FR Doc E6-16677

[Federal Register: October 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 59432-59440]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10oc06-31]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-848)

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently
conducting the 2004/2005 administrative and new shipper reviews of the
antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC''). We preliminarily determine that
sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') with respect to
certain exporters who participated fully and are entitled to a separate
rate in the administrative and new shipper reviews. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period
of review (``POR'') for which the importer-specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Erin Begnal, 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-
1386 or (202) 482-1442, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 15, 1997, the Department published an amended final
determination and antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail
meat from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 48218
(September 15, 1997).
On September 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Notice of
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 70 FR
52072 (September 1, 2005).
Based on timely requests from various interested parties, the
Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC with respect to the
following companies: China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (aka China
Kingdoma Import & Export Co., Ltd. and Zhongda Import & Export Co.,
Ltd.) (``China Kingdom''), Jiangsu Hilong International Trading
Company, Ltd. (``Jiangsu Hilong''), Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-
Manufactures Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu JOM''), Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading
Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Sunbeauty''), Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods
Company, Ltd. (``Ningbo Nanlian''), Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods
Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao JYX''), Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd.
(``Qingdao Wentai''), Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao
Zhengri''), Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (``Weishan Zhenyu''),
Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (``Xuzhou Jinjiang''), Yancheng
Haiteng Aquatic Products & Foods Co., Ltd. (``Yancheng Haiteng''),
Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (``Yancheng Hi-
King''), and Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (``Yancheng Yaou''). See
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005) (``Initiation
Notice''). The period of review (``POR'') for all respondents subject
to this administrative review is September 1, 2004, through August 31,
2005.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ On July 3, 2006, the Department issued its notice of
rescission of antidumping duty new shipper reviews of Jiangsu JOM,
Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai, for the period September 1,
2004, and February 28, 2005. See Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 37902 (July 3, 2006) (``Rescission
of New Shipper Review''). Accordingly, this administrative review
only covers these companies' entries not already covered by the
above-referenced new shipper reviews. Therefore, this administrative
review, for Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai,
covers entries from March 1, 2005, through August 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, on September 21, 2005, and September 30, 2005, Xiping
Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (``Xiping Opeck'') and Xuzhou Jinjiang,
respectively, requested new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty
order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.214(c). On November 4, 2005, the Department initiated new
shipper reviews of Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck covering the period
September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. See Freshwater Crawfish
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 70 FR 67138 (November 4, 2005).
The POR for the new shipper review of Xiping Opeck is September 1,
2004, through August 31, 2005. The POR for Xuzhou Jinjiang's new
shipper review is September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005. See
Memorandum to the File, though Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, International
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Expansion of the
Period of Review in the New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail
Meat from the People's Republic of China: Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs
Co. Ltd. (September 22, 2006) expanding the POR to include an entry
related to Xuzhou Jinjiang's sale(s) to the United States made during
the normal POR.
On February 15, 2006, the administrative review was rescinded for
China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong, Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu,
Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and Ningbo Nanlian, because the
requesting parties, the Crawfish Processors Alliance (``Petitioners''),
the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and Bob Odom,
Commissioner (collectively, the Domestic Interested Parties) and Ningbo
Nanlian withdrew their requests for administrative review pursuant to
section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. See Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
7915 (February 15, 2006) (``Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review''). Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Qingdao JYX, Qingdao
Wentai, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Yancheng Hi-King remain subject to the
administrative review.
On February 16, 2006, and February 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang and
Xiping Opeck, respectively, in accordance with section 351.214(j)(3) of
the Department's regulations, agreed to waive the

[[Page 59433]]

applicable time limits for their new shipper reviews so that the
Department could conduct the new shipper reviews concurrently with the
2004/2005 administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat from
the PRC. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Reviews in Conjunction With Administrative Review, 71
FR 13963 (March 20, 2006).
On May 19, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the
preliminary results of the administrative and new shipper reviews until
October 2, 2006. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 71 FR
29121 (May 19, 2006).

Scope of Order

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater
crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on,
whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh,
or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared.
Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole
crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are
saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish
tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and
1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs,
indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') in 2000, and HTSUS numbers
0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for fish and
crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the
scope of this order is dispositive.

Respondents

On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a quantity and value
questionnaire to all respondents for which an administrative review was
initiated. The Department received timely responses from: Yancheng Hi-
King (November 16, 2005), Yancheng Haiteng (November 22, 2005), Qingdao
JYX (November 25, 2005), Xuzhou Jinjiang (November 25, 2005), Weishan
Zhenyu (November 25, 2005), Qingdao Wentai (November 25, 2006), Jiangsu
JOM (November 26, 2005), Shanghai Sunbeauty (November 26, 2005), and
Ningbo Nanlian (November 29, 2005). Both Yancheng Hi-King and Yancheng
Haiteng responded to the Department's request for sales quantity and
value information indicating they had no sales, entries or exports of
subject merchandise during the POR. Qingdao Wentai indicated that it
did not export freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States
between March 1, 2005, and August 31, 2005 (i.e., the period not
covered by its semi-annual new shipper review).
On November 28, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to
the two new shippers: Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. See letters to
Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck from Christopher D. Riker, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, New Shipper Review (9/1/
04 - 8/31/05), (November 28, 2005).
On December 5, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to
Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and
Weishan Zhenyu. See letters to Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao
JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and Weishan Zhenyu from Christopher D. Riker,
Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9, Import Administration,
regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of
China, Administrative Review (9/1/04-8/31/05), (December 5, 2005).
On December 27, 2005, Weishan Zhenyu responded to section A of the
Department's questionnaire. On December 29, 2005, Xuzhou Jinjiang and
Xiping Opeck submitted their responses to section A of the Department's
questionnaire. Additionally, on January 4, 2006, Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai
Sunbeauty, Ningbo Nanlian responded to section A of the Department's
questionnaire. On January 4, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its response
to section A of the questionnaire.
The Department received responses to sections C & D of its
questionnaire from Wieshan Zhenyu (January 10, 2006); Xiping Opeck
(January 17, 2006); Xuzhou Jinjiang (January 18, 2006); Qingdao JYX
(January 19, 2006); Jiangsu JOM (January 20, 2006); and Shanghai
Sunbeauty (January 24, 2006). On January 12, 2006, the Department
issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM.
On January 23, 2006, the petitioners filed a letter timely
withdrawing their request for review of China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong,
Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu, Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and
Ningbo Nanlian. In addition, Ningbo Nanlian filed a letter, on January
23, 2006, withdrawing its own request for an administrative review.
Therefore, the Department rescinded the administrative review for these
companies. See Partial Rescission of Administrative Review.
On January 25, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its supplemental section
A response. On February 2, 2006, the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Xiping Opeck and Shanghai Sunbeauty, who replied on
February 16, 2006.
On February 17, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Shanghai Sunbeauty and Xiping Opeck. On March 2, 2006,
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Xuzhou Jinjiang,
and on March 3, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM.
On March 16, 2006, Shanghai Sunbeauty withdrew from the
administrative review and indicated it would not respond to the
Department's February 17, 2006, sections C & D supplemental
questionnaire. On March 20, 2006, and March 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck
responded to the Department's February 17, 2006, questionnaire. On
March 30, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its reply to the importer-
specific portion of the Department's questionnaire. On April 3, 2006,
Jiangsu JOM submitted its response to the Department's March 3, 2006,
supplemental questionnaire. On April 5, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted
its response to the Department's March 2, 2006, supplemental
questionnaire.
On May 9, 2006, the Department issues a supplemental questionnaire
to Jiangsu JOM, and on May 22, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its
response. On May 25, 2006, Xiping Opeck responded to the Department's
May 11, 2006, questionnaire. On June 15, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted
its reply to the Department's June 1, 2006, supplemental questionnaire.
Finally, on July 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted its response to
the Department's July 7, 2006, supplemental questionnaire.
On August 7, 2006, and August 14, 2006, the Department issued
verification outlines to Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck,
respectively. The Department conducted verification of the responses of
Xuzhou Jinjiang from August 14 through August 17, 2006, and Xiping
Opeck from August 21 through 24, 2006. Jiangsu JOM did not allow the
Department to conduct verification during production season. See
Verification section below. On August 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck submitted

[[Page 59434]]

minor corrections presented at verification.
On September 27, 2006, the Department released the verification
reports for Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. See Verification of the
Sales and Factors Response of Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. in
the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China (September 27, 2006) (``Xuzhou
Jinjiang Verification Report''); Verification of the Sales and Factors
Response of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping New Shipper
Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of
China (September 27, 2006) (``Xiping Opeck Verification Report'');

Surrogate Country and Factors

On December 16, 2005, the Department provided parties with an
opportunity to submit publicly available information (``PAI'') on
surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary
results. The Department received surrogate value proposals from Xuzhou
Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai on February 16, 2006.

Verification

On November 22, 2005, and November 29, 2005, domestic interested
parties requested that the Department conduct verification of the data
submitted by all of the firms for which the Department initiated an
administrative or new shipper review, respectively. However, due to the
Department's resource constraints in conducting these reviews, we only
selected Xuzhou Jinjiang, Xiping Opeck and Jiangsu JOM for verification
pursuant to section 782(i)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act'') and 19 CFR 351.307. As noted above, Jiangsu JOM did not
allow the Department to conduct verification of the information it
placed on the record of the administrative review during production
season. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts
Available to Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-Manufacturers Co., Ltd.
(October 2, 2006) (``Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo'').
For the companies we did verify, we used standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and
exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial
records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification
report for each company. For a further discussion, see Xuzhou Jinjiang
Verification Report and Xiping Opeck Verification Report.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2004/2005 Administrative Review

With respect to Yancheng Hi-King, the firm informed the Department
that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. In order to corroborate its submissions, we reviewed
PRC freshwater crawfish tail meat shipment data maintained by CBP, and
noted no discrepancies with the statements made by this firm.
Qingdao Wentai indicated that its semi-annual new shipper review
covered all of its exports of freshwater crawfish tail meat which would
be subject to the administrative review. Moreover, the Department has
determined that Qingdao Wentai's single sale was not bona fide and
could not serve as the basis for the calculation of a dumping margin.
See Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review.
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we are preliminarily
rescinding the administrative review with respect to Yancheng Hi-King
and Qingdao Wentai. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Xiping Opeck & Xuzhou Jinjiang

For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Xiping
Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's reported U.S. sales during the POR appear
to be bona fide based on the totality of the facts on the record.
Specifically, we find that: (1) The prices of Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou
Jinjiang's sales were within the range of the prices of other entries
of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the
POR; (2) Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were made to
unaffiliated parties at arm's length; and (3) there is no record
evidence that indicates that Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales
were not made based on commercial principles. While the quantity of
Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were low compared to other
entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States
during the POR, absent other factors, single sales of low quantities
are not inherently commercially unreasonable. See Memorandum to James
C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration,
through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s)
Reported by Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006); see
also Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s)
Reported by Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006).

Non-Market Economy Country

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail
Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006).
None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment.
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market-economy countries that (A) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. Of the five countries
identified by the Office of Policy as economically comparable to the
PRC, none are significant producers of crawfish tail meat. See Letter
to ``All Interested Parties'' from Christopher D. Riker, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations 9, regarding Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC'') at Attachment I (December 16, 2005).
However, India does have a seafood processing industry that is a
comparable industry with respect to factory overhead, SG&A and profit.
Therefore, we used India as the primary surrogate country to value all
inputs with the exception of the raw material (whole live crawfish) and
the by-product

[[Page 59435]]

(crawfish scrap shell). Because we have determined that other forms of
seafood are not sufficiently comparable to serve as surrogate values
for the primary input and India does not have a crawfish industry, we
have considered other countries in which to value the crawfish input.
As done in prior segments of this proceeding, we have decided to use
Spain as the surrogate country for the valuation of whole live crawfish
because we have found that Spain is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, i.e., whole crawfish, and has publicly
available import statistics that are contemporaneous to the POR. See
Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Administrative and New
Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China: Factor Valuation (October 2, 2006) (``Factor
Valuation Memo''); and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Revew, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) (``1999-2000 Final
Results'').
In addition, we have decided to use Indonesia as the surrogate
country for the valuation of the crawfish by-product scrap because
Indonesia is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC,
has significant production of merchandise comparable to the by-product
scrap, and has publicly available data (i.e., a public price quote from
an Indonesian company) that has been used in prior segments of this
proceeding. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from Christian Hughes
and Adina Teodorescu through Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate Valuation
of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China, Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper
Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01 (August 5, 2002), which was
placed on the record of this review in the Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 3. We have not received comments from interested parties
suggesting other possible surrogate values for these factors and have
found no other data. We note that Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai
also suggested the use of Spanish import data to value whole live
crawfish. For further discussion of our surrogate country selection,
see Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9 and Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005
Administrative and New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country
(October 2, 2006) (``Surrogate Country Memorandum'').

Facts Available - Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai Sunbeauty

For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts
available to Jiangsu JOM and Shanghai Sunbeauty. Section 776(a)(2) of
the Act provides that, if an interested party: (A) Withholds
information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner
requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified,
the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
The Department expressed a need to conduct verification during
production season in order to witness first-hand the production process
and the consumption of the reported factors of production during
production operations. However, despite several attempts by the
Department to find a date which would be acceptable for Jiangsu JOM,
the company would not permit the Department to conduct verification
during the production season. See Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo.
Because Jiangsu JOM would not permit the Department to verify the
information it placed on the record of the administrative review, we
find that Jiangsu JOM did not provide the Department with verifiable
information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act,
the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate in reaching the
applicable determination for Jiangsu JOM.
Additionally, as noted above, Shanghai Sunbeauty submitted a letter
to the Department withdrawing from the administrative review on March
16, 2005, in lieu of responding to a request for information. By not
responding to the Department's request for information, Shanghai
Sunbeauty failed to provide critical information to be used for the
Department's margin calculation, significantly impeded the review, and
provided unverifiable information. See Memorandum to James Doyle,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts
Available to Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006)
(``Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo''). Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, the Department must apply facts
available.
By failing to respond to the Department's requests for information
and by not allowing the Department to conduct verification, Shanghai
Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM, respectively, have not proven they are free
of government control and are therefore not eligible to receive a
separate rate. In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if
one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify
for a separate rate, all other exporters of freshwater crawfish tail
meat from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed
to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of
which the named exporter is a part. See Initiation Notice at n.1. For
these preliminary results, both Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM will
be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate.
According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the
party as facts otherwise available. 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 (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
As explained above, the PRC-wide entity (including Shanghai
Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM) would either not permit the Department to
verify information placed on the record or informed the Department that
it would not participate further in this review and did not respond to
the Department's requests for information. Therefore, the PRC-wide
entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-
wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the
proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant

[[Page 59436]]

to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts
available (``AFA'') as the basis for these preliminary results of
review for the PRC-wide entity.

Selection of AFA Rate

In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally
selects, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any
segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003).
The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Federal Circuit have
consistently upheld the Department's practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.
v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (``Rhone
Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV
investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States,
24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16[percnt] total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative
respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT February 17, 2005) (upholding
a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin
from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The
Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the
possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); D&L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the
appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to
respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to
the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced
current information showing the margin to be less.'' See Rhone Poulenc,
899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its
normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 223.01
percent, the highest rate calculated in any segment of the proceeding,
to the PRC-wide entity (including Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM)
as AFA. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002). As discussed
further below, this rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies
on the facts otherwise available and on ``secondary information,'' the
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's
disposal. The SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that
the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The
Department has determined that to have probative value, information
must be reliable and relevant. See SAA at 870; see also Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 61 FR
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). The SAA also states that independent
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11,
2005).
The reliability of the AFA rate was determined by the calculation
of the margin based on sales and production data of a respondent in a
prior review, and on the most appropriate surrogate value information
available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in
that review, as well as information gathered by the Department itself.
Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from
interested parties in the proceeding. See 1999-2000 Final Results. The
Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting
the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. This rate
has been used as AFA in every subsequent segment of this proceeding and
the Department has received no comments challenging the reliability of
the margin. No information has been presented in the current review.
Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the 1999-2000
review is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are
present here. As there is no information on the record of this review
that indicates that this rate is not relevant as AFA for the PRC-wide
entity, we determine that this rate is relevant. Because the rate is
both reliable and relevant it has probative value. Accordingly, we
determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this
administrative proceeding (i.e., 223.01 percent) is corroborated (i.e.,
it has probative value).

Separate Rates

To establish whether a company operating in an NME is sufficiently

[[Page 59437]]

independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''),
as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department
assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over export activities.
As discussed above, Jiangsu JOM would not permit verification, and
Shanghai Sunbeauty refused to respond to the Department's requests for
information and withdrew from the administrative review. See Jiangsu
JOM AFA Memo, and Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo. Therefore, the
Department was unable to verify Jiangsu JOM's and Shanghai Sunbeauty's
questionnaire responses concerning their eligibility for a separate
rate. The Department therefore determines that both Shanghai Sunbeauty
and Jiangsu JOM have not established that they are eligible for a
separate rate. See ``Facts Available - Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai
Sunbeauty'' section above.

De Jure Control

The Department considers the following criteria in determining
whether an individual company is free of de jure absence of government
control over export activities: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with an 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. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588.
In their questionnaire responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang,
and Qingdao JYX stated that they are independent legal entities, and
evidence placed on the record indicates that the government does not
have de jure control over their export activities. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou
Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX submitted evidence of their legal right to
set prices independent of all governmental oversight. Furthermore, the
business licenses of Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX
indicate that they are permitted to engage in the exportation of
freshwater crawfish tail meat. We also found no evidence of de jure
governmental control restricting Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and
Qingdao JYX's exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat.
In their responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX
stated that no export quotas apply to crawfish. Prior verifications
have confirmed that there are no commodity-specific export licenses
required and no quotas for the seafood category ``Other,'' which
includes crawfish, in China's Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook for 1996.
In addition, we have previously confirmed that freshwater crawfish tail
meat is not on the list of commodities with planned quotas in the 1992
PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation document
entitled Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities.
See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China;
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 8543 (February 22,
1999), and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999)
(Ningbo New Shipper Review).
The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this
review, indicate a lack of de jure government control. The Company Law
of the People's Republic of China, made effective on July 1, 1994, with
the amended version promulgated on August 28, 2004, states that a
company is an enterprise legal person, that shareholders shall assume
liability towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and
that the company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its
assets. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX also provided
copies of the Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, promulgated on May 12,
1994, which identifies the rights and responsibilities of organizations
engaged in foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign-trade operators in
management decisions and establishes the foreign trade operator's
accountability for profits and losses. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang,
and Qingdao JYX also provided copies of their business licenses stating
their right to conduct business within the scope of their licenses. The
Department, therefore, preliminarily determines that there is an
absence of de jure control over the export activities of Xiping Opeck,
Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX.

De Facto Control

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control over its
exports: (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 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, e.g., Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol
From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have each asserted
the following: (1) Each establishes its own export prices; (2) each
negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or
organizations; (3) each makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) each
retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its
business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain
loans. Moreover, the Department verified that Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou
Jinjiang are free of de facto government control. Based upon
information on the record, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily
determine that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have all
demonstrated absence of de facto governmental control of their export
functions. Therefore, because Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao
HYX operate free of de jure and de facto government control, the
Department has preliminarily determined that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou
Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have satisfied the criteria for separate
rates based on the documentation each has submitted on the record.

Normal-Value Comparisons

To determine whether Xiping Opeck's, Xuzhou Jinjiang's and Qingdao
JYX's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made
at prices below NV, their United States prices were compared to NV, as
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice.

United States Price

For Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX, the Department
based U.S. price on export price (``EP'') in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers
were made prior to importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'')
was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated
EP based on packed prices

[[Page 59438]]

from the exporter to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. Where applicable, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling expenses, and ocean freight were deducted from the starting
price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using a factors of production (``FOP'') methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available
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 and 19 CFR 351.408. The Department will base NV on the
factors of production 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.
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 29744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in final results).
For purposes of calculating NV, we selected surrogate values for
the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours
of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs,
including depreciation. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing
surrogate values, we selected, where possible, a publicly available
value which was an average country-wide, non-export value,
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See,
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300
(December 16, 2004) (``Chlorinated Isocyanurates''). In selecting the
surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. See Manganese Metal from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998).

Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou
Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported
per-unit factor quantities was multiplied by publicly available
surrogate values. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to reflect delivered prices. For a detailed explanation
of all surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation
Memo.
Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using
September 2004-August 2005 weighted-average Indian import values
derived from the World Trade Atlas online (``WTA'') (see Factor
Valuation Memo). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the WTA
were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India and are
contemporaneous with the POR. As the Indian surrogate values were
denominated in rupees, they were converted to U.S. dollars using the
exchange rate for India on the date of the applicable sale. The daily
exchange rate was the exchange rate data from the Department's website,
which are taken from publicly available data from the Federal Reserve
and Dow Jones. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. Where

we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with
the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the publicly available
information for inflation using Indian wholesale price indices
(``WPIs'') as published in the International Monetary Fund's
International Financial Statistics (``IFS''). See Factor Valuation
Memo.
In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs,
in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from
both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all
export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our
surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February
12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
See, also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800,
66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final
determination at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, imports
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were
excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be
certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with
generally available export subsidies.

Surrogate Valuations

To value the input of whole live crawfish we used publicly
available data for Spanish imports of whole live crawfish from
Portugal. The Department obtained the data from ``aduanas e
I.especiales,'' the Spanish Customs database for foreign trade
statistics (Estadisticas Comercio Exterior). See Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 2.
The Department derived a price for polyethylene bags during the POR
from Indian import statistics for HTS subheading 3923.21 from the WTA.
See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 4.
To value a by-product, crawfish shell scrap, the Department used a
price quote from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp shells. See Factor
Valuation Memo, at Attachment 3; see also Surrogate Country Memorandum.
Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the
use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor
input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for China
published by Import Administration on its website. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html
.

To calculate the cost of coal, the Department used Indian import
data for steam coal (HTS subheading 2710.19.04 ) for calendar year 2005
obtained from the WTA. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 7.
We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's
International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics
from the first quarter of 2005. See Factor Valuation Memo, at
Attachment 9.
To value water, the Department used the industrial water rates
within the Maharashtra Province of India from June 2003. To achieve
comparability of water prices to the factors reported for the POR, we
adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation to the POR using the
WPI for India, as published in the 2005 IFS. See Factor Valuation Memo,
at Attachment 8.
To value SG&A, factory overhead and profit, the Department used the
2002-2003 financial statements from Nekkanti

[[Page 59439]]

Sea Foods Ltd. (``Nekkanti''), an Indian seafood processor. See Factor
Valuation Memo, at Attachment 11.
For foreign inland freight, respondents reported that all raw
materials were delivered by truck. Respondents reported the distance of
the material inputs in kilometers, from the supplier of the material
input to the factory. In calculating the freight rate, the Department
used the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, in
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To
value the cost of truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost
based on Indian market truck freight rates obtained from the web site
http://www.infreight.com., and inflated the value to be contemporaneous

to the POR. To derive the freight cost for each material input, the
Department multiplied the surrogate freight value by the freight
distance and subsequently multiplied this value by the reported
quantity of the input consumed in the production of one unit of the
subject merchandise during the POR. The Department added the freight
expense to the cost of the material input to determine gross material
costs (see Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 12).
To value the inland freight expense for packaged crawfish tail meat
from the producer to the port of export, the Department used an Indian
refrigerated truck freight rate based on price quotations from CTC
Freight Carriers of Delhi, India, placed on the record of the
antidumping investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
PRC and inflated the value to be contemporaneous with the POR. The
Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding
(see Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 13).
To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a simple
average of the publicly summarized versions of the average value for
brokerage and handling expenses reported in the: (1) U.S. sales
listings of the February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd.
(``Essar Steel'') taken from the administrative review of Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, for which the POR was
December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, and (2) U.S. sales
listings of the March 2, 2006, submission from Agro Dutch Industries
Ltd. (``Agro Dutch''), taken from the administrative review of certain
preserved mushrooms from India, for which the POR was February 1, 2004
through January 31, 2005. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006); Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Public version of section
C questionnaire response from Essar Steel Limited; and public version
of section C questionnaire response from Agro Dutch. The reported rates
of Essar Steel and Agro Dutch were contemporaneous with the POR. The
Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding
(see Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 15).
Where respondent used an NME shipper, we valued international
freight expenses using freight quotes from Maersk Sealand, a market-
economy shipper. These quotes have been used in prior reviews of this
case. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review, 66 FR 20634 (April 24, 2001). We obtained quotes
for each month from September 2003 through August 2004, from the PRC to
the West Coast of the United States, took a simple average, and
inflated the value as necessary. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment
14.
Finally, we note that Xiping Opeck erred in reporting its
electrical consumption and the distance from the factory to port of
export. For a more detailed explanation, see Xiping Opeck Verification
Report. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are
amending the reported consumption of electricity, and the reported
distance from factory to port of export. See Memorandum to the File,
through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People's Republic of China-- Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of New Shipper Review of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (October
2, 2006).

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions using exchange rates obtained from the
website of Import Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html
.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for
Xiping Opeck and Qingdao JYX during the period September 1, 2004,
through August 31, 2005; and for Xuzhou Jinjiang during the period
September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Company Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd.......................... 35.66
Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd................. 0.00
Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd......... 51.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate\2\.................................... 223.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PRC-wide entity includes Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of
this notice.
Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than
30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and
(2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a
hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the briefs.
The Department will issue the final results of these reviews,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on

[[Page 59440]]

all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate
appraisement instructions for the companies subject to these reviews
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of
these reviews. For assessment purposes for companies with a calculated
rate, where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific
assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on a
per-unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the total dumping
margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export
price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise
sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment
amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific
assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram)
rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject
merchandise during the POR. However, the final results of this review
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries
of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for
future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above,
the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of
this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit
will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published
for the most recently completed review; (3) for all PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of
223.01 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These administrative, new shipper reviews, and notice are in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

Dated: October 2, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-16677 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S