Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to a request from Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Taoen). The review covers the period September 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.” If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price (EP) and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. (See the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice.)
September 6, 2001.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Renkey or Mark Hoadley, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312 or (202) 482-0666, respectively.
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48218). On September 29, 2000 the Department received timely requests for review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations, from Coastal (Jiangsu) Foods Co., Ltd. (Coastal), Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Shouzhou), and Shanghai Taoen, to conduct new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC.
On November 6, 2000, the Department published its initiation of these new shipper reviews for the period September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2000. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 66525 (November 6, 2000).
On March 16, 2001 the Department published an extension of the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews until August 27, 2001. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 15219 (March 16, 2001).
The new shipper requests were made pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and § 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations, which state that, if the Department receives a request for review from an exporter or producer of the subject merchandise stating that it did not export the merchandise to the United States during the period covered by the original investigation (the POI) and that such exporter or producer is not affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise during that period, the Department shall conduct a new shipper review to establish an individual weighted-average dumping margin for such exporter or producer, if the Department has not previously established such a margin for the exporter or producer.
The regulations require that the exporter or producer shall include in its request, with appropriate certifications: (i) The date on which the merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot certify as to the date of first entry, the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States, or if the merchandise has not yet been shipped or entered, the date of sale; (ii) a list of the firms with which it is affiliated; (iii) a statement from such exporter or producer, and from each affiliated firm, that it did not, under its current or a former name, export the merchandise during the period of investigation (POI); and (iv) in an antidumping proceeding involving inputs from a non-market-economy (NME) country, a certification that the export activities of such exporter or producer are not controlled by the central government. See 351.214(b)(2) of the Department's Regulations.
The request received from Shanghai Taoen was accompanied by information and certifications establishing the effective date on which this company first shipped and entered freshwater crawfish tail meat for consumption in the United States, the volume of each shipment, and the date of first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Shanghai Taoen certified that it was not affiliated with any company which exported freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC during the POI. In addition, Shanghai Taoen certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government. With respect to Coastal and Shouzhou, their entries of subject merchandise occurred well after the end of the period of review (POR), and we determined that an expansion of the normal POR would likely prevent the Department from completing this review within the designated time limits. Therefore, we rescinded the new shipper reviews for Coastal and Shouzhou. For a full discussion of this issue, see Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 66 FR 41831 (August 9, 2001) (Rescission Notice). Thus, only the new shipper review of Shanghai Taoen remains.
Scope of Review
The product covered by this review is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its Start Printed Page 46602forms (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 (HTS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by the U.S. Customs Service in mid-year 2000, and HTS items 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted a verification of the responses of Shanghai Taoen. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce Building).
New Shipper Status
Based on the questionnaire responses received from Shanghai Taoen, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that this company has met the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. We have determined that the company made its first sale or shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, that these sales were bona fide sales, and that these companies were not affiliated with any exporter or producer that previously shipped to the United States.
Shanghai Taoen has requested a separate, company-specific rate. In its questionnaire responses, the company states that it is an independent legal entity.
To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 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 this policy, exporters in NMEs are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to export activities. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (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. De facto absence of 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 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.
De Jure Control
With respect to the absence of de jure government control over the export activities of all the companies reviewed, evidence on the record indicates that Shanghai Taoen's export activities are not controlled by the government. Shanghai Taoen submitted evidence of its legal right to set prices independently of all government oversight. The business license of the company indicates that it is permitted to engage in the exportation of crawfish. We find no evidence of de jure government control restricting this company's exportation of crawfish.
In general, 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 crawfish 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 law, which has been placed on the record of this review, indicates a lack of de jure government control over privately-owned companies, such as Shanghai Taoen, and that control over these enterprises rests with the enterprises themselves. The Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China for Controlling the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons (Legal Persons Law), issued on June 13, 1988 by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the PRC and placed on the record of this review, provides that, to qualify as legal persons, companies must have the “ability to bear civil liability independently” and the right to control and manage their businesses. These regulations also state that, as an independent legal entity, a company is responsible for its own profits and losses. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56045 (November 6, 1995) (Manganese Metal). At verification, we saw that the business license for Shanghai Taoen was granted in accordance with this law. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure control over export activity with respect to this firm.
De Facto Control
With respect to the absence of de facto control over export activities, the information provided, and reviewed at verification, indicates that the management of Shanghai Taoen is responsible for the determination of export prices, profit distribution, marketing strategy, and contract negotiations. Our analysis indicates that there is no government involvement in the daily operations or the selection of management for this company. In addition, we have found that the respondent's pricing and export strategy decisions are not subject to any outside entity's review or approval, and that there are no governmental policy directives that affect these decisions.
There are no restrictions on the use of export earnings. The company's general manager has the right to negotiate and enter into contracts, and may delegate Start Printed Page 46603this authority to employees within the company. There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of governmental approval. Shanghai Taoen has stated that its management is selected by its board of directors and/or its employees and that there is no government involvement in the selection process. Lastly, decisions made by respondent concerning purchases of subject merchandise from other suppliers are not subject to government approval. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over its export activities, we preliminarily determine that a separate rate should be applied to Shanghai Taoen.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether respondent's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared their United States prices to NV, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.
United States Price
For Shanghai Taoen, we based United States price on EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We deducted foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) 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.
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the companies contested such treatment in these reviews. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the factors of production to determine NV. See Factor Values Memo for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, August 27, 2001 (Factor Values Memo).
We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations. Consistent with the original investigation and the first administrative review of this order, we determined that India (1) is comparable to the PRC in level of economic development, and (2) is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. With the exceptions of the crawfish input and by-product, we valued the factors of production using publicly available information from India. We adjusted the Indian import prices by adding freight expenses to make them delivered prices. Because Shanghai Taoen was unable to support its reported tape factor at verification, we are using partial facts available for this factor, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and section 351.308 of the Department's regulations. For tape, we are using the amount calculated at verification.
In the original investigation of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) and in previous reviews of this order, for the crawfish input, we used Spanish import statistics for live freshwater crawfish imported from Portugal. However, Spanish imports of live freshwater crawfish from Portugal have declined drastically. From April 1999 through March 2000, the production period corresponding to the current review, Spanish imports from Portugal were only 17 metric tons, in contrast to the 357 metric tons used during the investigation, and 160 metric tons used during the 1997-98 administrative review. This represents a decline of 95.2 percent since the period of the LTFV investigation. In addition, unlike in other years, Spanish imports from Portugal were heavily weighted towards one month. This one month accounted for 71 percent of the total volume of imports from Portugal for that year. Small import volumes as a whole, and one month accounting for the vast proportion of imports, seem to indicate that live freshwater crawfish is no longer a product that is regularly traded between Portugal and Spain. Therefore, we searched for data reflecting a more substantial volume of trade. For these preliminary results, we have used Australian farm gate prices for whole, live freshwater crawfish. See, Factor Values Memo. For a complete discussion of our choice of Australian farm gate prices, refer to Issues and Decision Memo for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, August 20, 2001 (Comment 1) (September 1999-March 2000 Decision Memo). The public version of this document is on file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce Building).
We valued the factors of production as follows:
- To value whole crawfish, we used the Australian farm gate price for freshwater crawfish ($3 Australian per kilogram for freshwater crawfish less than 40 grams) as reported in Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat (crawfish) from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Meetings Regarding the Crawfish Industry in Western Australia, July 31, 2001. For further details, refer to the September 1999-March 2000 Decision Memo, at Comment 4.
- To value the by-product of shells, we used a September 1999 free-on-board (FOB) factory price quote for crab and shrimp shells from a Canadian seller of crustacean shells and incorporated a 30 percent wet/dry conversion factor. For further details, see Factors Value Memorandum.
- To value coal and electricity, we used data reported as the average Indian domestic prices within the categories of “Steam Coal for Industry” and “Electricity for Industry,” published in the International Energy Agency's publication, Energy Prices and Taxes, First Quarter, 2000. We adjusted the cost of coal to include an amount for transportation. For water, we relied upon public information from the October 1997 Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region, published by the Asian Development Bank.
To achieve comparability of energy and water prices to the factors reported for the crawfish processing periods applicable to the companies under review, we adjusted these factor values to reflect inflation to the applicable crawfish processing season during the POR using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for India, as published in the 2001 International Financial Statistics (IFS) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
- To value packing materials (plastic bags, cardboard boxes and adhesive tape), we relied upon Indian import data from the April 1998 through March 1999 issues of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (Monthly Statistics). We adjusted these prices to reflect inflation to the crawfish processing season during the POR. We adjusted the values of packing materials Start Printed Page 46604to include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory. For transportation distances used in the calculation of freight expenses on packing materials, we added, to surrogate values from India, a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of (a) the distances between the closest PRC port and the factory, or (b) the distance between the domestic supplier and the factory. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 51410 (October 1, 1997) (Roofing Nails).
- To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, we calculated simple average rates using publicly available financial statements of four Indian seafood processing companies, and applied these rates to the calculated cost of manufacture. See Factor Values Memorandum.
- For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2000. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the 1998 Year Book of Labour Statistics, International Labour Office (Geneva: 1998), Chapter 5: Wages in Manufacturing.
- We valued movement expenses as follows:
- To value truck freight expenses we used seventeen price quotes from six different Indian trucking companies which were used in the antidumping investigation of Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000). We adjusted the rates to reflect inflation to the month of sale of the finished product using the WPI for India from the IFS.
To value brokerage and handling in the home market, we used information reported in the antidumping administrative review of Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 63 FR 48184 (September 9, 1998) (Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India), and also used in the Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Antidumping Duty and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Rescission of New Shipper Review, 65 FR 20948 (April 19, 2000). We adjusted the rates to reflect inflation to the month of sale using the WPI for India from the IFS.
We used the average of the foreign brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listing of the public questionnaire response submitted in the antidumping review of Viraj Group, Ltd. in Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India. Charges were reported on a per metric ton basis. We adjusted these values to reflect for inflation to the month of sale using the WPI for India from the IFS. For further discussion, see Factor Values Memorandum.
We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists:
|Manufacturer/exporter||Time period||Margin (percent)|
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of this preliminary result, unless the time limit is extended.
Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service upon completion of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. We divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR. Upon the completion of this review, we will direct Customs to assess the resulting quantity-based rates against the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise by the importer during the POR. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman through Maureen Flannery, from Mark Hoadley: Collection of Cash Deposits and Assessment of Duties on Freshwater Crawfish from the PRC, August 27, 2001.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC 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) The per kilogram cash deposit rate for Shanghai Taoen will be the total amount of duties it owes for the POR divided by the total quantity it entered during the POR; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the current PRC-wide rate, 201.63 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of Start Printed Page 46605subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under § 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 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 new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.Start Signature
Dated: August 27, 2001.
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-22415 Filed 9-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P