Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
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."
This review covers 156 producers/exporters. The respondents which the Department selected for individual examination are Pakfood Public Company Limited and its affiliated subsidiaries (collectively, “Pakfood”)
On March 5, 2012, the Department published in the
In April 2012, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by TRF, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In May 2012, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner), the American Shrimp Processors Association (the processors), Marine Gold Products Ltd. (MRG) (a Thai exporter/manufacturer which filed a voluntary response),
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
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,
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
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
The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather
The POR is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.
As noted in the
Regarding the remaining nine companies, we confirmed the claims of these companies with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Therefore, because we find that the record indicates that the nine companies listed below did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we determine that they had no reviewable transactions during the POR. These companies are:
As we stated in the
In our May 6, 2003, clarification of the “automatic assessment” regulation, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding.
As noted in the
As discussed in the
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.
Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Pakfood and TRF 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. Additionally, for those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we continued to compare export prices to constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this administrative review are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, 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 electronically via IA ACCESS in the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of the main Department of Commerce building.
In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at
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 Issues and Decision Memorandum.
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Pakfood and TRF reported the entered value for certain of their U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific
For the remainder of Pakfood's and TRF's U.S. sales, we note that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Therefore, 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. With respect to Pakfood's and TRF's U.S. sales of shrimp with sauce for which no entered value was reported, we have included the total quantity of the merchandise with sauce in the denominator of the calculation of the importer-specific rate because CBP will apply the per-unit duty rate to the total quantity of merchandise entered, including the sauce weight. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we have assigned these companies an assessment rate based on the simple average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review. In situations where we cannot apply our normal methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to requests to protect business-proprietary information, we use a simple average when it yields the best proxy of the weighted-average margin as a matter of practice.
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
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of 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 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,
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.
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.