84 FR 8077 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review

On February 19, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) issued its final judgment, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) final remand results pertaining to the tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) covering the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015. Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the tenth administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the surrogate value used to value frozen shrimp in the administrative review, which results in amended antidumping duties.

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8077-8079]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04045]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-802]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On February 19, 2019, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT or Court) issued its final judgment, sustaining the 
Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) final remand results pertaining 
to the tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(Vietnam) covering the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2014, 
through January 31, 2015. Commerce is notifying the public that the 
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of 
the tenth administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the 
final results with respect to the surrogate value used to value frozen 
shrimp in the administrative review, which results in amended 
antidumping duties.

DATES: Applicable March 1, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations 
Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 3, 2015, Commerce initiated an administrative review of 
195 producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Vietnam for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.\1\ 
Commerce individually examined Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company, 
also known as Stapimex.\2\ We issued the Final Results on September 12, 
2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015) (Initiation 
Notice). While there were 195 individual names upon which we 
initiated an administrative review, the number of actual companies 
initiated upon is 99, due to variations of names requested by 
multiple interested parties and the groupings of companies that we 
have previously collapsed.
    \2\ See Memorandum, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination,'' 
dated April 29, 2015.
    \3\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 2014- 2015, 81 FR 62717 (September 12, 2016) 
(Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Vietnam continues to be a non-market economy (NME) 
country,\4\ pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, we based normal 
value on the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), valued in a 
surrogate market economy country considered to be appropriate.\5\ Upon 
evaluating the surrogate country selection criteria, including the 
availability of surrogate value data on the record,\6\ we selected 
Bangladesh over other countries primarily due to data availability 
considerations.\7\ No interested parties challenged Commerce's 
surrogate country selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act).
    \5\ See sections 773(c)(1) and (4) of the Act.
    \6\ See Final Results at Comment 2, citing to Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 12702 (March 10, 2016) 
(Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum at 14-17.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Final Results, among other issues, we addressed arguments 
regarding the frozen shrimp surrogate value and our denial of byproduct 
offsets for packing materials claimed as byproducts. We made no changes 
in the Final Results regarding these two issues.\8\ With respect to the 
frozen shrimp surrogate value, we explained that ``{b{time} ecause our 
strong preference is to value all inputs from a single surrogate 
country, we valued frozen shrimp using the Bangladeshi UN Comtrade 
data.'' \9\ We further explained that ``{a{time} lthough the Indian GTA 
{data{time}  are contemporaneous, whereas Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data 
are not, this consideration does not outweigh our preference to remain 
within the primary surrogate country.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Final Results at Comment 2 (``Fresh unprocessed shrimp 
is a different input from frozen semi-processed shrimp, which we 
consider to be an intermediate, processed input. Accordingly, these 
inputs must be reported separately and valued appropriately, which 
in this instance means applying different SVs to each. . . We 
continue to value frozen shrimp using Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data, 
as it satisfies our surrogate value selection criteria and is from 
the primary surrogate country'') and Comment 8 (``consistent with 
our established practice, packing for direct materials, which are 
discarded (or sold as scrap) prior to entering the production 
process for subject merchandise, do not qualify as 'byproducts''').
    \9\ Id. at Comment 2B.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the conclusion of the administrative review, several 
interested parties challenged various determinations made in the Final 
Results. The Court affirmed all the challenged determinations, but 
remanded two issues for further explanation or reconsideration.\11\ 
Specifically, in the Remand Opinion and Order, the Court ordered 
Commerce to reconsider or further explain: (1) its reliance on 
Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data to value purchased frozen shrimp using 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 0306.13 from among the other frozen 
shrimp surrogate value data on the record, namely the India Global 
Trade Atlas (GTA) surrogate value data under HTS 0306.17; and (2) its 
denial of a byproduct offset for the claimed byproduct related to 
``packaging.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company and Ca Mau 
Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, Consol. Court No. 16-
00205, Slip Op. 18-75 (June 21, 2018) (Remand Opinion and Order).
    \12\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Remand Redetermination, and consistent with the Remand 
Opinion and Order, Commerce reconsidered the surrogate value used to 
value frozen shrimp and recalculated the sole mandatory respondent's 
dumping margin accordingly.\13\ Further, as directed by the Court, we 
explained our denial of the mandatory respondent's request for an 
offset of packing materials claimed as byproducts to the cost of 
manufacturing in determining normal

[[Page 8078]]

value.\14\ The Court sustained our Remand Redetermination on both 
issues.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, dated September 18, 2018, at 6-9 and 13-20 (Remand 
Redetermination); available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/18-75.pdf.
    \14\ Id. at 9-13 and 20-24.
    \15\ See Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company and Ca Mau 
Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, Consol. Court No. 16-
00205, Slip Op. 19-23 (February 19, 2019) (Final Judgement) at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Final Results, we calculated a 4.78 percent weighted-average 
margin for the sole mandatory respondent Stapimex.\16\ Based on our 
remand recalculations, the final margin for Stapimex in this 
administrative review changes from 4.78 percent to 0.71 percent.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Final Results, 81 FR at 62718.
    \17\ See Remand Redetermination at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\18\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\19\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice 
of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's February 19, 2019, Final 
Judgment sustaining Commerce's Remand Redetermination with respect to 
using the India GTA surrogate value data under HTS 0306.17 to value 
frozen shrimp constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in 
harmony with the Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \19\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication 
requirement of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the 
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue in the 
Remand Redetermination pending expiration of the period of appeal or, 
if appealed, a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this 
case,\20\ Commerce is amending the Final Results. Based on the Remand 
Redetermination, as affirmed by the Court on February 19, 2019, the 
revised weighted-average dumping margin for Stapimex, for the period 
February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015, is 0.71 percent. Further, 
as the rate assigned to companies that qualified for a separate rate in 
this review was based on Stapimex's calculated rate,\21\ we will 
accordingly apply Stapimex's revised margin as the rate applicable to 
the 27 separate-rate recipients which are parties to this litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Final Judgement.
    \21\ See Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 7, as affirmed in Remand Opinion and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, 
is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping 
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on: (1) the 
non-public importer-specific assessment rates recalculated in the 
Remand Redetermination for Stapimex \22\ and (2) the above-noted 0.71 
percent revised rate for the non-individually examined respondents that 
received a separate rate in the Final Results and are subject to this 
litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Remand Redetermination, citing to Memorandum to the 
File, re: ``Remand Redetermination--Revised Final Results 
Calculations,'' dated August 6, 2018, at Attachment 2, which 
contains the SAS Output generated for Stapimex, and displays the 
revised, non-public importer-specific assessment rates for all 
importers that Stapimex reported in its questionnaire responses (see 
Stapimex's Section C Questionnaire Response, dated June 22, 2015, at 
11-12 under ACCESS Barcode 3285551-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

Mandatory Respondent

    Because there have been no subsequent administrative reviews 
completed for mandatory respondent, Stapimex,\23\ the recalculated cash 
deposit rate of 0.71 percent will be the rate established for Stapimex 
in these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 81 FR 46047 (July 15, 2016) (AR11 
Partial Rescission) at Appendix I, and Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 82 FR 37563 
(August 11, 2017) (AR12 Partial Rescission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate-Rate Companies

    With respect to the 27 non-individually examined companies that 
qualified for a separate rate in the tenth administrative review and 
are subject to this litigation, there have been subsequent 
administrative reviews completed for the exporters listed below; thus, 
the cash deposit rate for these exporters will remain the rate 
established in the most recently-completed administrative review in 
which they received a cash deposit rate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cash deposit
             Exporter               rate in effect    Federal Register
                                       (percent)           notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock                4.58  AR12 Final
 Company.                                            Results.\24\
C.P. Vietnam Corporation..........            4.58  AR12 Final Results.
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export               4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 and Processing Joint Stock
 Company.
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing               4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Import Export Corporation, aka
 Camau Seafood Factory No. 4.
Can Tho Import Export Fishery                 4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Limited Company.
Camau Seafood Processing and                  4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Service Joint Stock Corporation.
Cuu Long Seaproducts Company......            4.58  AR12 Final Results.
Investment Commerce Fisheries                 4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Corporation.
Kim Anh Company Limited, aka Kim              4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Anh Co., Ltd.
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood                4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Processing Joint-Stock Company.
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods                 4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Processing Company.
Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock                  4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Company.
Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock         \25\ 25.76  AR12 Final Results.
 Company.
Nha Trang Seafoods Group: Nha                 4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Trang Seaproduct Company, aka NT
 Seafoods Corporation, aka Nha
 Trang Seafoods--F89 Joint Stock
 Company, aka NTSF Seafoods Joint
 Stock Company.
Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp.........            4.58  AR12 Final Results.
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company,             4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 aka Fimex VN, aka Saota Seafood
 Factory.
Seaprimexco Vietnam...............            4.58  AR12 Final Results.
Thong Thuan Company Limited, aka              4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 T&T Co., Ltd.

[[Page 8079]]

 
Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading              4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Corporation.
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing              4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Corporation.
Viet Foods Co., Ltd...............            4.58  AR12 Final Results.
Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., aka               4.58  AR12 Final Results.
 Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd.
Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation.            4.58  AR12 Final Results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the non-individually examined companies listed 
below that qualified for a separate rate in the tenth administrative 
review and are subject to this litigation, there have been either: (1) 
No subsequent administrative reviews completed for these exporters 
because they were rescinded from review,\26\ or (2) these exporters 
certified they had no shipments in subsequent reviews; \27\ thus, the 
cash deposit rate of 0.71 percent, as recalculated in the Remand 
Redetermination, applies to these companies:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 2016-2017, 83 FR 46704 (September 14, 2018) 
(AR12 Final Results).
    \25\ See AR12 Final Results at Appendix II.
    \26\ In addition to Stapimex, as noted above, both Quoc Viet 
Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd. and Viet 
I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. were rescinded from the eleventh and 
twelfth antidumping duty administrative reviews. See AR11 Partial 
Rescission at Appendix I and AR12 Partial Rescission, 82 FR at 
37563.
    \27\ Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd. and Trong Nhan Seafood Company 
Limited both certified they had no shipments of subject merchandise 
in the eleventh and twelfth administrative reviews, with no 
information on those records contradicting their certifications. 
Neither of these companies received revised cash deposit rates in 
the final results of the eleventh and twelfth administrative 
reviews. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 2015- 2016, 82 FR 11431-11432 (February 23, 
2017) and AR12 Final Results, 83 FR at 46704, respectively.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Cash deposit rate in effect
              Exporter                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing      0.71
 Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd.
Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd....  0.71
Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd.........  0.71
Trong Nhan Seafood Company Limited..  0.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 1, 2019.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-04045 Filed 3-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P