishery area adjustment. The proposed fisheries would target non-listed anadromous salmon and steelhead and resident game fish species. No fisheries that would target listed species are proposed in the application. Implementation of these fisheries would allow fishing for recreational purposes and would provide economic opportunities for local communities through the sale of licenses and equipment, and the conduct of other business and services related to recreational fisheries. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. If it is determined that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued to the WDFW for the purpose of carrying out the fisheries management activities. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the **Federal Register** . The general effects on the environment considered include the impacts on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments of the Upper Columbia River Basin. Dated: September 7, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17985 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC50 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a public meeting of the Ad Hoc Grouper Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)Advisory Panel (AHGIFQAP). DATES: The AHGIFQAP meeting will convene at 1 p.m. on Monday, October 1, 2007 and conclude no later than 3 p.m. on Tuesday, October 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton St. Petersburg, 333 First Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone 727-894-5000. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stu Kennedy, Fishery Biologist, telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has scheduled a meeting of the Ad Hoc Grouper IFQ Advisory Panel to discuss the scoping document for Amendment 29 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 29 has alternatives for rationalizing effort and reducing overcapacity in the commercial Gulf of Mexico grouper fishery, including elimination of latent permits, a buyout or buyback program, permit endorsements, and Individual fishing quotas, and Individual transferable effort quotas. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the AHGIFQAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the AHGIFQAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Copies of the agenda can be obtained by calling
(813)348-1630. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: September 7, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17949 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC49 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's (Council) VMS (Vessel Monitoring System)/Enforcement Committee will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, October 1, 2007, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the New England Fishery Management Council Office, 50 Water Street, Mill #2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone:
(978)495-0492. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows: 1. The VMS/Enforcement Committee will review a Question and Answer document to be developed by the Northeast Regional Office highlighting the most asked questions about VMS. They will examine the requirements to only change fishing code from inside the demarcation line to the follwing VMS fisheries: herring, scallops and northeast multispecies. They will also examine inconsistent and duplicate regulations with respect to utilizing VMS as a vehicle to change or remove them. 2. The committee will approve/endorse the Law Enforcement Precepts from the Office of Law Enforcement. 3. They will receive a written report from NMFS on the network outages by vendor and vessel missing position reports by vendor. 4. Also on the agenda will be the review of an emergency contact list and discussion regarding distribution. 5. Other business. 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 identified 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 (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: September 7, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17948 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA51] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Informational Meeting. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public informational meeting. SUMMARY: Trans-Boundary Resource Assessment Committee
(TRAC)Industry/Science Data Exchange Meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 7, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the New Bedford Free Public Library, 613 Pleasant Street, New Bedford, MA 02740; telephone:
(508)991-6279. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Exec utive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan adopted a system to coordinate the management of trans-boundary stocks of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder with Canada. As part of that system, each year, the Trans-Boundary Resource Assessment Committee
(TRAC)conducts assessments of Eastern Georges Bank cod and haddock, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. These assessments provide the scientific advice used to determine management measures (including Total Allowable Catches, or TACs) for the U.S./Canada fishing area (see 50 CFR 648.85(a)). The TRAC is scheduled for June 12-15, 2007 in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada. Items for discussion at this meeting: 1. Northeast Fisheries Science Center assessment biologists will brief the public on the catches (landings and discards) and survey data that will be used in the 2007 assessments of Eastern Georges Bank cod and haddock, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. 2. Fishermen are encouraged to attend and provide their observations on fishing for cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder on Georges Bank in calendar year 2006. Assessment results will not be presented because the assessment will not be completed until the following week. Discussion will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice. 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 identified 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 (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 18, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17950 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings. SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Integrating Sensor-Collected Intelligence will meet in closed session on October 16-17, 2007; at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. The briefing will contain proprietary material and ensuing discussions will be at the collateral secret level. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At the meeting, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the sufficiency of support for U.S. military forces by current and planned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. The task force's findings and recommendations, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, will be presented and discussed by the membership of the Defense Science Board prior to being presented to the Government's decision maker. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.120 and 102-3.150, the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Science Board will determine and announce the **Federal Register** when the findings and recommendations of the October 16-17, 2007 meeting are deliberated by the Defense Science Board. Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Science Board. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statements to the Designated Federal Official at the address detailed below, at any point, however, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Science Board. The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the Defense Science Board Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the Defense Science Board the meeting that is the subject of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MAJ. Chad Lominac, USAF, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via email at *charles.lominac@osd.mil* , or via phone at
(703)571-0081. Dated: September 5, 2007. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-4464 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
CFR
10 references not yet in our index
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 15 CFR 301
  • 50 CFR 222.307
  • 50 CFR 648.85(a)
  • 41 CFR 102
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.221
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.304
C.F.R.§ 351.302
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.410
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
F. Supp.346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
Cites 31 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.