Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam; Inv. No. 701-TA-491-497 (Final)

=== USITC PUB 4429 === U.S. International Trade Commission Publication 4429 October 2013 Washington, DC 20436 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam Investigation Nos. 701-TA-491-493, 495, and 497 (Final) U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Irving A. Williamson, Chairman Daniel R. Pearson Shara L. Aranoff Dean A. Pinkert David S. Johanson Meredith M. Broadbent Robert B. Koopman Staff assigned Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 Director, Office of Operations Edward Petronzio, Investigator Renee Berry, Industry Analyst Amelia Preece, Economist Clark Workman, Economist David Boyland, Accountant Lita David-Harris, Statistician Paul Welcher, Statistician Darlene Smith, Statistical Assistant Robin Turner, Attorney Elizabeth Haines, Supervisory Investigator U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Publication 4429 October 2013 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam Investigation Nos. 701-TA-491-493, 495, and 497 (Final) CONTENTS Page i Determinations ............................................................................................................................... 1 Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3 Dissenting Views of Chairman Irving A. Williamson.................................................................... 41 Dissenting Views of Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff ................................................................... 47 Part I: Introduction ................................................................................................................ I‐1 Background................................................................................................................................ I‐1 Statutory criteria and organization of the report ..................................................................... I‐1 Statutory criteria ................................................................................................................... I‐1 Organization of report ........................................................................................................... I‐2 Market summary ....................................................................................................................... I‐3 Summary data and data sources ............................................................................................... I‐3 Previous and related investigations .......................................................................................... I‐4 Nature and extent of subsidies ................................................................................................. I‐5 Subsidies ................................................................................................................................ I‐5 The subject merchandise .......................................................................................................... I‐6 Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I‐6 Tariff treatment ..................................................................................................................... I‐8 The product ............................................................................................................................... I‐8 Description and applications ................................................................................................. I‐8 Manufacturing processes .................................................................................................... I‐10 Domestic like product issues ................................................................................................... I‐13 Part II: Supply and demand information ............................................................................... II‐1 U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... II‐1 U.S. purchasers ......................................................................................................................... II‐1 Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................... II‐2 Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... II‐2 Supply and demand considerations ......................................................................................... II‐4 U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II‐4 CONTENTS Page ii Part II: Supply and demand information (continued) ................................................................. U.S. demand ....................................................................................................................... II‐11 Substitutability issues ............................................................................................................. II‐13 Knowledge of country sources ........................................................................................... II‐14 Factors affecting purchasing decisions............................................................................... II‐14 Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ................ II‐19 Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported frozen warmwater shrimp .......................... II‐22 Elasticity estimates ................................................................................................................. II‐26 U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................................................................... II‐26 U.S. demand elasticity ........................................................................................................ II‐26 Substitution elasticity ......................................................................................................... II‐27 Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ....................................... III‐1 U.S. processors ........................................................................................................................ III‐1 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization ................................................................. III‐4 Constraints on capacity ....................................................................................................... III‐5 Freezing capacity ................................................................................................................. III‐6 U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments and exports .......................................................................... III‐6 U.S. processors’ inventories .................................................................................................... III‐8 U.S. processors’ imports and purchases ................................................................................. III‐8 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ............................................................................ III‐9 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ................................ IV‐1 U.S. importers.......................................................................................................................... IV‐1 U.S. imports ......................................................................................................................... IV‐3 Negligibility .............................................................................................................................. IV‐6 Cumulation considerations ..................................................................................................... IV‐7 Apparent U.S. consumption .................................................................................................... IV‐8 U.S. market shares ................................................................................................................ IV‐10 Ratio of imports to U.S. production ...................................................................................... IV‐12 CONTENTS Page iii Part V: Pricing data ............................................................................................................... V‐1 Factors affecting prices ............................................................................................................ V‐1 Production costs ................................................................................................................... V‐1 U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................... V‐1 Pricing practices ....................................................................................................................... V‐2 Pricing methods .................................................................................................................... V‐2 Sales terms and discounts .................................................................................................... V‐4 Price leadership .................................................................................................................... V‐4 Price data.................................................................................................................................. V‐4 Price trends........................................................................................................................... V‐5 Price comparisons .............................................................................................................. V‐22 Nonsubject prices ............................................................................................................... V‐24 Lost sales lost revenues.......................................................................................................... V‐25 Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers.................................................................... VI‐1 Background.............................................................................................................................. VI‐1 Processing operations on frozen warmwater shrimp ............................................................. VI‐2 Sales volume ........................................................................................................................ VI‐2 Sales value ........................................................................................................................... VI‐5 Cost of goods sold ............................................................................................................... VI‐6 Gross profit or (loss) ............................................................................................................ VI‐6 SG&A expenses .................................................................................................................... VI‐7 Operating income or (loss) .................................................................................................. VI‐8 Other income ....................................................................................................................... VI‐8 Capital expenditures.......................................................................................................... VI‐10 Capital and investment ......................................................................................................... VI‐11 CONTENTS Page iv Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .......................... VII‐1 The industry in China.............................................................................................................. VII‐3 The industry in Ecuador ......................................................................................................... VII‐3 The industry in India ............................................................................................................... VII‐4 The industry in Malaysia ........................................................................................................ VII‐5 The industry in Vietnam ......................................................................................................... VII‐5 The industry in the five subject countries .............................................................................. VII‐7 U.S. inventories of frozen warmwater shrimp ....................................................................... VII‐9 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders ........................................................................................ VII‐9 Antidumping or countervailing duty orders in third‐country markets ................................ VII‐10 Information on nonsubject countries .................................................................................. VII‐10 The industry in Indonesia ..................................................................................................... VII‐10 The industry in Thailand ....................................................................................................... VII‐11 Appendixes A. Federal Register notices .................................................................................................... A‐1 B. Reserved for Hearing witnesses ....................................................................................... B‐1 C. Summary data ................................................................................................................... C‐1 D. U.S. Fishermen data .......................................................................................................... D‐1 E. Alleged effects of imports on U.S. processors .................................................................. E‐1 F. Alleged effects of imports on U.S. fishermen................................................................... F‐1 G. U.S. Processors: Selected company‐specific financial information .................................. G‐1 Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published and therefore has been deleted. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks. 1 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐491‐493, 495, and 497 (Final) FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM CHINA, ECUADOR, INDIA, MALAYSIA, AND VIETNAM DETERMINATIONS On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded by reason of imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam of frozen warmwater shrimp, provided for in subheadings 0306.17.00, 1605.21.10, and 1605.29.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be subsidized by the Governments of China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam.2 BACKGROUND The Commission instituted these investigations effective December 28, 2012, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries, Biloxi, MS. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from countries under investigation were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. ' 1671b(b)).3 Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission=s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission=s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR ' 207.2(f)). 2 Chairman Irving A. Williamson and Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff dissenting. 3 In its preliminary determinations, Commerce found that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador and Indonesia were not being and not likely to be subsidized by the Governments of Ecuador or Indonesia (78 FR 33342‐33351, June 4, 2013). However, in its final determinations, Commerce found imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador were being subsidized, but that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand in addition to those from Indonesia were not being and not likely to be subsidized by the Governments of Indonesia and Thailand. Following final negative determinations by Commerce with respect to frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia and Thailand (78 FR 50379‐50394, August 19, 2013), the Commission terminated investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐494 and 496 (78 FR 54912, September 6, 2013). 2 International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35643). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2013, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. 3 Views of the Commission Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp (“frozen shrimp”) from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be subsidized.1 I. Background Parties to the Investigation. The petitions in these investigations were filed on December 28, 2012 by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (“CGSI” or “Petitioner”), a trade association whose members are processors of frozen shrimp in the United States. Representatives of Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by counsel, and Petitioner submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs. A second domestic producer group, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Industry Committee (“AHSIC”), consists of several hundred businesses operating within the U.S. domestic shrimp industry, the great majority of which are shrimp fishermen. AHSIC takes no position on the petitions but filed prehearing and posthearing briefs to submit comments regarding the analysis and appropriate definitions of the domestic like product and domestic industry.2 Several respondent groups participated in the final phase of these investigations. Four respondent groups, representing interested parties from three of the five subject countries, submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs and participated in the hearing. These Respondents consist of (1) Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Inc. (“Guolian”), a producer and exporter of subject shrimp from China (“Chinese Respondent”); (2) Seafood Exports Association of India (“SEAI”), an association of foreign manufacturers and exporters of subject merchandise from India (“Indian Respondent”); (3) Vietnamese Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (“VASEP”), an association of foreign manufacturers and exporters of subject shrimp from Vietnam (“Vietnamese Respondent”);3 (4) a group of seven U.S. importers of subject merchandise (Eastern Fish Company, Mazzetta Company, Ore‐Cal Corporation, Seafood Exchange of Florida, Sea Port Products Corporation, Stavis Seafoods, and Tri‐Union Frozen Products) (collectively, “Importers”). Another respondent group consisting of manufacturers and exporters of subject shrimp from Malaysia (Aquatech Venture Sdn Bhd, HK Food (M) Sdn Bhd, Kian Huat Fishery Sdn Bhd, Ocean Famous Sdn Bhd, Ocean Pioneer Food Sdn Bhd, Sanjune Sdn Bhd, Sunlight Seafood Sdn BHD, and TM Foods Sdn BHD) (collectively, “Malaysian Respondents”) submitted a posthearing brief. 1 Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Aranoff determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam that are subsidized. Chairman Williamson joins sections I‐V.B of these Views. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Irving A. Williamson. See also Dissenting Views of Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff. 2 AHSIC’s Posthearing Brief at 1. 3 SEAI and VASEP jointly submitted a prehearing and posthearing brief; VASEP also submitted a separate posthearing brief. 4 Data Coverage. In these investigations, U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of 40 U.S. processors of frozen shrimp, accounting for *** percent of U.S. production of frozen shrimp in 2012. 4 U.S. import data are based on official Commerce import statistics and on questionnaire responses from 31 U.S. importers, accounting for 40.7 percent of total subject imports. 5 The Commission received responses to its questionnaires from 70 foreign producers of subject merchandise.6 II. Domestic Like Product A. In General In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”7 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.” 8 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation.” 9 The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product in an investigation is a factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case‐by‐case basis. 10 No single factor is 4 Confidential Staff Report, Memorandum INV‐LL‐071 (Sept. 6, 2013) (“CR”) at III‐1 and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III‐1. U.S. production is based on live (head‐on shell‐on) weight. The Commission received questionnaire responses from 48 U.S. processors, 40 of which provided usable quantitative data. 5 CR/PR at IV‐1. The U.S. importers also account for 78.1 percent of subject imports from China, 36.9 percent of subject imports from Ecuador, 31.1 percent of subject imports from India, 33.6 percent of subject imports from Malaysia, and 45.3 percent of subject imports from Vietnam between 2010 and 2012. Id. 6 CR/PR at VII‐3. The foreign producer questionnaires are from five producers/exporters in China, accounting for approximately *** of subject imports from China as reported in official Commerce statistics in 2012; nine producers/exporters in Ecuador, accounting for approximately 60.8 percent of subject imports from Ecuador in 2012; 28 producers/exporters in India, accounting for approximately 79.0 percent of subject imports from India in 2012; two producers/exporters in Malaysia, accounting for approximately *** of subject imports from Malaysia in 2012; and 26 producers/exporters in Vietnam, accounting for approximately 89.0 percent of subject imports from Vietnam in 2012. CR at VII‐3‐4,VII‐ 7, and VII‐9; PR at VII‐3 and VII‐5. 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 10 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United (Continued...) 5 dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation. 11 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations. 12 Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,13 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified. 14 (…Continued) States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors, including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). In a semi‐finished products analysis, the Commission examines the following: (1) the significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the downstream articles; (2) whether the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses; (3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4) whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; and (5) differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles. See, e.g., Glycine from India, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1111‐1113 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3921 at 7 (May 2007); Artists' Canvas from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1091 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 3853 at 6 (May 2006); Live Swine from Canada, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1076 (Final), US1TC Pub. 3766 at 8 n.40 (Apr. 2005); Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1012 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3533 at 7 (Aug. 2002). 11 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (1979). 12 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐49; see also S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”). 13 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 14 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations in which Commerce found five classes or kinds). 6 B. Product Description Commerce defined the scope of the imported merchandise under investigation as follows: [c]ertain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild‐caught (ocean harvested) or farm‐raised (produced by aquaculture), head‐on or head‐off, shell‐on or peeled, tail‐ on or tail‐off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild‐caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell‐ on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain “battered shrimp” (see below). “Battered shrimp” is a shrimp‐based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed‐from‐frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the nonshrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (“IQF”) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered 7 shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par‐fried.15 The scope of investigation is identical to the scope in the preliminary phase of these investigations 16 and virtually identical to that in the prior investigations and reviews regarding frozen warmwater shrimp.17 At the request of Petitioner, Commerce clarified in its final scope ruling that the scope language in these investigations refers simply to “frozen shrimp” without reference or limitation to any specific method of freezing or any stage of processing at which the freezing must occur.18 Commerce stated that “the plain language of the scope indicates that these investigations cover frozen shrimp, including frozen shrimp that may have undergone some processing in the form of head, shell, tail, and/or vein removal. Thus, we determine that the scope language itself did not provide a basis for finding brine‐frozen shrimp to be outside the scope.” 19 As noted above, the Commission has previously conducted antidumping duty investigations and reviews of frozen shrimp. In the 2004 antidumping duty investigations on warmwater shrimp, the Commission determined, as proposed by the domestic producers in 15 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. 50391, 50392 (Appendix I)(Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 19, 2013) (footnotes omitted). Commerce’s scope of investigation in the China CVD determination is identical to the scope of investigations in the CVD determinations regarding Ecuador (78 Fed. Reg. 50389), India (78 Fed. Reg. 50385), Malaysia (78 Fed. Reg. 50381), and Vietnam (78 Fed. Reg. 50387). 16 CR at I‐9, n.16, PR at I‐8, n.16. 17 Specifically, the scope in these investigations is substantively the same as that in the most recent five‐year reviews, with the exception that one scope exclusion in the five‐year reviews (for a product called Lee Kum Kee shrimp sauce) is not repeated in the current scope definition. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐ TA‐1063, 1064, 1066‐1068 (Review), USITC Pub. 4221 at 5 (March 2011) (“2011 Review Determinations”). “Dusted shrimp,” which is included in the scope in these investigations and also was included in the scope of the five‐year reviews, was not within the scope of the Commission’s original antidumping duty investigations. Further, canned shrimp was within the scope in the original antidumping duty investigations, but the Commission defined it as a separate domestic like product and made negative or negligible import determinations for canned shrimp from all countries subject to the original investigations. See Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Final), USITC Pub. 3748 at 4‐5 and 8‐ 11 (Jan. 2005) (“Antidumping Duty Final Determination”). 18 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, Socialist Republic of Vietnam – Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine‐ Frozen Shrimp, at 6 (Aug. 12, 2013) (“Final Scope Ruling”). 19 Final Scope Ruling at 6. Commerce added that “the best reading of the scope language as presented to the Department in the petitions and on which the Department initiated these investigations is that it includes brine‐frozen shrimp because they are frozen shrimp.” Id. at 7. Commerce also noted that “the products that are the subject of the CVD petitions are the same as those covered by the antidumping duty orders.” Id. 8 those investigations, that the domestic like product should be defined to include fresh warmwater shrimp, an item excluded from the scope. Using the “semifinished products” like product analysis, the Commission found that fresh shrimp should be included in the domestic like product because fresh shrimp was overwhelmingly used as an input in the production of the frozen product, the shrimp was overwhelmingly sold in a processed form, and the initial stages of processing did not significantly change the physical characteristics and uses of the product and appeared to add at most moderate value to the product. 20 Consequently, the domestic like product on which the Commission reached affirmative determinations in the antidumping duty investigations and subsequent five‐year reviews consisted of both fresh warmwater shrimp and the frozen warmwater shrimp products described in the scope. 21 C. Arguments of the Parties Prior to Commerce’s final scope ruling, Petitioner proposed defining the domestic like product as certain frozen warmwater shrimp produced in the United States and not including fresh shrimp and brine‐frozen shrimp in the domestic like product. 22 Petitioner did not address the domestic like product issue after Commerce’s final ruling on the scope clarification. Domestic interested party AHSIC, comprised primarily of shrimp fishermen, contends that the Commission should define the domestic like product to encompass both fresh warmwater shrimp and those frozen articles described in the scope definition. 23 It maintains that the record of these reviews does not provide any basis to “diverge from the Commission’s established definition of the domestic like product and domestic industry in these investigations.” 24 Respondents also argue that the domestic like product should include fresh warmwater shrimp as it has in the prior investigations and reviews.25 20 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3672 at 14‐15 (Feb. 2004) (“2004 Preliminary Determinations”); Antidumping Duty Final Determination, USITC Pub. 3748 at 6 (Jan. 2005). 21 See generally 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at 6. 22 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4‐5, and Exhibit 2; Hearing Tr. at 43‐44, and 98. Petitioner had made similar arguments in the preliminary phase of these investigations, acknowledging that its request was not based on a change in the facts traditionally examined in the domestic like product analysis. Conference Tr. at 66. Despite the fact that the scope was virtually identical to prior investigations and reviews, Petitioner indicated that it “never intended to include onboard brine‐frozen shrimp within the scope of investigation” and that it had requested a clarification of the scope by Commerce. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4‐5. 23 AHSIC’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐15. 24 AHSIC’s Posthearing Brief at 2. 25 Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 4; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 4‐6. 9 D. Domestic Like Product Analysis We find a single domestic like product, encompassing both fresh warmwater shrimp and the frozen warmwater shrimp described in the scope of the investigations. As previously discussed, Commerce has clarified that the scope of the investigations includes onboard brine‐ frozen shrimp in addition to frozen further processed shrimp, 26 consistent with the Commission’s view in defining the domestic like product in the preliminary determinations. In the preliminary determinations, the Commission also considered whether to include fresh warmwater shrimp in the definition of the domestic like product, as it did in prior Commission proceedings concerning this product.27 Because fresh and processed frozen shrimp are products at different stages of the same production process, the Commission concluded that use of the “semifinished product” like product analysis was appropriate. The Commission found that the vast majority of fresh warmwater shrimp is dedicated for further processing into frozen shrimp; the initial stages of processing do not significantly change the physical characteristics and uses of the product and appear to add at most moderate value to the product; the basic processing needed to transform fresh shrimp to processed shrimp – freezing and deheading – can be and is performed directly on the vessel; and there are separate markets for harvested (whether fresh or brine‐frozen) shrimp and processed warmwater shrimp in the sense that vessels sell their catch to a dock house or processor, while processors sell shrimp to end users and distributors. However, fresh shrimp and shrimp frozen on the vessel are both sold at the dock.28 The record in the final phase of these investigations does not indicate that there have been any changes in the product characteristics of either fresh or frozen warmwater shrimp since the preliminary phase of the investigations to warrant defining the domestic like product differently.29 Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in the preliminary determinations, we include fresh shrimp in the definition of the domestic like product, whether frozen on board a vessel or further processed suitable for commercial use or sale. In light of these factors, we define a single domestic like product encompassing both fresh warmwater shrimp and the frozen warmwater shrimp described in the scope definition. 26 Final Scope Ruling at 6. Offshore shrimping vessels brine‐freeze shrimp on board the boat to temporarily preserve the shrimp while the boats are fishing. This permits the boats to make longer offshore trips, perhaps lasting as long as several weeks. Inshore shrimp boats place shrimp on ice or in ice slush in vats during their shorter voyages, so the shrimp arriving at the dock is fresh, i.e., never frozen. Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐491‐497 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4380 at 8 (Feb. 2013) (“Preliminary CVD Determinations”). 27 Preliminary CVD Determinations, USITC Pub. 4380 at 8‐11. 28 Preliminary CVD Determinations, USITC Pub. 4380 at 10. Some of the shrimp sold at the dock is in fresh form (not in scope) and some has already been brine‐frozen (included in the scope). See, e.g., id. at 9. 29 CR at I‐10‐19; PR at I‐8‐14. Moreover, the domestic like product arguments Petitioner asserted in its prehearing brief were premised on an analysis of the scope that Commerce concluded were incorrect. 10 III. Domestic Industry The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.” 30 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry all domestic producers of the domestic like product, whether toll‐produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.31 We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act. This provision allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.32 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation. 33 30 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 31 In the prior antidumping duty investigations and reviews, the Commission found that processing activities such as deheading, grading, machine peeling, deveining, and cooking were all sufficient activities to constitute domestic production because these operations typically each required specialized equipment and added more value to the process than any preceding stage. By contrast, the Commission found that marinating and skewering do not constitute domestic production because they involved no specialized equipment and added relatively modest value to the processed shrimp product. Finally, the Commission found that breading could not constitute domestic production activity because breaded shrimp was not part of the domestic like product in the prior antidumping duty investigations and reviews. Antidumping Duty Final Determinations, USITC Pub. 3748 at 12‐13; 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at 8‐9. In the preliminary determinations, the Commission found that the record did not indicate any change in the nature of shrimp processing since the time of the antidumping duty investigations and reviews, and thus made the same findings as it did in the prior proceedings concerning what shrimp processing activities constitute domestic production. Preliminary CVD Determinations, USITC Pub. 4380 at 11, n.45. The record in the final phase investigations provides no indication of a change in the nature of these processing activities. CR at I‐15‐I‐17; PR at I‐12‐I‐13. Moreover, the parties have not addressed the issue. Thus, we make the same findings that we did in the preliminary determinations concerning the shrimp processing activities that constitute domestic production. Based on these findings, we find that each processor that submitted a response to the domestic producers’ questionnaire engages in sufficient production‐related activities to be considered a domestic producer. 32 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331‐32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 33 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (Continued...) 11 One U.S. processor, Tampa Bay Fisheries, imported frozen shrimp directly from subject countries during the period of investigation. 34 As such, it is a related party as defined by the statute.35 We find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Tampa Bay Fisheries from the domestic industry.36 Tampa Bay Fisheries accounted for only *** of the domestic industry’s production in 2012, a decline from *** in 2011 and *** in 2010.37 Its imports of subject merchandise were relatively *** as a share of its domestic production during the period of investigation. Tampa Bay Fisheries’ domestic production *** in 2012. 38 Its imports of subject merchandise, which were primarily from ***, *** in 2012.39 Its annual ratios of subject imports to production *** in 2012. 40 Tampa Bay Fisheries stated at the staff conference that the domestic suppliers cannot provide the amount of shrimp that it needs nor generally supply the peeled shrimp which its (…Continued) (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and (3) the position of the related producer vis‐a‐vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g., Torrington Co. v United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168. 34 CR at III‐9 and Table III‐9; PR at III‐8 and Table III‐9. 35 Fifteen other U.S. processors did not import subject merchandise directly, but did purchase such merchandise. CR/PR at Table III‐9. The Commission has previously concluded that a purchaser may be treated as a related party if it controls large volumes of subject imports. The Commission has found such control to exist when the domestic producer was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases and these purchases were substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐891 (Final), USITC Pub. 3449 at 8‐9 (Sept. 2001). Most of the processors that purchased subject merchandise did so in small amounts. Although in the U.S. market total annual imports from subject sources were at least 415 million pounds during each year of the period of review, CR/PR at Table IV‐3, only two of these 15 processors purchased as many as one million pounds of imports in a calendar year. *** purchased *** in 2011 and 2012. CR/PR at Table III‐9. *** purchased *** in 2010, but only *** in 2011 and *** in 2012. CR/PR at Table III‐9. U.S processors generally reported purchasing frozen shrimp to supplement their inventory, given the seasonality of the shrimp harvest, or due to customer requests or the BP Oil Spill. CR/PR at Table III‐9, Note; Hearing Tr. at 139. The record consequently indicates that *** and the other 13 processors do not control large volumes of subject imports. Accordingly, we find that none of the processors that purchased subject merchandise warrants treatment as a related party. 36 No party has addressed the related parties issue. 37 CR/PR at Table III‐2 and calculated from Tables III‐4 and III‐9. 38 CR/PR at Table III‐9. 39 CR/PR at Tables III‐9 and IV‐1. Tampa Bay Fisheries also purchased substantial volumes of subject imports throughout the period: *** in interim 2013. CR/PR at Table III‐9. Its purchases in full year 2012 represented about *** of total subject imports in that year. CR/PR at Tables III‐9 and IV‐3. Tampa Bay Fisheries also is related to U.S. importer Red Chamber, which accounted for about *** of total subject imports in 2012. CR/PR at Tables IV‐1 and IV‐2. 40 CR/PR at Table III‐9. 12 customers require.41 Tampa Bay Fisheries *** the petitions. 42 Relative to the overall operating income margin for reporting domestic processors during the period of investigation, Tampa Bay Fisheries’ operating margin was ***.43 44 Based on this record, and particularly the firm’s *** U.S. production and *** ratio of subject imports to production, which indicate its principal interest lies in importation, we find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Tampa Bay Fisheries from the domestic industry as a related party. Accordingly, in light of the definition of the domestic like product and the foregoing analysis, we define a single domestic industry encompassing all warmwater shrimp fishermen and processors of warmwater shrimp, except for Tampa Bay Fisheries.45 IV. Negligible Imports Section 771(24) of the Tariff Act, which defines “negligibility,” provides that imports from a subject country that are less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12‐month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or self‐initiation, as the case may be, shall be deemed negligible.46 The statute further provides that subject imports from a single country which comprise less than 3 percent of total such imports of the product may not be considered negligible if there are several countries subject to investigation with negligible imports and the sum of such imports from all those countries collectively accounts for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States.47 In the case of countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries (as designated by the United States Trade Representative), the statute indicates that the negligibility limits are 4 percent and 9 percent, rather than 3 percent and 7 percent. Ecuador and Malaysia have been designated as 41 CR/PR at Table III‐9, Note, and Conf. Tr. at 115‐116. Tampa Bay Fisheries did not report its reasons for importing or purchasing subject imports in its questionnaire response. 42 CR/PR at Table III‐2. 43 CR/PR at Table Appendix G‐1. 44 Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon the related producer’s financial performance in determining whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude it from the domestic industry. In his view, the present record is not sufficient to link the producer’s profitability on its U.S. operations to any specific benefit it derives from its related party status. 45 While there is limited U.S. farm production and no U.S. shrimp farming entities responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, U.S. shrimp farm producers would also be included in the domestic industry. Farm‐raised shrimp production accounted for about *** of domestic production in 2012. CR at I‐12, n.25; PR at I‐9, n.25. U.S. shrimp aquaculture is constrained by the cost of coastal land and environmental and water quality regulations, among other factors. Id. and Hearing Tr. at 174. 46 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(i). 47 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii). 13 developing countries, and India has been designated as a least developed country by the U.S. Trade Representative and thus are subject to the 4 percent and 9 percent negligibility limits. 48 Based on official import statistics, market shares for subject imports exceed the requisite 3 percent or 4 percent statutory negligibility threshold. 49 For the 12‐month period from December 2011 to November 2012, imports from China and Vietnam (governed by the 3 percent standard) accounted for 3.2 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively, of total imports of frozen shrimp, as measured by quantity.50 For the 12‐month period from December 2011 to November 2012, imports from Ecuador, India, and Malaysia (governed by the 4 percent standard) accounted for 15.7 percent, 13.2 percent, and 4.4 percent, respectively, of total imports of frozen shrimp, as measured by quantity. 51 52 The Chinese Respondent raises a number of arguments regarding the appropriate data that the Commission should use to calculate the negligibility levels.53 It contends that use of the official Commerce statistics for the most recent 12‐month period that precedes the filing of the petition to calculate negligibility levels for imports from China would not be accurate because such data include imports of nonsubject merchandise.54 While the official import statistics include certain “basket” classifications which may include nonsubject merchandise, the arguments raised by the Chinese Respondent, with one exception, rely on data that we believe are less reliable than the official import statistics.55 The one argument that warrants 48 15 C.F.R. § 2013.1 (regarding negligible import standards for definition of “Developing Country” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)(A) and definition of “Least Developed Country” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)(B)). 49 CR/PR at Table IV‐4. 50 CR/PR at Table IV‐4. 51 CR/PR at Table IV‐4. 52 The Malaysian Respondents contend that subject imports from Malaysia should be considered negligible because such imports have been at or near the negligibility level during the period of investigation. Whether imports from a particular subject country are “near” the negligibility standard during a three‐year period of investigation is not the statutory standard. Instead, the statutory standard concerns whether imports are below a specific threshold during a specific 12‐month period. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(i). The Malaysian Respondents do not dispute the data indicating that for the most recent 12‐month period preceding the filing of the petition, subject imports from Malaysia exceed 4 percent of total imports. Malaysian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 2‐4. 53 Similar to the Malaysian Respondents, the Chinese Respondent also suggests calculating the negligibility levels for 12‐month periods that are not consistent with the 12‐month timeframe set forth in the statute. Because these arguments are contrary to the statute, we do not discuss them further. See Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 7. 54 Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 2‐6. 55 The Chinese Respondent also proposes use of foreign producer questionnaire responses plus Customs Net Import File (“CNIF”) data for certain nonresponding exporters to calculate the Chinese negligibility level. Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 7 and 8. This approach is not only contrary to the Chinese Respondent’s argument that CNIF data are not correct but also would combine questionnaire data from responding exporters with CNIF data for a “cherry‐picked” nonresponding exporter but not for other nonresponding exporters. Given that questionnaire coverage is incomplete, (Continued...) 14 further consideration is premised on the fact that data from ***.56 When the data for *** for the December 2011‐November 2012 period.57 Thus, in addition to the unadjusted official Commerce statistics, we have considered the negligibility levels for China with the adjustment made to *** subject merchandise to the United States. We therefore conclude that subject imports from all five countries are not negligible. V. Cumulation For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of material injury by reason of subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act requires the Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed and/or investigations self‐initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market.58 In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission generally has considered four factors: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from different countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.59 While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for (…Continued) we find Commerce statistics to be more reliable than Commission questionnaire responses for calculating negligibility. CR at IV‐8, n.8; PR at . 56 Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 5. 57 CR at IV‐8, n.8; PR at IV‐7, n.8. 58 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i). 59 See Certain Cast‐Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐278‐280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 15 determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.60 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.61 Petitioner contends that each of the four reasonable overlap factors supports cumulation of imports from the five countries in these investigations. 62 Respondents do not address the issue of cumulation for purposes of the present material injury analysis. The threshold requirement for cumulation is satisfied because Petitioner filed the countervailing duty petitions with respect to all subject countries on the same day, December 28, 2012. In addition, none of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies. As discussed below, we find a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from all five countries and between subject imports from each source and the domestic like product. Fungibility. The record in these investigations indicates that there is a moderate degree of substitutability between U.S.‐produced frozen shrimp and that imported from subject countries.63 Most purchasers also reported that the U.S. product and subject imports “always” or “usually” meet minimum quality specifications, 64 and most purchasers reported that the U.S. product and shrimp from subject sources were comparable in product and shipment consistency, minimum quantity requirements, freshness, taste/flavor profile, and their ability to meet purchasers’ quality standards.65 Channels of Distribution. Both the domestic like product and the subject imports are sold to distributors, end users, and/or retail/institutional customers such as grocers and restaurants. The majority of both domestically produced product and subject imports in 2012 60 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 61 The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” H.R. Rep. No. 103‐ 316, Vol. I at 848 (1994) (citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. at 902; see Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”). 62 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 2. 63 CR at II‐19; PR at II‐13. Most responding domestic processors reported that subject imports from all subject countries are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product. CR/PR at Table II‐13. While most responding importers reported that subject imports are “sometimes” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product, there also were a number of importers reporting that the subject imports and U.S. product were “never” interchangeable. Id. Importers reported that factors limiting interchangeability include differences in customer preferences, wild‐caught and farm‐raised shrimp, quality, geography, and species. Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 20‐23. While most purchasers reported that subject imports are “always,” “frequently,” or “sometimes” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product, there also were a number of purchasers reporting that the subject imports and U.S. product were “never” interchangeable. CR/PR at Table II‐13. 64 CR/PR at Table II‐14. 65 CR/PR at Table II‐12. 16 was sold to distributors, although the share to distributors and retail/institutional customers has differed among the subject countries and has fluctuated annually.66 Geographic Overlap. Both U.S. producers and importers reported selling frozen shrimp to all regions in the contiguous United States.67 Thus, frozen shrimp from all sources served a nationwide market during the period of investigation. Simultaneous Presence in Market. Subject imports from all five countries entered the United States in every month of the period of investigation. 68 Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we cumulate subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam for purposes of our analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports. VI. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the United States is not materially injured by reason of imports of frozen shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam that Commerce has found to be subsidized. A. Legal Standards In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation. 69 In making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations. 70 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” 71 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.72 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 73 66 CR/PR at Table II‐1. 67 CR at II‐4 and Table II‐2; PR‐II‐2 and Table II‐2. 68 CR at IV‐9; PR at IV‐8. 69 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 70 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). 71 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 72 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 73 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 17 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports, 74 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.75 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.76 In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material injury threshold. 77 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate 74 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a). 75 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484‐85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 76 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 77 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less‐ than‐fair‐value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877. 18 the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports. 78 Nor does the “by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.79 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination. 80 Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission “ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” 81 82 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.” 83 78 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n, 266 F.3d at 1345 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright‐line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100‐01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 79 S. Rep. 96‐249 at 74‐75; H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47. 80 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material‐injury determination under the statute requires no more than a substantial‐factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of injury.”). 81 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877‐78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75. 82 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three paragraphs. He points out that the Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal Steel, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of non‐subject imports, albeit without reliance upon presumptions or rigid formulas. Mittal Steel explains as follows: What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price competitive, non‐subject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non‐ subject or non‐LTFV imports would have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of (Continued...) 19 The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of price‐competitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price‐competitive nonsubject imports. 84 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation. Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports. 85 Accordingly, we do not consider ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions subsequent to Bratsk. The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving commodity products where price‐competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S. market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to non‐attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis. 86 The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial (…Continued) investigation without a continuing benefit to the domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to that factor. 542 F.3d at 878. 83 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”). 84 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875‐79. 85 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875‐79 & n.2 (recognizing the Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non‐ attribution analysis). 86 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports. 20 evidence standard.87 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.88 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports. 1. Demand Considerations Frozen shrimp continues to be used principally in meal preparations. Demand for the product comes primarily from retail sellers of both prepared and unprepared warmwater shrimp, such as grocers and restaurants. 89 90 During the period of investigation, U.S. consumption of shrimp per capita was consistent from year to year, at about 4.0 pounds. 91 There is some seasonality in U.S. demand for shrimp, which typically is higher around the Easter, Christmas and New Year’s holidays. 92 Apparent U.S. consumption of frozen shrimp fluctuated within a relatively narrow range during the period of investigation. Apparent U.S. consumption was 1.25 billion pounds in 2010, increased to 1.30 billion pounds in 2011, and declined to *** in 2012. 93 These levels of apparent U.S. consumption are consistent with historical levels in prior investigations and 87 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 88 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357; S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”). 89 CR at II‐15; PR at II‐11. Petitioner reports that the food service industry purchases the majority of frozen shrimp in the United States and that larger shrimp are used as a “center‐of‐the‐plate item,” accounting for the largest portion of the cost of the meal. CR at II‐15 and II‐16; PR at II‐11. In the prior antidumping duty investigations, it was estimated that 80 percent of shrimp in the U.S. market is bought by restaurants. CR at I‐13; PR at I‐10. In recent years, larger restaurant chains and U.S. seafood processors (i.e., breaders, skewers, and marinaters) have demanded frozen shrimp in larger quantities, with year‐round availability, standardized sizes, and lower prices. CR at II‐15; PR at II‐11. 90 The market tendency is for large shrimp (less than 36 per pound, heads‐off, shell‐on basis) to be sold raw and frozen to restaurants, hotels, and other food institutions; for small to medium shrimp (36‐60 per pound) to be breaded, canned or sold at retail (e.g., supermarkets); and for extra small (61 to 70 per pound) and tiny shrimp (more than 70 per pound) to be used by canners, dryers, and producers of specialty products. CR at I‐13; PR at I‐10. 91 CR at I‐13; PR at I‐10. 92 CR at II‐15; PR at II‐11. 93 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** during January‐March 2012. Id. Because NOAA Fisheries Service data on domestic shipments (wild catch landings from the Gulf region) are not yet available for March 2013, apparent U.S. consumption and market share for interim 2013 were not available. See CR/PR at Tables IV‐5 and IV‐6. By contrast, interim period data collected in the Commission questionnaires are reported on a January‐March basis for both 2012 and 2013. 21 reviews.94 95 Domestic processors’ perceptions of whether U.S. demand changed during the period of investigation differed from those of U.S. importers and purchasers.96 Firms attributed a decrease in demand to the recession, more price sensitive customers, imports, the BP Oil Spill, increased prices, reduced quality, and availability. Firms that reported an increase in demand stated that this trend was driven by the reported health benefits of eating seafood/shrimp (a low‐fat food), more eating out, the popularity of shrimp, promotion of seafood, price increases for competing meats, stable supply, high quality, consistent specifications, improving economy, increasing market share, and increased offers of U.S. product and shortage of large sized imports. 97 2. Supply Considerations Domestically produced shrimp is overwhelmingly wild caught (ocean harvested).98 Harvesting takes place in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic Coast from the Carolinas to Florida.99 In the United States, the main fishing season is from May to December, with different times of the year being better for different species and sizes of shrimp.100 During the off season (roughly January through April), some fishermen make repairs and upgrades, and U.S. processors make sales from inventory. Historically, prices have been higher when the supply of both fresh and frozen shrimp is lower, such as in the off season. 101 Phenomena that affect the waters in which shrimp is harvested and in the coastal areas where fishing boats are docked and processing plants are located will also affect the supply of the domestic like product. Processors reported that hurricanes and other weather‐related problems, pollution‐ caused diseases, and “black gill” disease affected the shrimp harvest and consequently the supply of frozen shrimp.102 Additionally, areas in the Gulf were closed to fishing for various periods of time in 2010 because of the BP Oil Spill; most U.S. processors said the BP Oil Spill 94 See 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at Table I‐15; Antidumping Duty Final Determinations, USITC Pub. 3748 at Table IV‐4; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 8. 95 Petitioner requests that the Commission include 2009 in its period of investigation due to supply disruption caused by the April 20, 2010 “Deepwater Horizon” incident in the Gulf of Mexico (“BP Oil Spill”) and the substantial decrease in landings that it caused. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 5; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 10‐14. As discussed below, while we have looked at the 2010 data in light of the BP Oil Spill, we also note that landings historically have fluctuated from year to year and in some prior years have been at levels somewhat comparable to 2010. See 2011 Antidumping Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at Table I‐15; Antidumping Duty Final Determinations, USITC Pub. 3748 at Table IV‐4. 96 Most processors reported decreases in demand while most importers and purchasers reported increases or no change in demand. CR/PR at Table II‐5; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 14‐15; Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 9; see also VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 7. 97 CR at II‐16 and II‐17; PR at II‐12. 98 CR at I‐12 and II‐1; PR at I‐9 and II‐1. 99 CR at II‐5; PR at II‐4. 100 CR at II‐6; PR at II‐5. 101 CR at II‐6 and II‐7; PR at II‐5. 102 CR at II‐9 and II‐10; PR at II‐7. 22 both reduced supply and undermined demand, while British Petroleum (“BP”)’s willingness to pay for losses and its hiring of boats for the clean‐up effort reduced the number of boats engaged in shrimping. 103 Respondents argue that the supply of U.S. shrimp is finite and the processors’ livelihood is dependent on biological factors (e.g., how many shrimp can be harvested from the Gulf and southern Atlantic coast).104 During the period of investigation, the domestic industry supplied between 9.6 percent and *** of apparent U.S. consumption on an annual basis. 105 That is substantially less than the share supplied by either subject or nonsubject imports.106 Shrimp imported from subject sources is primarily farm raised; shrimp of many different species can be farmed, and shrimp farms generally are designed principally to produce shrimp for export.107 Most importers describe the subject imports as having no business cycles or seasonality because farming permits year‐round availability. 108 However, farmed shrimp are more prone than wild shrimp to exposure to diseases that may dramatically impact harvest levels because shrimp populations in ponds are much denser.109 A disease called Early Mortality Syndrome (“EMS”) is currently affecting farm‐raised shrimp in three subject countries (China, Malaysia and Vietnam) and nonsubject country Thailand. 110 While the specific cause of EMS was identified in the spring of 2013, there still is no test that can reliably identify infected 103 CR at II‐9; PR at II‐7. In June 2010, as much as 37 percent of the Gulf of Mexico was closed to fishing due to the BP Oil Spill, and portions of state waters closed to fishing ranged from 2 percent (Florida) to 95 percent (Mississippi). The spill lasted for nearly three months during the prime fishing season, and a small area close to the well that caused the spill remained closed for much longer. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 11 and Exhibit 4 (“The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and the Gulf of Mexico Fishing Industry,” Congressional Research Service at 1 (Feb. 17, 2011)); see also 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at II‐5, n.10. During this period, a large percentage of the Gulf shrimping fleet received payments from BP either for assistance in the Gulf clean‐up or as compensation for damages. Because boats used in the clean‐up effort were not shrimping, supply was lower. CR at II‐ 9; PR at II‐7. 104 Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 8; see also VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 13‐15. As the Commission previously has noted, "there is no short supply provision in the statute" and "the fact that the domestic industry may not be able to supply all of demand does not mean the industry may not be materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports." Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 108, n.310 (Dec. 2003); see also Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1143 (Final), USITC Pub. 4062 at 22‐23 (Feb. 2009); Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1110 (Final), USITC Pub. 3984 at 27 n.109 (Mar. 2008). 105 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 106 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 107 CR at II‐11; PR at II‐8. Imports of shrimp from nonsubject sources are available both as farmed and wild‐caught; Mexico, the third largest nonsubject source of imports, provides wild‐caught shrimp with the same seasonal supply period as U.S. product. Id. at II‐13; PR at II‐9. 108 CR at I‐11 and II‐7; PR at I‐9 and II‐5. 109 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9. 110 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9. Some farms in China and Thailand reportedly have lost 60 to 80 percent of their stock to the disease. Id. 23 broodstock. Opinions consequently differ as to how quickly the disease will be contained and when production levels in these countries will recover.111 ***.112 Subject imports supplied a large share of apparent U.S. consumption during the period of investigation, ranging from 33.2 percent to *** of the U.S. market on an annual basis. 113 Imports from three of the subject countries (China, India, and Vietnam) were subject to antidumping duty orders during the period of investigation. 114 Nonsubject sources supplied the majority of the U.S. market, but their share declined from 57.2 percent in 2010 to 53.8 percent in 2011 and *** in 2012. 115 The largest sources of nonsubject imports during the period of investigation were Thailand, Indonesia, and Mexico. Other major nonsubject sources included Honduras, Peru, Guyana, Bangladesh, Singapore, and Venezuela.116 3. Substitutability The parties have expressed divergent views on the substitutability of the domestic like product and the subject imports, with Petitioner arguing that the products are at least moderately substitutable 117 and Respondents arguing that any competition between the domestic like product and the subject imports is attenuated.118 As indicated in the discussion of 111 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9. According to Petitioner, the industries in the affected countries have learned to control the diseases after major research this year and are expected to recover by the end of this year or in 2014. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 18‐19; Hearing Tr. at 43‐44. Respondents argue that while the disease was recently identified, a reliable cure has not been developed and it likely will take longer to recover. Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 5‐7; Hearing Tr. at 189. 112 CR at I‐12; PR at I‐9. 113 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 114 The antidumping duty orders covering shrimp from Ecuador were revoked with respect to all producers on August 15, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg. 48257 (Aug. 23, 2007). The order on subject imports from India was revoked with respect to producer Devi effective February 1, 2009. 75 Fed. Reg. 41813 (July 19, 2010). The United States also maintains antidumping duty orders on imports of frozen shrimp from Brazil and Thailand, CR at I‐6 and I‐7; PR at I‐4 and I‐5, but imports from Brazil and Thailand are not subject to these countervailing duty investigations. 115 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 116 CR at II‐13 and II‐14; PR at II‐8 117 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 3‐4; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 19‐24. Petitioner contends that imported and domestic product compete across the market, at the same major purchasers, in retail, food service, and distribution, and across product forms, sizes, and types, and that purchasing decisions come down to price. According to Petitioner, domestic producers produce a full range of value‐added shrimp, prices for different species fluctuate within a narrow band, and no consistent premium is paid for a particular type of shrimp. Petitioner also refutes claims that the domestic industry cannot serve large national accounts under long‐term contracts. 118 Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 10‐15; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 15‐16; VASEP/SEAI’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐2 and 10‐13. Respondents argue that domestic wild‐caught shrimp and imported farm‐raised shrimp are interchangeable only in the broadest sense, i.e., both forms can be cooked and eaten with little difference in taste noted by the average consumer, and that domestic wild‐caught (Continued...) 24 cumulation, U.S. processors and importers provided different general assessments of interchangeability, with U.S. processors overwhelmingly reporting that the domestic like product and imports from each subject country were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable, and most responding importers reporting that the domestic like product and imports from each subject country were “sometimes” interchangeable.119 Most purchasers reported that subject imports are “always,” “frequently,” or “sometimes” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product.120 Most purchasers also reported that the U.S. product and subject imports “always” or “usually” meet minimum quality specifications, 121 and most purchasers reported that the U.S. product and shrimp from subject sources were comparable in product and shipment consistency, minimum quantity requirements, freshness, taste/flavor profile, and their ability to meet purchasers’ quality standards. 122 When asked whether differences other than price are ever significant to purchasers in choosing between shrimp from subject countries and shrimp from the United States, a plurality of responding domestic processors reported “never.”123 Responding importers were divided on the question, with a plurality reporting that differences other than price are “always” significant comparing the U.S. product to subject imports, but only “sometimes” between subject sources.124 Responding purchasers also were divided on the question, with a plurality reporting that differences other than price are “always,” “frequently,” or “sometimes” significant comparing the U.S. product to subject imports, but only “sometimes” between subject sources.125 One distinction between the domestic like product and the subject imports is that the domestic like product is overwhelmingly wild‐caught, while the subject imports are predominantly farm‐raised.126 However, the record does not indicate that this distinction, (…Continued) shrimp is not a substitute for the vast majority of buyers. Thus, they argue that competition between domestic and imported shrimp is attenuated for a wide variety of reasons, including differences between wild‐caught and farm‐raised shrimp; species of shrimp; size, flavor and texture of shrimp; degree of processing; country of origin; year‐round vs. seasonal availability; contract vs. spot sales; ability to supply large volumes; individually quick frozen (IQF) vs. block‐frozen forms; and other factors. According to Respondents, significant purchasers buy both or, to put it another way, they have no preference for either because they seek to satisfy as many customers as they can in order to maximize their revenues and profits. 119 CR/PR at Table II‐13. 120 CR/PR at Table II‐13. 121 CR/PR at Table II‐14. 122 CR/PR at Table II‐12. 123 CR/PR at Table II‐15. 124 CR/PR at Table II‐15. 125 CR/PR at Table II‐15. 126 Commissioner Pearson does not join the conclusions of this and the following two paragraphs. Consistent with his dissenting views in the preliminary phase of these investigations and his negative determinations in the sunset reviews of the antidumping orders, he finds that this record indicates a significant attenuation of competition between the domestic like product and subject imports. USITC 4221 at 37, USTIC 4380 at 31. (Continued...) 25 taken alone, significantly limits substitutability between the domestic like product and the subject imports. 127 The record in these investigations also does not indicate clear distinctions in the markets or customers served by the domestic like product and the subject imports. Both the domestic like product and the subject imports are available in every region of the country and through the same channels of distribution. 128 The record indicates that the domestic industry supplies all major product forms. Although a large proportion of domestic production is block‐frozen product, the domestic industry has the capacity to produce appreciable quantities of IQF product.129 The domestic (…Continued) The domestic product is overwhelmingly comprised of wild‐caught product, while subject imports are predominantly farm‐raised. CR at III‐1 and II‐11, PR at III‐1 and II‐8. Domestic landings have been relatively stable for an extended period of time, but there is inevitably a degree of unpredictability in the volume, size, and composition of the catch in any given year. Ecuador Respondent’s postconference brief at Exh. 1 and USITC 4221 at Table I‐15. The supply of farm‐raised shrimp, including both subject and nonsubject imports, is larger, more flexible, and more predictable, and thus naturally more attractive to purchasers concerned about access to high and consistent volumes of shrimp. CR/PR at Table II‐1 (domestic product rated inferior on availability and reliability of supply). The record also suggests that subject imports include a larger variety of products and shrimp types than offered by the domestic like product, and significantly larger volumes of products that are sought by high‐volume purchasers, such as individually quick‐frozen shrimp. Joint Respondents posthearing brief at A7‐A8, A26‐ 28. As noted above, importers and processors generally report the domestic like product as less likely to be interchangeable with subject imports or nonsubject imports. Responding importers and purchasers are also much more likely to find non‐price differences significant. CR/PR at Tables II‐13 and II‐15. The record also suggests that subject imports are more likely to be sold outside the Gulf Coast and South Atlantic region of the US, as well as less likely to be sold by contract. CR/PR at Tables II‐2 and V‐1. And the record also suggests that many purchasers that buy both the domestic like product and subject imports do not consider the products interchangeable. Joint Respondents posthearing brief at A3‐A5, A32‐33, A39‐40. While there is some overlap in the channels of distribution, CR/PR at Table II‐1, the record suggests that the primary market for subject imports is not the same as the primary market for the domestic like product. Subject imports appeal primarily to a market that needs a large, predictable volume of relatively uniform and relatively highly‐processed product. The domestic like product appeals primarily to those who appreciate the characteristics of the wild‐caught product. For these reasons Commissioner Pearson finds a significant attenuation of competition between the domestic like product and subject imports. 127 In the 2011 antidumping duty reviews, the record showed that a majority of reporting purchasers purchased wild‐caught and farm‐raised shrimp for the same end uses, and three times as many purchasers indicated that the two types of shrimp were purchased for the same end uses as reported that they were not. USITC Pub. 4221 at Table II‐17. 128 CR/PR at Tables II‐1 and II‐2. The majority of both domestically produced product and subject imports in 2012 was sold to distributors, although the share to distributors and retail/institutional customers has differed among the subject countries and has fluctuated annually. Id. at Table II‐1. 129 CR/PR at Table III‐6. 26 industry also offers products in all possible size ranges. Similarly, the record does not indicate any major product form that the subject imports do not supply.130 We find that differences in product mix and availability among the subject imports and the domestic like product limit to some extent the substitutability of warmwater shrimp from different sources. Nevertheless, we do not perceive significant differences in availability or product range among the domestically produced and subject products. We find that the record in these investigations supports finding that the products are at least moderate substitutes and that they compete for sales in the U.S. market.131 4. Other Conditions Most U.S. processors and importers of Chinese product reported selling frozen shrimp in the spot market, while most importers of frozen shrimp from the other four subject countries reported selling frozen shrimp under short‐term contracts.132 Both U.S. processors and importers entered into short‐term contracts of three to six months duration with both price and quantity fixed.133 U.S. processors reported that fuel is the most important cost for fishermen. 134 High fuel costs can serve as a disincentive to fishermen to take their boats out to harvest shrimp.135 Diesel prices in the Gulf Coast region increased irregularly from about $3 to $4 per gallon from January 2010 to May 2011, and then remained at about the $4 level through June 2013. 136 C. Volume of Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.” 137 The volume of cumulated subject imports rose from 415.2 million pounds in 2010 to 462.3 million pounds in 2011 and 484.8 million pounds in 2012. The volume was slightly higher 130 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III‐6 and VII‐7. 131 CR at II‐19; PR at II‐13. 132 CR/PR at Table V‐2. For responding U.S. processors and importers of Chinese product, 86.9 percent and 74.0 percent, respectively, reported selling frozen shrimp in the spot market. Id. Responding importers reported selling frozen shrimp from the other four subject countries under short‐ term contracts as a share of their sales ranging from 49.7 percent to 66.2 percent. Id. 133 CR/PR at V‐3. Two importers that use long‐term contracts reported providing such contracts for two years or less. Id. 134 CR/PR at V‐1; Conf. Tr. at 39 (“Fishermen in turn need to be able to cover their cost of production, the most significant of which is fuel.”). 135 CR/PR at II‐5, and V‐1; Hearing Tr. at 36, 65 and 71 (“A fishermen has no incentive to do so {go out every day to catch the shrimp} if the price he gets at the dock cannot cover the cost of fuel, maintenance, labor, food, and other costs, and eventually the shrimper has to make the only rational business decision he can: tie up the boat.”). 136 CR/PR at Figure V‐1. 137 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 27 in interim 2013 than in interim 2012.138 Subject import market share rose from 33.2 percent in 2010 to 35.7 percent in 2011 and *** in 2012. 139 We recognize that the volume and market share of subject imports increased as apparent U.S. consumption declined.140 However, such increases in subject imports were at the expense of nonsubject imports141 and not the domestic industry. The domestic industry also experienced gains in shipments and market share in a declining U.S. market during the period of investigation. 142 We find that, while the cumulated volume of subject imports is significant both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, the increases in that volume and market share are not significant, particularly in light of the increases in the domestic industry’s market share during the period of investigation. D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and 138 CR/PR at Table IV‐3. Subject imports totaled 99.2 million pounds in January‐March 2012 and 107.8 million pounds in January‐March 2013. CR/PR at Table IV‐3. We note that official Commerce import data are available for the January‐March interim periods. However, because the NOAA Fisheries Service data used for U.S. shipments in the calculation of U.S. market share are not available for March 2013, data are not available to calculate the U.S. market shares for interim 2013. 139 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. The ratio of subject imports to converted U.S. shipment fluctuated annually and increased slightly between 2010 and 2012. It was 346.0 percent in 2010, 338.5 percent in 2011 and *** percent in 2012. CR/PR at Table IV‐7. (Converted U.S. shipments are U.S. production converted to pounds of headless shell‐on weight using a conversion factor of 0.629. Id. at n.3.). 140 Apparent U.S. consumption fluctuated annually and declined overall from 1.25 billion pounds in 2010 to *** in 2012. CR/PR at Table IV‐5. 141 Nonsubject imports’ market share, as measured by quantity, declined from 57.2 percent in 2010 to 53.8 percent in 2011 and *** in 2012. CR/PR at Table IV‐6. The volume of nonsubject imports was 714.1 million pounds in 2010, 696.4 million pounds in 2011, 596.8 million pounds in 2012, 146.5 million pound in interim 2012, and 117.3 million pounds in interim 2103. CR/PR at Table IV‐5. Shrimp output in subject countries (China, Malaysia, and Vietnam) as well as nonsubject countries (Thailand) has been adversely affected by EMS. U.S. imports from nonsubject country Thailand, the single largest source of frozen shrimp, decreased by 34.1 percent from 2010 to 2012 and was 23.2 percent lower in interim 2013 compared with interim 2012. CR at IV‐4, n.5; PR at IV‐3, n.5. Thus, although subject imports increased during the period of investigation, it is apparent that they did not increase to the extent necessary to offset the substantial decline in nonsubject imports, particularly from Thailand, following the devastating outbreak of EMS. 142 The domestic industry’s market share, as measured by quantity, increased from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 10.5 percent in 2011 and *** in 2012. CR/PR at Table IV‐6. Converted U.S. shipments increased from 120.0 million pounds in 2010 to 136.6 million pounds in 2011, and then declined slightly to *** million pounds in 2012. CR/PR at Table IV‐5. 28 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.143 The record indicates that subject imports and domestically produced frozen shrimp are at least moderately substitutable and that price is at least a moderately important factor in purchasing decisions. 144 The Commission collected quarterly pricing data on seven frozen shrimp products. 145 Thirty‐four U.S. producers and 27 importers of product from subject countries provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of frozen shrimp and 8.0 percent of U.S. shipments of imports from China, 14.2 percent of U.S. shipments of imports from Ecuador, 41.8 percent of U.S. shipments of imports from India, 15.4 percent of U.S. shipments of imports from Malaysia, and 34.5 percent of U.S. shipments of imports from Vietnam during the period of investigation. 146 The pricing data show that the subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 168 instances, or 50.5 percent of total comparisons, and oversold the domestic like product in 165 instances.147 The margins of underselling ranged from 0.0 percent to 56.0 percent, and the average margin of underselling was 18.8 percent.148 149 The margins of overselling ranged from 143 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 144 CR at II‐19 – II‐23; PR at II‐13 – II‐16. Purchasers reported that price played a major role in purchasing decisions – of 29 responding purchasers, 20 reported price as a very important purchasing consideration. CR/PR at Table II‐10. Moreover, purchasers most commonly listed price as the number two factor in purchasing decisions. Id. at Table II‐9. Although a large majority of purchasers named quality as the number one factor in purchasing decisions, the domestic like product was at least as likely as the subject imports to satisfy purchasers’ quality requirements. Id. at Table II‐12. 145 Three of these are block‐frozen products, each of different sizes (21‐25 count, 41‐50 count, and 71‐90 count). The other four products are IQF products (16‐20 count, 21‐25 count, 26‐30 count and 31‐40 count). There also were differences for each product regarding the extent of processing (e.g., headless, shell‐on product; peeled and deveined, tail off; cooked). CR at V‐6; PR at V‐2‐3. 146 CR at V‐6 and V‐7; PR at V‐5. 147 CR/PR at Table V‐11. 148 CR/PR at Table V‐11. 149 Petitioner urged the Commission not to give controlling weight to underselling data for Product 1, because it includes prices for products that are in both deveined and undeveined forms, which may affect comparability. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 7. We note that this product was included in the preliminary phase of these investigations (and in the prior antidumping duty reviews) at the request of petitioner. In the preliminary determination, we explicitly invited the parties in their comments on our draft questionnaires to suggest alternative pricing products in order to improve coverage and accuracy. Preliminary CVD Determinations, USITC Pub. 4380 at 25. In its comments on the draft final phase questionnaires, Petitioner did not request any change to Product 1. Petitioner’s Comments on Draft Questionnaires at 6‐7 (dated May 20, 2013). Petitioner requested that the Commission replace Product 3 from the preliminary investigation with two products (Products 4 and 5 in (Continued...) 29 0.1 percent to 130.8 percent, and the average margin of overselling was 34.0 percent.150 Thus, the record does not demonstrate significant price underselling by subject imports but rather shows a pattern of mixed underselling and overselling between the subject imports and the domestic like product.151 Prices for the domestic like product and the subject imports fluctuated generally within a narrow range throughout the 13 quarters for which data were collected. There were price increases between the beginning and the end of the period for the majority of products from all domestic and subject sources except Vietnam.152 Thus, we do not find evidence of significant price depression. We recognize that the domestic industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to net sales was high and increased slightly each year over the period of investigation. 153 154 We note that the COGS for 2012 includes substantially higher other factory (…Continued) the final investigation) but did not discuss, let alone raise concerns about, Product 1; the Commission made the changes requested by Petitioner. We find no basis to exclude Product 1 from our underselling analysis or minimize the weight we give to pricing comparisons including that product. 150 CR/PR at Table V‐11. 151 Petitioners also urge the Commission to consider alternative sources of pricing information. They emphasize two public sources of such information: prices of frozen seafood in New York reported by Commerce on a weekly basis and price data available from the Urner Barry market news service, which are updated twice a week. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 35‐41 and Exhibits 17 (Sample NOAA New York Frozen Seafood Prices Weekly Report), 18 (Compilation of New York Frozen Seafood Weekly Reporting Pricing Data into Quarterly Average Prices), and 19 (Urner Barry Pricing Data); Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 7‐8. The Urner‐Barry pricing data, however, are regional (i.e., U.S. product prices are compared with farm‐raised Asian product prices) and are not limited to the specific subject countries. We find the pricing data compiled from the Commission’s questionnaire responses to be the more specific, comparable, and reliable data for purposes of our analysis. 152 CR at V‐7; PR at V‐5. Prices for five of seven domestic products (products 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) increased from January 2010 to March 2013. CR/PR at Table V‐10. Prices for product 1 fluctuated widely, with declines for the domestically produced product and for subject imports from three countries, but increases in prices for the other two countries. For product 2, domestic prices fluctuated and increased overall, as did prices for subject imports, except for those from Vietnam and the few available comparisons for Chinese product. For products 3 and 5, prices for the domestically produced product and prices for all subject imports fluctuated but increased overall. For products 4 and 6, prices for the domestically produced product and prices for all subject imports, except those from Vietnam, fluctuated but increased overall. Finally, for product 7, prices for the domestically produced product fluctuated but declined slightly overall, while prices for all subject imports also fluctuated but increased overall. CR at Tables V‐3 to V‐10 and Figures V‐2 to V‐8. 153 The ratio of COGS to net sales increased from *** percent in 2010 to *** percent in 2011 and *** percent in 2012. The ratio of COGS to net sales was *** percent in interim 2012 and *** percent in interim 2013. Supplemental Summary Table, EDIS Document Number 518620 (“Suppl. Summary”) at Table C‐2. 154 Commissioner Pearson notes that the record over the POI indicates substantial investment in new or expanded facilities for the processing of shrimp. It is likely that the owners of each of those facilities wish to operate their plants at relatively high levels of capacity utilization, yet the total quantity (Continued...) 30 costs for one processor *** that are associated with a factory relocation and machinery/equipment upgrades; this was a one‐time event. As discussed in the impact section below, if the financial results of *** with the high other factory costs are not included, the industry’s COGS/sales ratio for 2012 is only slightly higher at *** than the level in 2011 (92.0 percent).155 The mixed evidence for price underselling mitigates against finding that the small increase in COGS/sales ratio indicates that subject imports have had significant price suppressing effects.156 Moreover, prices for both domestic product and subject imports increased overall.157 Accordingly, based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find evidence of mixed price underselling, and also find that the volume of subject imports has not depressed prices or prevented price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. E. Impact of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that examining the impact of subject imports, the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.” 158 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” (…Continued) of wild‐caught shrimp being harvested has not increased along with processing capacity. In this situation, market pressures may lead shrimp processors to bid actively against each other to acquire shrimp at the dock, thus leading to an upward movement in the processors’ raw material costs. This phenomenon may explain the slight increase in the COGS/sales ratio in 2012. 155 CR at VI‐9 and VI‐10; PR at VI‐6. 156 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. Unit net sales values were $*** in 2010, $*** in 2011, $*** in 2012, $*** in interim 2012, and $*** in interim 2013. Unit COGS values were $*** in 2010, $*** in 2011, $*** in 2012, $*** in interim 2012, and $*** in interim 2013. Id. Unit SG&A expenses were $*** in interim 2013. Calculated from CR at Appendix G. 157 In addition, there were no confirmed lost sales or revenues during the final phase of these investigations. CR at V‐33 – V‐35; PR at V‐25. 158 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 31 As was true in the prior investigations and reviews on frozen shrimp, the domestic industry has two primary segments – fishermen and processors. 159 We will examine the data pertaining to industry performance separately for each segment, as the Commission has done in the past. 160 Public data indicate that fishermen’s wild‐catch landings fluctuated during the period of investigation. Landings increased from 199.0 million pounds in 2010 to 234.2 million pounds in 2011, and then declined slightly to *** in 2012. 161 We recognize that wild‐catch landings were considerably lower in 2010, when the BP Oil Spill limited shrimp fishing, than in 2011 or 2012. However, landings historically have fluctuated from year to year, and annual fluctuations that occurred during the five‐year period examined in the 2011 antidumping reviews were comparable to those during the current period of investigation. 162 The responding fishermen reported an overall increase in warmwater shrimp harvested although with fluctuations between years; they reported harvesting 9.2 million pounds of warmwater shrimp in 2010, 10.6 million pounds in 2011, 9.6 million pounds in 2012, 1.1 million pounds in interim 2012, and 644,208 pounds in interim 2013.163 The responding fishermen reported that the number of production and related workers (PRWs) decreased from 2010 to 2012. 164 Hours worked and boat days at sea decreased each year, and were lower in interim 2013 than in interim 2012. 165 The financial results of responding fishermen fluctuated annually, but were positive throughout the period of investigation. Sales volume and value fluctuated between years, and increased overall from 2010 to 2012. 166 Operating income before salaries and other items reached its highest level in 2011, on both an absolute basis and as a share of net sales, and then declined to its lowest level in 2012. Fishermen reported operating income as a ratio to net sales of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.3 percent in 2011, and 1.6 percent in 2012.167 The responding 159 Shrimp aquaculture in the United States peaked in 2003 at about 4.5 percent of production. CR at I‐12, n.25; PR at I‐9, n.25. During the period of investigation, farmed shrimp production accounted for 1.0 percent to *** of domestic production. Calculated from CR/PR at Table IV‐5. 160 The Commission received timely usable questionnaire responses from 133 fishermen ‐‐ a relatively small share of the shrimp fleet ‐‐ which may limit the representativeness of the data. For these reasons, we place less weight on data regarding the fishermen segment of the domestic industry. See CR/PR at Appendices D and F. 161 CR/PR at Table IV‐5. 162 For instance, in the prior antidumping duty reviews, landings during the 2005 to 2009 review period ranged from a low of 211.3 million pound to a high of 294.8 million pounds. 2011 Antidumping Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at Table I‐15. 163 CR/PR at Table D‐3. The responding fishermen’s U.S. shipments were 9.5 million pounds in 2010, 10.9 million pounds in 2011, 9.7 million pounds in 2012, 1.1 million pounds in interim 2012, and 686,019 pounds in interim 2013. Id. at Table D‐2. 164 CR/PR at Table D‐3. 165 CR/PR at Table D‐3. 166 INV‐LL‐054 (July 31, 2013) at Table D‐4. 167 INV‐LL‐054 at Table D‐4. For purposes of this discussion, operating income refers to net sales value minus operating expenses and officer/partner salaries. 32 fishermen’s ratio of operating expenses to net sales was relatively high and increased overall from 96.8 percent in 2010 to 98.4 percent in 2012. 168 We observe that, because of non‐ operating income received from sources such as BP Oil Spill compensation, and to a lesser extent distributions pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), responding fishermen reported net income that was notably higher than their operating income on both an absolute basis and as a share of net sales for every year in the period of investigation. 169 Processors’ production exhibited the same trends as wild‐catch landings. Production increased from *** in 2011, and then decreased slightly to *** in 2012. 170 Production was lower in interim 2013, at ***.171 Processors’ capacity rose during each year of the period of investigation, increasing from *** in 2012; capacity was *** in interim 2013. 172 Capacity utilization increased from *** in 2011, then decreased to *** in 2012. 173 Processors’ U.S. shipments showed the same trends as production, increasing from *** in 2011, then decreasing to *** in 2012. 174 U.S. shipments of *** of shipments in interim 2012. 175 Ending inventory quantities fluctuated annually and increased overall from *** in 2012; ending inventory quantities were *** in interim 2013. 176 The number of production and related workers, hourly wages, and labor productivity fluctuated annually and increased overall from 2010 to 2012. 177 Hours worked and total wages paid increased each year of the period. 178 The processors’ total net sales values fluctuated between years but increased overall; total net sales values were *** in 2012. 179 The processors’ COGS also fluctuated between years 168 Calculated from INV‐LL‐054 at Table D‐4. For purposes of this discussion, operating expenses include officer/partner salaries. 169 INV‐LL‐054 at Table D‐4. The responding fishermen’s net income as a share of net sales was 12.6 percent in 2010, 9.1 percent in 2011, and 11.4 percent in 2012. Id. 170 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 171 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. We note that the January‐March interim period is the off‐ season for wild‐caught shrimping and for U.S. processors. Thus, for certain indicators such as production, shipments, capacity utilization and employment, interim data are of less value in our analysis.172 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 173 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. The *** rate in interim 2012. 174 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 175 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. Export shipments were very small in relation to domestic shipments and declined overall from 2010 to 2012. Id. 176 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 177 The number of PRWs increased from *** in 2011, then declined slightly to *** in 2012; the number of PRWs was *** in interim 2013. Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. Labor productivity increased from *** per hour worked in 2011 and then declined to *** per hour worked in 2012; labor productivity was *** per hour worked in interim 2013. Id. Hourly wages rose from *** in 2011 and then declined to *** in 2012; hourly wages were *** in interim 2013. Id. 178 Wages paid increased from *** in 2012; wages paid was *** in interim 2013. Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. Hours worked totaled increased from *** hours in 2012; hours worked totaled was *** in interim 2013. Id. 33 but increased modestly each year as a share of net sales; as a share of net sales, it was *** in 2012. 180 The COGS for 2012 includes substantially higher other factory costs for a one‐time event (i.e., a factory relocation) by one processor.181 Processors’ operating income margin decreased from *** in 2012. 182 Nonetheless, capital expenditures increased each year from 2010 to 2012 but were lower in interim 2013 than in interim 2012. 183 Although processors’ net sales values increased over the period of investigation, we recognize that their performance was marginal and declining; for example, they were able to sustain only a marginal, albeit positive, operating margin in 2010 and 2011, and in 2012 they sustained an operating loss. The decline in operating income margins, particularly from 2011 to 2012, was much larger than the modest increase in the COGS/sales ratio. As elaborated below, the magnitude of the decline in operating margins can be explained by increases in SG&A expenditures that were funded in substantial part by non‐operating revenues. As discussed above, we have found the cumulated volume of subject imports and the market share of those imports to have been significant over the period of investigation, but we have not found evidence of significant price underselling or price depression or suppression by the subject imports. 184 In conducting our impact analysis, we must consider whether any injury to the domestic industry is by reason of the subject imports and ensure that we do not to attribute injury from other factors to subject imports. A notable feature of the U.S. processors’ financial results is one we have observed with respect to those of the fishermen ‐‐ for every year net income was positive and exceeded operating income on both an absolute basis and as a share of net sales. This is due to the amount of “other income” reported, which ranged from a low of $21.4 million in 2010 to a high of $95.8 million in 2012. 185 While “other income” includes a variety of items, its most significant component appears to be settlement disbursements related to the BP Oil Spill, with a smaller share accounted for by CDSOA receipts. 186 The parties disagree regarding how the (…Continued) 179 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. Processors’ total net sales values were *** in interim 2013. Id. 180 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. As a share of net sales, COGS was *** in interim 2013. Id. 181 As noted above, excluding *** from the industry’s financial results would yield a *** COGS to sales ratio in 2012. CR at VI‐13, n.35; PR at VI‐7, n.35. 182 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. Processors’ operating income margin was *** in interim 2013. Id. 183 Capital expenditures increased from *** in 2012. They totaled *** in interim 2013. Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 184 Overall prices for domestic and imported product generally increased during the period of investigation. The domestic industry’s average unit values also increased each year from *** in 2012. Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 185 CR/PR at Table VI‐1. 186 CR at VI‐17 and VI‐18; PR at VI‐8 and VI‐9. U.S. processors reported the following amounts for BP Oil Spill compensation: $14.8 million in 2010, $22.6 million in 2011, $70.6 million in 2012, $22.4 million in interim 2012, and zero in interim 2013. CR at VI‐17, n.47; PR at VI‐9, n. 47. U.S. processors reported the following amounts for CDSOA receipts: $5.8 million in 2010, $17.7 million in 2011, $17.0 million in 2012, $716,000 in interim 2012, and $1.4 million in interim 2013. Id. 34 Commission should consider the settlement disbursements and CDSOA receipts in evaluating the industry’s financial results.187 We agree with the Commission staff’s classification, as set forth in the report, of such “other income” as non‐recurring items not included in operating income to distinguish it from the primary operations examined.188 We recognize, however, that a relatively large share of the total increase in 2012 SG&A expenses, from a funding perspective, was acknowledged by domestic producers to be related to the availability of BP Oil Spill compensation. 189 The parties also disagree regarding the treatment the Commission should give these high SG&A expenditures, which are related to the other income that has not been included in operating income.190 With the exception of 2012, U.S. processors’ SG&A expenses as a share of net sales moved within a relatively narrow range.191 The higher SG&A expenses in 2012 relative to 2011 ***.192 If the processors’ 2012 SG&A expenses are adjusted to remove certain company specific increases in large part related to BP Oil Spill compensation, the processors’ overall SG&A expense ratio would be *** in 2012. 193 Based on the foregoing reasons, we conclude that cumulated subject imports have not had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Thus, we conclude that while the domestic industry’s financial performance continued at a marginal level and declined at the end of the period of investigation, the domestic industry is not materially injured by reason of the subject imports. 187 Respondents contend that the compensation paid to the domestic industry because of the BP Oil Spill should be included in the industry’s operating income and that this income must be taken into account in discerning the industry’s condition. VASEP/SEAI’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐7; Importers’ Posthearing Brief at 1; Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 36‐47; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 27‐31. Petitioner responds that Respondents’ arguments that the industry’s CDSOA payments or any settlement payments related to the BP Oil Spill should be included in the industry’s operating income are contrary to the Commission’s consistent prior practice. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 11 and Response to Commissioner Aranoff Question 3. 188 CR at VI‐18 and VI‐19; PR at VI‐9 and VI‐10. 189 CR at VI‐13 – VI‐15, VI‐18, and VI‐19; PR at VI‐7 ‐ VI‐10. While classification as part of SG&A expenses is not incorrect from an accounting perspective, the item’s non‐recurring nature, as well as its acknowledged connection to the BP Oil Spill compensation, appear to be relevant when evaluating the industry’s reported financial results. The same statement would also generally apply to the other non‐ recurring items which impacted the industry’s financial results during the period of investigation. Id. 190 Respondents point to the abnormally high SG&A ratios for certain processors and argue that not recognizing that large portions of the industry’s SG&A expenditures were paid from the BP Oil Spill funds risks attributing to subject imports injury caused by the BP Oil Spill. See VASEP/SEAI’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐7. Petitioner claims that Respondents’ suggestions to discount the actual financial results experienced by the domestic industry so as to minimize the injury caused by subject imports are without merit. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 10 and Response to Commissioner Johanson Question 1. 191 As a share of net sales, the processors’ SG&A expenses were *** in interim 2013. Calculated from Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 192 CR at VI‐13 – VI‐15; PR at VI‐7 and VI‐8. 193 CR at VI‐15, n. 41; PR at VI‐8, n. 41. Without the adjustment, the processors’ SG&A expense ratio and operating loss ratio in 2012 were ***, respectively. Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 35 VII. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standard Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”194 The Commission may not make such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.195 In making our determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations. 196 194 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 195 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 196 These factors are as follows: (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, (VI) the potential for product‐shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, … (VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being imported at the time). 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). Statutory factor (VII) concerning agricultural products is inapplicable to this investigation. 36 B. Cumulation for Threat Under section 771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act, the Commission may “to the extent practicable” cumulatively assess the volume and price effects of subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed on the same day if the requirements for cumulation in the material injury context are satisfied.197 Petitioner urges the Commission to exercise its discretion to cumulate imports from all subject countries in assessing the threat of material injury.198 Respondents contend that imports from each country should be considered individually for purposes of assessing the threat of material injury.199 As discussed in section V above, the record indicates that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among the domestic like product and subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam, and we do not find any evidence indicating that this overlap will change in the future. We also considered whether subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam exhibited similar volume and price trends during the period of investigation that would justify exercising our discretion to cumulate these imports for our threat analysis. While there are some variations in the trends for the volume of subject imports from the five subject countries, we do not find that differences in these trends are meaningful in this context.200 Moreover, we find that while the price trends of these imports fluctuated and varied depending on the product, they generally increased overall and are sufficiently similar to support cumulation for our threat analysis. Accordingly, based on an evaluation of the relevant criteria as well as our analysis regarding cumulation in the context of assessing present material injury, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam for purposes of assessing threat of material injury. 197 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H). 198 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 63. 199 Hearing Tr. at 284‐285; Joint Respondents’ Answers to Commission Questions at A‐94. The Malaysian Respondent argues that the import and market share trends for subject imports from Malaysia differ from those of other subject countries and that on that basis, if those imports are not deemed to be negligible, they should not be cumulated with the other subject imports for the threat analysis. Malaysian Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 10. VASEP also maintains that all of the relevant data show that there are significant differences in trends for Vietnam that support the Commission exercising its discretion and not cumulating imports from Vietnam with those from the other subject countries for assessing the threat of material injury. VASEP’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐4. VASEP notes that Vietnam is the largest supplier of black tiger shrimp, which generally are larger and tend to sell for higher prices. Id. at 4. 200 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 37 C. Analysis Regarding Statutory Threat Factors201 We begin our threat analysis by recognizing that there were many positive trends in the domestic industry’s performance during the period of investigation, while its financial performance continued at a marginal level and declined at the end of the period of investigation. 202 However, as discussed above, we found that subject imports have not adversely affected the condition of the domestic industry. During the period of investigation, the domestic industry was able to increase its market share in a declining U.S. market and to increase prices overall for its frozen shrimp products.203 As apparent U.S. consumption declined in the U.S. market from 2011 to 2012, most importers and purchasers reported that demand outside the United States had increased. 204 At the same time, most importers (17 of 31) reported import supply constraints, due in large part to EMS, which has affected supply from China, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam in 2012 and 2013, with one importer reporting that Thailand’s production has fallen almost 50 percent.205 The evidence does not support finding that the EMS crisis will be resolved in the imminent future.206 Thus, the limitation on supplies of frozen shrimp from countries affected by EMS and the resultant increases already experienced in domestic shipments, market share, and prices likely will continue in the imminent future. We find that the increase in cumulated subject import volume and market share during the period of investigation does not indicate the likelihood of substantially increased imports that would be at the expense of the domestic industry. As detailed above, we have found that the increased volume of subject imports did not have significant adverse effects on the domestic industry during the period of investigation because the industry’s market share and U.S. shipments also increased in a declining U.S. market during the period. Both the subject imports’ and the domestic industry’s increases in market share were at the expense of the 201 In its final affirmative countervailing duty determinations on frozen shrimp, Commerce found the following number of programs to be countervailable: nine subsidy programs regarding China, five subsidy programs regarding Ecuador, seven subsidy programs regarding India, three subsidy programs regarding Malaysia, and 10 subsidy programs regarding Vietnam. 202 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 203 CR/PR at Table V‐10 and Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 204 CR/PR at Table II‐5; Hearing Tr. at 203 (“We are also concerned about rapidly growing demand in Asia, particularly in China, which is already hurting our ability to maintain adequate supply. Chinese demand is so strong and still growing, that Chinese buyers are importing unprecedented quantities of shrimp from other countries, like Ecuador and India….The added demand outside the U.S. coupled with declining imports has caused prices in the U.S. market to surge.”). 205 CR at II‐11; PR at II‐8; Hearing Tr. at 200 (Stern) (“importers face their own crisis because of EMS, which has spread rapidly throughout Asia since 2009. Thailand has suffered the most from EMS so far. Thai exports to the United States have fallen substantially, by over 50 percent as compared to two years ago. This has caused a real shortage in our supply.”). 206 CR at I‐12; PR at I‐9. 38 declining nonsubject imports. 207 There is no evidence on the record that these factors will change in the imminent future.208 We also find that excess capacity in China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam, although significant, does not indicate the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise. Responding subject foreign producers reported excess capacity of 1.26 billion pounds on a cumulated basis in 2012. 209 Notwithstanding their substantial excess capacity throughout the period of investigation, and an increase of capacity of 15.6 percent between 2010 and 2012,210 the responding subject producers did not increase their exports to the United States to levels sufficient to have significant adverse effects on the domestic industry. Moreover, responding subject producers project a further increase in their capacity of only 1.8 percent through 2014. 211 For these reasons, we do not find that the cumulated excess capacity of subject Chinese, Ecuadoran, Indian, Malaysian, and Vietnamese producers indicates a likelihood of significantly increased imports of subject merchandise. We recognize that responding Chinese, Ecuadoran, Indian, Malaysian, and Vietnamese producers maintained their focus on the U.S. market during the period of investigation. Exports to the United States as a share of subject producers’ total shipments were 38.3 percent in 2010, 37.2 percent in 2011, and 38.4 percent in 2012. 212 Notwithstanding their focus on the U.S. market, however, responding subject producers did not increase their exports to the United States to levels sufficient to have significant adverse effects on the domestic industry. We also find it unlikely that subject foreign producers will increase their focus on the U.S. market in the imminent future, given that their increased presence in the U.S. market was at the expense of nonsubject imports and that supply from several subject countries will be constrained because of EMS. In addition, healthy demand growth is projected in export markets other than the United States. 213 Indeed, during the period of investigation, other export markets accounted for an increasing majority of the share of shipments by these 207 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 208 Petitioner contends that the arranged imports reported for April 2013 to March 2014 indicate that subject imports are poised to increase significantly in the near future. Petitioner’s Final Comments at 13‐14. We note, however, that U.S. Importers’ reported total arranged subject imports for the year period after March 31, 2013 (April 2013‐March 2014) was 117.6 million pounds, which is only about 24.2 percent of the volume of subject imports in 2012. CR/PR at Table VII‐8. 209 CR/PR at Tables VII‐6. 210 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. Responding subject producers reported excess capacity of 1.07 billion pounds in 2010 and 1.08 billion pounds in 2011 on a cumulated basis. Id. Their reported rate of capacity utilization increased from 41.1 percent in 2010 to 44.8 percent in 2011, and then declined to 40.4 percent in 2012. Id. 211 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. Responding subject producers also project that their excess capacity will decline from 1.19 billion pounds in full year 2013 to 1.12 billion pounds in 2014, while their rate of capacity utilization will increase from 43.9 percent in 2013 to 47.8 percent in 2014. Id. 212 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. 213 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 203. 39 responding subject producers.214 Finally, we also recognize that there are outstanding U.S. antidumping duty orders on shrimp imported from China, India, and Vietnam, which will remain in effect at least for the imminent future and are likely to have a disclipining effect on the volume and prices of imports from these countries during that time.215 We further find that inventories of subject imports in the United States and in China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam do not indicate the likelihood of substantially increased subject imports. U.S. importers’ end‐of‐period inventories of cumulated subject imports increased as a ratio to subject imports from 7.5 percent in 2010 to 9.7 percent in 2011 and 9.9 percent in 2012. 216 This ratio, however, was lower in interim 2013 (3.6 percent) than in interim 2012 (3.8 percent).217 U.S. importers’ end‐of‐period inventories of cumulated subject imports in 2012 were equivalent to only *** of apparent U.S. consumption. 218 Only two foreign producers reported U.S. inventories, accounting for less than 0.5 percent of subject imports. 219 Responding subject producers reported that their end‐of‐period inventories fluctuated from year to year and increased slightly as a share of production but declined slightly as a share of total shipments between 2010 and 2012; both ratios were lower in interim 2013 compared with interim 2012. Inventories as a share of production increased from 15.9 percent in 2010 to 16.6 percent in 2011, and then declined to 16.3 percent in 2012. 220 They were 18.2 percent in interim 2013, down from 20.2 percent in interim 2012. 221 Inventories as a share of total shipments increased from 16.5 percent in 2010 to 17.2 percent in 2011, and then declined to 16.3 percent in 2012. 222 They were 16.8 percent in interim 2013, down from 19.3 percent in interim 2012. 223 The stable level of subject foreign producer end‐of‐ period inventories during the period of investigation, combined with the absence of evidence that subject foreign producers’ inventories will increase in the imminent future, does not indicate any imminent surge of subject imports into the U.S. market.224 225 214 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. Responding subject producers reported exports to other markets as a share of their total shipments were 51.5 percent in 2010, 54.0 percent in 2011, 54.8 percent in 2012, 55.1 percent in interim 2012 and 51.8 percent in interim 2013; reported projections of exports to other markets as a share of total shipments was 56.7 percent in 2013 and 56.4 percent in 2014. Id. 215 There are no known antidumping or countervailing duty findings or remedies on frozen shrimp (other than the antidumping duty orders in effect in the United States) in third country markets that would tend to increase subject imports. CR at VII‐13. 216 Calculated from Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 217 Calculated from Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 218 Calculated from Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 219 CR at VII‐12; PR at VII‐9. 220 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. 221 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. 222 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. 223 CR/PR at Table VII‐6. 224 Subject foreign producers’ end‐of‐period inventories are projected to be equivalent to 16.1/16.2 percent of production/total shipments in full year 2013 and 14.9/15.0 percent of production/ total shipments in 2014. CR/PR at Table VII‐6. 40 We also find that imports of the subject merchandise are not entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices or increase demand for further imports. As detailed above, we have found that, during the period of investigation, subject imports neither depressed nor suppressed domestic like product prices to a significant degree and that the mixed underselling by subject imports was not significant. Because we have found that there is not a likelihood of substantially increased imports, the lack of significant price effects observed during the period of investigation will likely continue in the imminent future. Moreover, the rising prices the domestic industry was able to charge during the period of investigation will likely continue in the imminent future, in light of increasing demand in other export markets, continued import supply constraints due to the EMS crisis, and the disciplining effects the current antidumping duty orders have on subject imports from China, India, and Vietnam.226 We further find that subject imports have had no significant actual or potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product. In fact, we note that the domestic industry’s capital expenditures increased substantially during the period of investigation and domestic producers made numerous investments to modernize and enhance their capacity.227 Subject import competition has not significantly impeded domestic producers from making necessary investments in their capacity and there is insufficient evidence that it will likely do so in the imminent future. We conclude that an industry in the United States is not threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports. VIII. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam that are subsidized. (…Continued) 225 The potential for product shifting is not an issue in this industry. Only 2 of 42 responding processors stated that they could switch production from frozen shrimp to other products. CR at II‐9; PR at II‐6. 226 CR at II‐11 and Table II‐5; Hearing Tr. at 201 (“With no solution for EMS in sight, world shrimp prices will escalate even further due to the shortages.”). 227 CR at VI‐19 and VI‐20, Table VI‐3 and Appendices E and F; PR at VI‐10, Table VI‐3 and Appendices E and F. 41 Dissenting Views of Chairman Irving A. Williamson Based on the record in these investigations, I determine that an industry in the United States producing frozen warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia and Vietnam that have been found by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized. I join sections I through VI.B.4 of the Commission’s Views and cumulate all subject imports. Volume of Subject Imports As discussed in the Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle section of the Commission’s Views, the domestic industry and certain of the subject countries’ industries faced supply challenges during the period of investigation. The BP (Gulf) oil spill affected the volume of shrimp available to domestic processors in 2010, and diseases impacted certain subject and nonsubject producers later in the period of investigation. Despite the challenges faced by certain subject countries, cumulated subject import volume was significant in absolute terms, and increased during the period of investigation. Subject imports totaled 415.2 million pounds in 2010, 462.3 million pounds in 2011, and 484.8 million pounds in 2012. 1 Overall, subject imports volume increased 16.8 percent between 2010 and 2012. 2 During the interim period, subject import volumes increased, from 99.3 million pounds imported in January‐March 2012 to 107.8 million pounds imported in January‐March 2013. 3 Subject imports also increased *** percentage points from 33.2 percent share of domestic consumption in 2010 to *** percent in 2012. 4 Similarly, the ratio of subject imports to U.S. shipments rose from 346.0 percent in 2010 to *** percent in 2012. 5 The increase in subject import volume during the period of investigation is particularly significant in light of conditions prevailing in the U.S. market during this period. Apparent U.S. consumption, on a volume basis, declined by *** percent over the period of investigation. 6 While the U.S. industry was able to make a small gain in market share, increasing from 9.6 percent in 2010 to *** percent in 2012, the subject imports captured a much larger share, from 33.2 percent in 2010 to *** percent in 2012. 7 In particular, when EMS struck the shrimp industries in several Asian countries, including subject producers in China, Malaysia, and nonsubject producers in Thailand (the largest producer and source for U.S. imports), the U.S. market experienced a sudden shortage of supply from the affected countries. The domestic industry reasonably expected to take advantage of this supply shortage to regain sales volumes and return to pre‐oil spill levels similar to those experienced in 2009. Instead, non‐EMS affected subject producers were able to quickly ramp up production and exports to 1 Supplemental Summary Table, EDIS Document Number 518620 (“Suppl. Summary”) at Table C‐2. 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 CR/PR at Table IV‐7. 6 CR/PR at Table IV‐5. 7 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 42 the U.S. market. Combined data for the five subject countries shows that capacity grew by 15.6 percent and production levels increased by 13.7 percent during the period of investigation, and that they took advantage of declining imports from EMS‐affected countries to increase their U.S. market presence in both absolute and relative terms.8 For the foregoing reasons, I find the volume of subject imports to be significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States. Price Effects of Subject Imports Price is one of the leading considerations in purchasing decisions in the frozen warmwater shrimp industry. As the Commission found in its preliminary determinations, domestic and subject imported frozen warmwater shrimp are at least moderate substitutes. As discussed in the Cumulation section of the Commission’s Views, domestic processors, importers of subject merchandise, and purchasers reported that domestic frozen shrimp and the subject imports are interchangeable at least to a certain degree, and comparable in nearly all factors addressed. While subject imports were rated more favorably than the domestic product in terms of reliability and availability of supply, responses showed a substantial number of purchasers rating the U.S. product as comparable to subject imports. 9 Prices are negotiated on a near daily basis, contributing to price sensitivity in the U.S market. Thus, while the U.S. and subject imported frozen shrimp show some level of differentiation, the market, particularly purchasers, treat subject imports and domestic product as substantially comparable. The Commission collected pricing data for seven products. Thirty‐four U.S. processors and 27 importers of product from subject countries provided usable data, which accounted for *** percent of U.S. shipments of U.S.‐produced products, 8.0 percent of shipments of imports from China, 14.2 percent for Ecuador, 41.8 percent for India, 15.4 percent for Malaysia, and 34.5 percent of shipments of imports from Vietnam during January 2010 through March 2013. 10 Results of the pricing data are quite mixed. Prices for the domestic like product and the subject imports fluctuated during the period of review, but increased irregularly for the majority of products for all countries with the exception of Vietnam.11 The subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 168 of 333 quarterly comparisons, or 50.5 percent of the time, with average margins of 18.8 percent.12 This level of underselling persisted despite certain of the subject imports being covered by antidumping duty orders and overall improvements in price trends during the period. Underselling allowed the subject imports to 8 CR/PR at Table VII‐10. 9 Table II‐12 showed that for availability, 32 purchasers reported the U.S. shrimp as comparable, 44 reported it as inferior, and 4 reported it as superior. For reliability of supply, results were 37 reporting the U.S. product as either comparable or inferior, and 4 reporting it as superior. 10 CR at V‐6‐V‐7; PR at V‐5. 11 CR at V‐7; PR at V‐5. 12 These data include Product 1, to which the Commission determined neither to give controlling weight or to discount in the previous antidumping duty investigations, as this category includes both deveined and undeveined product. CR/PR at Table V‐4. If product 1 were excluded, underselling by the subject imports predominated, by a larger margin, ***. 43 capture more of the market space vacated by EMS‐affected countries than what otherwise might have been expected. I find this underselling to be significant. The record also demonstrates that subject imports had a significant price suppressing effect. Despite price increases during the period of investigation, costs rose faster and domestic processors were not able to fully cover increases in cost of goods sold. Unit COGS rose by *** percent from *** to *** per pound during 2010‐12, while the unit value of net sales rose by only *** percent from *** to *** per pound. The COGS to sales ratio also rose, from *** percent in 2010 to *** percent in 2012. 13 I find that the substantial and increasing volume of subject imports has prevented price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. Impact of Subject Imports According to COGSI, while the domestic industry has seen some improvements since 2010, when the oil spill disrupted its operations, the domestic industry has not returned to its prior sales level or its prior market share because of the rising volumes and price impact of the subject imports. Although parties are divided as to how best to interpret the domestic industry’s financial results, the domestic industry clearly has not performed well during the period of investigation. The domestic industry is comprised of both fishermen and processors. The U.S. fishermen’s overall performance indicators show a downward trend during the period of investigation. Shrimp harvests increased from 9.2 million pounds in 2010 to 10.6 million pounds in 2011, but fell to 9.6 million pounds in 2012. The interim 2013 harvest data show 644 thousand pounds compared to 1.1 million pounds in interim 2012. Employment data followed a similar overall downward trend. Interim data show a nearly 50 percent decline. The number of days boats were at sea likewise declined over the period of investigation, from 19,108 in 2010 to 18, 201 in 2012; interim 2013 days were 2,434 compared to 3,404 in 2010. 14 Fishermen’s shipments by volume and value followed a similar trend – showing initial improvements in 2011 over 2010, but ultimately declining in 2012 and interim 2013. All interim 2013 indicators were below the comparable ones in interim 2012. U.S. shipments increased from 9.4 million pounds in 2010 to 10.9 million pounds in 2011, before falling to 9.7 million pounds in 2012; interim 2013 U.S. shipments were 686 million pounds compared to 1.1 million pounds shipped during interim 2012. The per pound value of shipments for U.S. fishermen improved from $3.63 in 2010 to $3.80 in 2011, before falling to $3.77 in 2012. Interim 2013 U.S. shipments were $4.13 per pound, below the $4.32 level reported for interim 2012. 15 Domestic processors’ performance and certain financial indicators generally improved over the period of investigation, although both remained lackluster. Production gains were strong, as could be expected as fishing and processing picked up once the Gulf was re‐opened to the industry in 2010 after the oil‐spill. Production improved by *** percent, from *** million 13 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 14 CR/PR at Table D‐3. 15 CR/PR at Table D‐2. 44 pounds in 2010 to *** million pounds in 2012. However, the interim 2013 production level fell *** percent, from *** million pounds in interim 2012 to *** million pounds in interim 2013. U.S. shipments initially gained in 2011, reaching *** million pounds from *** million pounds in 2010, before falling somewhat in 2012 to *** million pounds. 16 While the domestic industry showed overall production and shipment improvements as it recovered from depressed levels resulting from the 2010 oil spill, the fact that unsold inventories represented a large and increasing percentage of the volume of U.S. producers’ total shipments undercuts arguments that rising domestic production contributed to any overall improved performance of the domestic processors. Inventory quantities were *** million pounds in 2010 and *** million pounds in 2011, before increasing to *** million pounds in 2012, an increase of nearly *** percent over 2011. As a share of shipments, inventories grew from *** percent of shipments in 2010 and *** percent in 2011, to *** percent in 2012, an increase of *** percent over 2011, and growing at the same time that domestic shipments fell by *** percent.17 The domestic industry’s financial results were weak throughout the period. Net sales improved overall despite a drop in 2012 compared to 2011, from *** million pounds in 2010 to *** million pounds in 2011, an increase of *** percent, and *** million pounds in 2012, a drop of *** percent. The value of net sales initially increased consistent with the volume improvement, from $*** million in 2010 to $*** million in 2011, or by *** percent, before dropping to $*** million in 2012, or by *** percent. This suggests that value held up somewhat, falling by less than the decline in net shipment volume. However, unit costs continued to increase, by *** percent overall and by *** percent from 2011 to 2012, when most production and shipment indicators fell. The domestic industry showed a *** percent operating margin in 2010, *** in 2011 and *** in 2012. This, however, reflects the higher SG&A costs in that year. Nevertheless, even adjusting for these SG&A costs, as argued by Respondents, 18 as well as anomalous company‐specific COGS, the domestic industry still recorded only a very small operating profit in 2012, of *** percent.19 In sum, I find that the significant increases in the volume of the subject imports and the significant underselling of those imports during the period of investigation resulted in significant adverse price effects, and held down the domestic industry’s financial performance and thereby materially harmed the domestic industry. In conducting my impact analysis, I have also considered the role of other factors so as not to attribute injury from other factors to subject imports. I have considered the role of 16 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 17 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 18 VASEP/SEAI’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐7; Importers’ Posthearing Brief at 1; Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 36‐47; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 27‐31. 19 CR at VI‐12‐13, n.35 and VI‐15, n.41; PR at VI‐7, n.35 and VI‐8, n.41. With respect to the industry’s profitability, respondents argue the Commission should give weight to funds received from BP and accounted for as “other income.” Although I find that funds received from BP are properly excluded from operating income, I recognize that funds spent impacted SG&A expenses for the industry as a whole, as some companies applied these funds to pay compensation and other costs incurred prior to the period of investigation. Nevertheless, even adjusting oil spill compensation as argued by respondents does not change the fact that the domestic industry was only marginally profitable at best during the investigation period. 45 nonsubject imports, including any role that may be played by now‐nonsubject imports from Thailand, the largest single supplier to the U.S, market. Nonsubject import share declined sharply over the period of investigation, largely due to the impact of EMS on certain Asian suppliers. Nonsubject imports fell from 57.2 percent of the market in 2010 to *** percent in 2012. Thailand accounted for the largest decline, 10.8 percentage points, compared to a 8.8 percentage point drop overall for nonsubject product. Although the domestic industry has argued that the Thai industry and others will recover, data on the record suggest that while producers of the subject product in Vietnam may be experiencing some recovery, producers in Thailand have not yet increased export volumes and, instead their exports remain at levels well below those early in the period of investigation. 20 Natural and manmade disasters such as the oil spill and hurricanes that affected the domestic industry’s performance during the period of investigation are commonplace for this industry. I note that the Commission’s analysis requires that I take the industry as I find it. 21 The domestic industry’s supply was affected by the oil spill during 2010, but began to improve to pre‐spill levels in 2011. Subject imports gained U.S. market share throughout 2011 and 2012 however, with the most significant increase occurring in 2012, when the domestic industry showed its weakest performance of the period.22 Consequently, I find that the cumulated subject imports have had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry producing frozen warmwater shrimp. For the foregoing reasons, I determine that the domestic industry producing frozen warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of cumulated subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia and Vietnam. 20 CR at I‐11 and 12; PR at I‐9; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 18‐19; Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 5‐7; Hearing Tr. At 43‐44 and 189. 21 See Iwatsu Electric Co. v. United States, 758 F. Supp. 1506, 1512, 1518 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1991.) 22 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 47 Dissenting Views of Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff Based on the record in these investigations, I determine that an industry in the United States producing frozen warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia and Vietnam that have been found by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized. I join my colleagues’ findings with respect to domestic like product, domestic industry, negligibility, cumulation, legal standards and conditions of competition. Background Parties to the Investigation. The petitions in these investigations were filed on December 28, 2012 by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (“CGSI” or “Petitioner”), a trade association whose members are processors of frozen shrimp in the United States. Representatives of Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by counsel, and Petitioner submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs. A second domestic producer group, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Industry Committee (“AHSIC”), consists of several hundred businesses operating within the U.S. domestic shrimp industry, the great majority of which are shrimp fishermen. AHSIC takes no position on the petitions but filed prehearing and posthearing briefs to submit comments regarding the analysis and appropriate definitions of the domestic like product and domestic industry.1 Several respondent groups participated in the final phase of these investigations. Four respondent groups, representing interested parties from three of the five subject countries, submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs and participated in the hearing. These Respondents consist of (1) Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Inc. (“Guolian”), a producer and exporter of subject shrimp from China (“Chinese Respondent”); (2) Seafood Exports Association of India (“SEAI”), an association of foreign manufacturers and exporters of subject merchandise from India (“Indian Respondent”); (3) Vietnamese Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (“VASEP”), an association of foreign manufacturers and exporters of subject shrimp from Vietnam (“Vietnamese Respondent”);2 (4) a group of seven U.S. importers of subject merchandise (Eastern Fish Company, Mazzetta Company, Ore‐Cal Corporation, Seafood Exchange of Florida, Sea Port Products Corporation, Stavis Seafoods, and Tri‐Union Frozen Products) (collectively, “Importers”). Another respondent group consisting of manufacturers and exporters of subject shrimp from Malaysia (Aquatech Venture Sdn Bhd, HK Food (M) Sdn Bhd, Kian Huat Fishery Sdn Bhd, Ocean Famous Sdn Bhd, Ocean Pioneer Food Sdn Bhd, Sanjune Sdn Bhd, Sunlight Seafood Sdn BHD, and TM Foods Sdn BHD) (collectively, “Malaysian Respondents”) submitted a posthearing brief. Data Coverage. In these investigations, U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of 40 U.S. processors of frozen shrimp, accounting for *** percent of 1 AHSIC’s Posthearing Brief at 1. 2 SEAI and VASEP jointly submitted a prehearing and posthearing brief; VASEP also submitted a separate posthearing brief. 48 U.S. production of frozen shrimp in 2012. 3 U.S. import data are based on official Commerce import statistics and on questionnaire responses from 31 U.S. importers, accounting for 40.7 percent of total subject imports. 4 The Commission received responses to its questionnaires from 70 foreign producers of subject merchandise.5 Domestic Like Product In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”6 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.” 7 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation.” 8 The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product in an investigation is a factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case‐by‐case basis. 9 No single factor is 3 Confidential Staff Report, Memorandum INV‐LL‐071 (Sept. 6, 2013) (“CR”) at III‐1 and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III‐1. U.S. production is based on live (head‐on shell‐on) weight. The Commission received questionnaire responses from 48 U.S. processors, 40 of which provided usable quantitative data. 4 CR/PR at IV‐1. The U.S. importers also account for 78.1 percent of subject imports from China, 36.9 percent of subject imports from Ecuador, 31.1 percent of subject imports from India, 33.6 percent of subject imports from Malaysia, and 45.3 percent of subject imports from Vietnam between 2010 and 2012. Id. 5 CR/PR at VII‐3. The foreign producer questionnaires are from five producers/exporters in China, accounting for approximately *** of subject imports from China as reported in official Commerce statistics in 2012; nine producers/exporters in Ecuador, accounting for approximately 60.8 percent of subject imports from Ecuador in 2012; 28 producers/exporters in India, accounting for approximately 79.0 percent of subject imports from India in 2012; two producers/exporters in Malaysia, accounting for approximately *** of subject imports from Malaysia in 2012; and 26 producers/exporters in Vietnam, accounting for approximately 89.0 percent of subject imports from Vietnam in 2012. CR at VII‐3‐4, VII‐7, and VII‐9; PR at VII‐3 and VII‐5. 6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 9 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors, including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). In a semi‐finished products analysis, the Commission examines the following: (1) the significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the downstream articles; (2) whether the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses; (3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4) whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; and (5) differences in the costs or 49 dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation. 10 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations. 11 Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,12 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified. 13 Product Description Commerce defined the scope of the imported merchandise under investigation as follows: [c]ertain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild‐caught (ocean harvested) or farm‐raised (produced by aquaculture), head‐on or head‐off, shell‐on or peeled, tail‐ on or tail‐off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild‐caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink value of the vertically differentiated articles. See, e.g., Glycine from India, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐ 1111‐1113 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3921 at 7 (May 2007); Artists' Canvas from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1091 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 3853 at 6 (May 2006); Live Swine from Canada, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1076 (Final), US1TC Pub. 3766 at 8 n.40 (Apr. 2005); Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1012 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3533 at 7 (Aug. 2002). 10 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (1979). 11 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐49; see also S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”). 12 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 13 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations in which Commerce found five classes or kinds). 50 shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell‐ on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain “battered shrimp” (see below). “Battered shrimp” is a shrimp‐based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed‐from‐frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the nonshrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (“IQF”) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par‐fried.14 The scope of investigation is identical to the scope in the preliminary phase of these investigations 15 and virtually identical to that in the prior investigations and reviews regarding frozen warmwater shrimp.16 At the request of Petitioner, Commerce clarified in its final scope ruling that the scope language in these investigations refers simply to “frozen shrimp” without reference or 14 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. 50391, 50392 (Appendix I)(Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 19, 2013) (footnotes omitted). Commerce’s scope of investigation in the China CVD determination is identical to the scope of investigations in the CVD determinations regarding Ecuador (78 Fed. Reg. 50389), India (78 Fed. Reg. 50385), Malaysia (78 Fed. Reg. 50381), and Vietnam (78 Fed. Reg. 50387). 15 CR at I‐9, n.16. 16 Specifically, the scope in these investigations is substantively the same as that in the most recent five‐year reviews, with the exception that one scope exclusion in the five‐year reviews (for a product called Lee Kum Kee shrimp sauce) is not repeated in the current scope definition. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063, 1064, 1066‐1068 (Review), USITC Pub. 4221 at 5 (March 2011) (“2011 Review Determinations”). “Dusted shrimp,” which is included in the scope in these investigations and also was included in the scope of the five‐year reviews, was not within the scope of the Commission’s original antidumping duty investigations. Further, canned shrimp was within the scope in the original investigations, but the Commission defined it as a separate domestic like product and made negative or negligible import determinations for canned shrimp from all countries subject to the original investigations. See Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Final), USITC Pub. 3748 at 4‐5 and 8‐11 (Jan. 2005) (“Antidumping Duty Final Determination”). 51 limitation to any specific method of freezing or any stage of processing at which the freezing must occur.17 Commerce stated that “the plain language of the scope indicates that these investigations cover frozen shrimp, including frozen shrimp that may have undergone some processing in the form of head, shell, tail, and/or vein removal. Thus, I determine that the scope language itself did not provide a basis for finding brine‐frozen shrimp to be outside the scope.” 18 As noted above, the Commission has previously conducted antidumping duty investigations and reviews of frozen shrimp. In the 2004 antidumping duty investigations on warmwater shrimp, the Commission determined, as proposed by the domestic producers in those investigations, that the domestic like product should be defined to include fresh warmwater shrimp, an item excluded from the scope. Using the “semifinished products” like product analysis, the Commission found that fresh shrimp should be included in the domestic like product because fresh shrimp was overwhelmingly used as an input in the production of the frozen product, the shrimp was overwhelmingly sold in a processed form, and the initial stages of processing did not significantly change the physical characteristics and uses of the product and appeared to add at most moderate value to the product. 19 Consequently, the domestic like product on which the Commission reached affirmative determinations in the antidumping duty investigations and subsequent five‐year reviews consisted of both fresh warmwater shrimp and the frozen warmwater shrimp products described in the scope. 20 Arguments of the Parties Prior to Commerce’s final scope ruling, Petitioner proposed defining the domestic like product as certain frozen warmwater shrimp produced in the United States and not including fresh shrimp and brine‐frozen shrimp in the domestic like product. 21 Petitioner did not address the domestic like product issue after Commerce’s final ruling on the scope clarification. Domestic interested party AHSIC, comprised primarily of shrimp fishermen, contends that the Commission should define the domestic like product to encompass both fresh warmwater 17 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, Socialist Republic of Vietnam – Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine‐Frozen Shrimp, at 6 (Aug. 12, 2013) (“Final Scope Ruling”). 18 Final Scope Ruling at 6. Commerce added that “the best reading of the scope language as presented to the Department in the petitions and on which the Department initiated these investigations is that it includes brine‐ frozen shrimp because they are frozen shrimp.” Id. at 7. Commerce also noted that “the products that are the subject of the CVD petitions are the same as those covered by the antidumping duty orders.” Id. 19 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3672 at 14‐15 (Feb. 2004) (“2004 Preliminary Determinations”); Antidumping Duty Final Determination, USITC Pub. 3748 at 6 (Jan. 2005). 20 See generally 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at 6. 21 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4‐5, and Exhibit 2; Hearing Tr. at 43‐44, and 98. Petitioner had made similar arguments in the preliminary phase of these investigations, acknowledging that its request was not based on a change in the facts traditionally examined in the domestic like product analysis. Conference Tr. at 66. Despite the fact that the scope was virtually identical to prior investigations and reviews, Petitioner indicated that it “never intended to include onboard brine‐frozen shrimp within the scope of investigation” and that it had requested a clarification of the scope by Commerce. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4‐5. 52 shrimp and those frozen articles described in the scope definition. 22 It maintains that the record of these reviews does not provide any basis to “diverge from the Commission’s established definition of the domestic like product and domestic industry in these investigations.” 23 Respondents also argue that the domestic like product should include fresh warmwater shrimp as it has in the prior investigations and reviews.24 Domestic Like Product Analysis I find a single domestic like product, encompassing both fresh warmwater shrimp and the frozen warmwater shrimp described in the scope of the investigations. As previously discussed, Commerce has clarified that the scope of the investigations includes onboard brine‐ frozen shrimp in addition to frozen further processed shrimp, 25 consistent with the Commission’s view in defining the domestic like product in the preliminary determinations. In the preliminary determinations, the Commission also considered whether to include fresh warmwater shrimp in the definition of the domestic like product, as it did in prior Commission proceedings concerning this product.26 Because fresh and processed frozen shrimp are products at different stages of the same production process, the Commission concluded that use of the “semifinished product” like product analysis was appropriate. The Commission found that the vast majority of fresh warmwater shrimp is dedicated for further processing into frozen shrimp; the initial stages of processing do not significantly change the physical characteristics and uses of the product and appear to add at most moderate value to the product; the basic processing needed to transform fresh shrimp to processed shrimp – freezing and deheading – can be and is performed directly on the vessel; and there are separate markets for harvested (whether fresh or brine‐frozen) shrimp and processed warmwater shrimp in the sense that vessels sell their catch to a dock house or processor, while processors sell shrimp to end users and distributors. However, fresh shrimp and shrimp frozen on the vessel are both sold at the dock.27 The record in the final phase of these investigations does not indicate that there have been any changes in the product characteristics of either fresh or frozen warmwater shrimp since the preliminary phase of the investigations to warrant defining the domestic like product differently.28 Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in the preliminary determinations, I 22 AHSIC’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐15. 23 AHSIC’s Posthearing Brief at 2. 24 Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 4; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 4‐6. 25 Final Scope Ruling at 6. Offshore shrimping vessels brine‐freeze shrimp on board the boat to temporarily preserve the shrimp while the boats are fishing. This permits the boats to make longer offshore trips, perhaps lasting as long as several weeks. Inshore shrimp boats place shrimp on ice or in ice slush in vats during their shorter voyages, so the shrimp arriving at the dock is fresh, i.e., never frozen. Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐491‐497 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4380 at 8 (Feb. 2013) (“Preliminary CVD Determinations”). 26 Preliminary CVD Determinations, USITC Pub. 4380 at 8‐11. 27 Preliminary CVD Determinations, USITC Pub. 4380 at 10. Some of the shrimp sold at the dock is in fresh form (not in scope) and some has already been brine‐frozen (included in the scope). See, e.g., id. at 9. 28 CR at I‐10‐19; PR at I‐8‐14. Moreover, the domestic like product arguments Petitioner asserted in its prehearing brief were premised on an analysis of the scope that Commerce concluded were incorrect. 53 include fresh shrimp in the definition of the domestic like product, whether frozen on board a vessel or further processed suitable for commercial use or sale. In light of these factors, I define a single domestic like product encompassing both fresh warmwater shrimp and the frozen warmwater shrimp described in the scope definition. Domestic Industry The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.” 29 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry all domestic producers of the domestic like product, whether toll‐produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.30 I must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act. This provision allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.31 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation. 32 29 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 30 In the prior antidumping duty investigations and reviews, the Commission found that processing activities such as deheading, grading, machine peeling, deveining, and cooking were all sufficient activities to constitute domestic production because these operations typically each required specialized equipment and added more value to the process than any preceding stage. By contrast, the Commission found that marinating and skewering do not constitute domestic production because they involved no specialized equipment and added relatively modest value to the processed shrimp product. Finally, the Commission found that breading could not constitute domestic production activity because breaded shrimp was not part of the domestic like product in the prior antidumping duty investigations and reviews. Antidumping Duty Final Determinations, USITC Pub. 3748 at 12‐13; 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at 8‐9. In the preliminary determinations, the Commission found that the record did not indicate any change in the nature of shrimp processing since the time of the antidumping duty investigations and reviews, and thus made the same findings as it did in the prior proceedings concerning what shrimp processing activities constitute domestic production. Preliminary CVD Determinations, USITC Pub. 4380 at 11, n.45. The record in the final phase investigations provides no indication of a change in the nature of these processing activities. CR at I‐15‐I‐17. Moreover, the parties have not addressed the issue. Thus, I make the same findings that I did in the preliminary determinations concerning the shrimp processing activities that constitute domestic production. Based on these findings, I find that each processor that submitted a response to the domestic producers’ questionnaire engages in sufficient production‐related activities to be considered a domestic producer. 31 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331‐32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 32 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and 54 One U.S. processor, Tampa Bay Fisheries, imported frozen shrimp directly from subject countries during the period of investigation. 33 As such, it is a related party as defined by the statute.34 I find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Tampa Bay Fisheries from the domestic industry.35 Tampa Bay Fisheries accounted for only *** of the domestic industry’s production in 2012, a decline from *** in 2011 and *** in 2010.36 Its imports of subject merchandise were relatively *** as a share of its domestic production during the period of investigation. Tampa Bay Fisheries’ domestic production *** in 2012. 37 Its imports of subject merchandise, which were primarily from ***, *** in 2012.38 Its annual ratios of subject imports to production *** in 2012. 39 Tampa Bay Fisheries stated at the staff conference that the domestic suppliers cannot provide the amount of shrimp that it needs nor generally supply the peeled shrimp which its customers require.40 Tampa Bay Fisheries *** the petitions. 41 In view of the foregoing, specifically its *** U.S. production and *** ratio of subject imports to production, which indicate its principal interest lies in importation, I find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Tampa Bay Fisheries from the domestic industry as a related party. (3) the position of the related producer vis‐a‐vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g., Torrington Co. v United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168. 33 CR at III‐9 and Table III‐9; PR at III‐8 and Table III‐9. 34 Fifteen other U.S. processors did not import subject merchandise directly, but did purchase such merchandise. CR/PR at Table III‐9. The Commission has previously concluded that a purchaser may be treated as a related party if it controls large volumes of subject imports. The Commission has found such control to exist when the domestic producer was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases and these purchases were substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐891 (Final), USITC Pub. 3449 at 8‐9 (Sept. 2001). Most of the processors that purchased subject merchandise did so in small amounts. Although in the U.S. market total annual imports from subject sources were at least 415 million pounds during each year of the period of review, CR/PR at Table IV‐3, only two of these 15 processors purchased as many as one million pounds of imports in a calendar year. *** purchased *** in 2011 and 2012. CR/PR at Table III‐9. *** purchased *** in 2010, but only *** in 2011 and *** in 2012. CR/PR at Table III‐9. U.S processors generally reported purchasing frozen shrimp to supplement their inventory, given the seasonality of the shrimp harvest, or due to customer requests or the Gulf oil spill. CR/PR at Table III‐9, Note; Hearing Tr. at 139. The record consequently indicates that *** and the other 13 processors do not control large volumes of subject imports. Accordingly, I find that none of the processors that purchased subject merchandise warrants treatment as a related party. 35 No party has addressed the related parties issue. 36 CR/PR at Table III‐2 and calculated from Tables III‐4 and III‐9. 37 CR/PR at Table III‐9. 38 CR/PR at Tables III‐9 and IV‐1. Tampa Bay Fisheries also purchased substantial volumes of subject imports throughout the period: *** in interim 2013. CR/PR at Table III‐9. Its purchases in full year 2012 represented about *** of total subject imports in that year. CR/PR at Tables III‐9 and IV‐3. Tampa Bay Fisheries also is related to U.S. importer Red Chamber, which accounted for about *** of total subject imports in 2012. CR/PR at Tables IV‐1 and IV‐2. 39 CR/PR at Table III‐9. 40 CR/PR at Table III‐9, Note, and Conf. Tr. at 115‐116. Tampa Bay Fisheries did not report its reasons for importing or purchasing subject imports in its questionnaire response. 41 CR/PR at Table III‐2. 55 Accordingly, in light of the definition of the domestic like product and the foregoing analysis, I define a single domestic industry encompassing all warmwater shrimp fishermen and processors of warmwater shrimp, except for Tampa Bay Fisheries.42 Negligible Imports Section 771(24) of the Tariff Act, which defines “negligibility,” provides that imports from a subject country that are less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12‐month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or self‐initiation, as the case may be, shall be deemed negligible.43 The statute further provides that subject imports from a single country which comprise less than 3 percent of total such imports of the product may not be considered negligible if there are several countries subject to investigation with negligible imports and the sum of such imports from all those countries collectively accounts for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States.44 In the case of countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries (as designated by the United States Trade Representative), the statute indicates that the negligibility limits are 4 percent and 9 percent, rather than 3 percent and 7 percent. Ecuador and Malaysia have been designated as developing countries, and India has been designated as a least developed country by the U.S. Trade Representative and thus are subject to the 4 percent and 9 percent negligibility limits. 45 Based on official import statistics, market shares for subject imports exceed the requisite 3 percent or 4 percent statutory negligibility threshold. 46 For the 12‐month period from December 2011 to November 2012, imports from China and Vietnam (governed by the 3 percent standard) accounted for 3.2 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively, of total imports of frozen shrimp, as measured by quantity.47 For the 12‐month period from December 2011 to November 2012, imports from Ecuador, India, and Malaysia (governed by the 4 percent standard) accounted for 15.7 percent, 13.2 percent, and 4.4 percent, respectively, of total imports of frozen shrimp, as measured by quantity. 48 49 42 While there is limited U.S. farm production and no U.S. shrimp farming entities responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, U.S. shrimp farm producers would also be included in the domestic industry. Farm‐raised shrimp production accounted for about *** of domestic production in 2012. CR at I‐12, n.25; PR at I‐9, n.25. U.S. shrimp aquaculture is constrained by the cost of coastal land and environmental and water quality regulations, among other factors. Id. and Hearing Tr. at 174. 43 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(i). 44 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii). 45 15 C.F.R. § 2013.1 (regarding negligible import standards for definition of “Developing Country” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)(A) and definition of “Least Developed Country” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)(B)). 46 CR/PR at Table IV‐4. 47 CR/PR at Table IV‐4. 48 CR/PR at Table IV‐4. 49 The Malaysian Respondents contend that subject imports from Malaysia should be considered negligible because such imports have been at or near the negligibility level during the period of investigation. Whether imports from a particular subject country are “near” the negligibility standard during a three‐year period of investigation is not the statutory standard. Instead, the statutory standard concerns whether imports are below a specific threshold during a specific 12‐month period. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(i). The Malaysian Respondents do 56 The Chinese Respondent raises a number of arguments regarding the appropriate data that the Commission should use to calculate the negligibility levels.50 It contends that use of the official Commerce statistics for the most recent 12‐month period that precedes the filing of the petition to calculate negligibility levels for imports from China would not be accurate because such data include imports of nonsubject merchandise.51 While the official import statistics include certain “basket” classifications which may include nonsubject merchandise, the arguments raised by the Chinese Respondent, with one exception, rely on data that I believe are less reliable than the official import statistics.52 The one argument that warrants further consideration is premised on the fact that data from ***.53 When the data for *** for the December 2011‐November 2012 period.54 Thus, in addition to the unadjusted official Commerce statistics, I have considered the negligibility levels for China with the adjustment made to *** subject merchandise to the United States. I consequently conclude that subject imports from all five countries are not negligible. Cumulation For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of material injury by reason of subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act requires the Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed and/or investigations self‐initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market.55 In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission generally has considered four factors: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from different countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality related questions; not dispute the data indicating that for the most recent 12‐month period preceding the filing of the petition, subject imports from Malaysia exceed 4 percent of total imports. Malaysian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 2‐4. 50 Similar to the Malaysian Respondents, the Chinese Respondent also suggests calculating the negligibility levels for 12‐month periods that are not consistent with the 12‐month timeframe set forth in the statute. Because these arguments are contrary to the statute, I do not discuss them further. See Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 7. 51 Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 2‐6. 52 The Chinese Respondent also proposes use of foreign producer questionnaire responses plus Customs Net Import File (“CNIF”) data for certain nonresponding exporters to calculate the Chinese negligibility level. Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 7 and 8. This approach is not only contrary to the Chinese Respondent’s argument that CNIF data are not correct but also would combine questionnaire data from responding exporters with CNIF data for a “cherry‐picked” nonresponding exporter but not for other nonresponding exporters. Given that questionnaire coverage is incomplete, I find Commerce statistics to be more reliable than Commission questionnaire responses for calculating negligibility. CR at IV‐8, n.8 . 53 Chinese Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 5. 54 CR at IV‐8, n.8. 55 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i). 57 (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.56 While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.57 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.58 Petitioner contends that each of the four reasonable overlap factors supports cumulation of imports from the five countries in these investigations. 59 Respondents do not address the issue of cumulation for purposes of the present material injury analysis. The threshold requirement for cumulation is satisfied because Petitioner filed the countervailing duty petitions with respect to all subject countries on the same day, December 28, 2012. In addition, none of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies. As discussed below, I find a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from all five countries and between subject imports from each source and the domestic like product. Fungibility. The record in these investigations indicates that there is a moderate degree of substitutability between U.S.‐produced frozen shrimp and that imported from subject countries.60 Most purchasers also reported that the U.S. product and subject imports “always” 56 See Certain Cast‐Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐278‐280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 57 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 58 The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” H.R. Rep. No. 103‐316, Vol. I at 848 (1994) (citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. at 902; see Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”). 59 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 2. 60 CR at II‐19. Most responding domestic processors reported that subject imports from all subject countries are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product. CR/PR at Table II‐13. While most responding importers reported that subject imports are “sometimes” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product, there also were a number of importers reporting that the subject imports and U.S. product were “never” interchangeable. Id. Importers reported that factors limiting interchangeability include differences in customer preferences, wild‐caught and farm‐raised shrimp, quality, geography, and species. Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 20‐23. While most purchasers reported that subject imports are “always,” “frequently,” or “sometimes” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product, there also were a number of purchasers reporting that the subject imports and U.S. product were “never” interchangeable. CR/PR at Table II‐13. 58 or “usually” meet minimum quality specifications, 61 and most purchasers reported that the U.S. product and shrimp from subject sources were comparable in product and shipment consistency, minimum quantity requirements, freshness, taste/flavor profile, and their ability to meet purchasers’ quality standards.62 Channels of Distribution. Both the domestic like product and the subject imports are sold to distributors, end users, and/or retail/institutional customers such as grocers and restaurants. The majority of both domestically produced product and subject imports in 2012 was sold to distributors, although the share to distributors and retail/institutional customers has differed among the subject countries and has fluctuated annually.63 Geographic Overlap. Both U.S. producers and importers reported selling frozen shrimp to all regions in the contiguous United States.64 Thus, frozen shrimp from all sources served a nationwide market during the period of investigation. Simultaneous Presence in Market. Subject imports from all five countries entered the United States in every month of the period of investigation. 65 Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, I cumulate subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam for purposes of my analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, I find that an industry in the United States is not materially injured by reason of imports of frozen shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam that Commerce has found to be subsidized. Legal Standards In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation. 66 In making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations. 67 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” 68 In 61 CR/PR at Table II‐14. 62 CR/PR at Table II‐12. 63 CR/PR at Table II‐1. 64 CR at II‐4 and Table II‐2. 65 CR at IV‐9: PR at IV‐8. 66 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 67 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). 68 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 59 assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, I consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.69 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 70 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports, 71 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.72 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.73 In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material injury threshold. 74 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate 69 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 70 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 71 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a). 72 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484‐85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 73 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 74 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less‐than‐fair‐value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877. 60 the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports. 75 Nor does the “by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.76 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination. 77 Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission “ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” 78 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.” 79 The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of price‐competitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price‐competitive nonsubject imports. 80 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific additional test in subsequent cases, 75 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n, 266 F.3d at 1345 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright‐line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100‐ 01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 76 S. Rep. 96‐249 at 74‐75; H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47. 77 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material‐injury determination under the statute requires no more than a substantial‐factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of injury.”). 78 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877‐78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75. 79 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”). 80 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875‐79. 61 including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation. Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports. 81 Accordingly, I do not consider that it is required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions subsequent to Bratsk. The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving commodity products where price‐competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S. market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to non‐attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis. 82 The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence standard.83 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.84 Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle The following conditions of competition inform my analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports. Demand Considerations Frozen shrimp continues to be used principally in meal preparations. Demand for the product comes primarily from retail sellers of both prepared and unprepared warmwater 81 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875‐79 & n.2 (recognizing the Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non‐attribution analysis). 82 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports. 83 I provide in my respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 84 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357; S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”). 62 shrimp, such as grocers and restaurants. 85 86 During the period of investigation, U.S. consumption of shrimp per capita was consistent from year to year, at about 4.0 pounds. 87 There is some seasonality in U.S. demand for shrimp, which typically is higher around the Easter, Christmas and New Year’s holidays. 88 Apparent U.S. consumption of frozen shrimp fluctuated within a relatively narrow range during the period of investigation. Apparent U.S. consumption was 1.25 billion pounds in 2010, increased to 1.30 billion pounds in 2011, and declined to *** in 2012. 89 These levels of apparent U.S. consumption are consistent with historical levels in prior investigations and reviews.90 91 Domestic processors’ perceptions of whether U.S. demand changed during the period of investigation differed from those of U.S. importers and purchasers. 92 Firms reported the following reasons for why the demand for frozen shrimp declined: the recession, more price sensitive customers, imports, the BP Oil Spill, increased prices, reduced quality, and availability. Firms that reported an increase in demand stated that this trend was driven by the reported health benefits of eating seafood/shrimp (a low‐fat food), more eating out, the popularity of shrimp, promotion of seafood, price increases for competing meats, stable supply, high quality, 85 CR at II‐15. Petitioner reports that the food service industry purchases the majority of frozen shrimp in the United States and that larger shrimp are used as a “center‐of‐the‐plate item,” accounting for the largest portion of the cost of the meal. CR at II‐15 and II‐16; PR at II‐11. In the prior antidumping duty investigations, it was estimated that 80 percent of shrimp in the U.S. market is bought by restaurants. CR at I‐13; PR at I‐10. In recent years, larger restaurant chains and U.S. seafood processors (i.e., breaders, skewers, and marinaters) have demanded frozen shrimp in larger quantities, with year‐round availability, standardized sizes, and lower prices. CR at II‐15. 86 The market tendency is for large shrimp (less than 36 per pound, heads‐off, shell‐on basis) to be sold raw and frozen to restaurants, hotels, and other food institutions; for small to medium shrimp (36‐60 per pound) to be breaded, canned or sold at retail (e.g., supermarkets); and for extra small (61 to 70 per pound) and tiny shrimp (more than 70 per pound) to be used by canners, dryers, and producers of specialty products. CR at I‐13; PR at I‐ 10. 87 CR at I‐13; PR at I‐10. 88 CR at II‐15. 89 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** million pounds during January‐March 2012. Id. Because NOAA Fisheries Service data on domestic shipments (wild catch landings from the Gulf region) are not yet available for March 2013, apparent U.S. consumption and market share for interim 2013 were not available. See CR/PR at Tables IV‐5 and IV‐6. By contrast, interim period data collected in the Commission questionnaires are reported on a January‐March basis for both 2012 and 2013. 90 See 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at Table I‐15; Antidumping Duty Final Determinations, USITC Pub. 3748 at Table IV‐4; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 8. 91 Petitioner requests that the Commission include 2009 in its period of investigation due to supply disruption caused by the April 20, 2010 “Deepwater Horizon” incident in the Gulf of Mexico (“BP Oil Spill”) and the substantial decrease in landings that it caused. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 5; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 10‐14. As discussed below, while I have looked at the 2010 data in light of the BP oil spill, I also note that landings historically have fluctuated from year to year and in some prior years have been at levels somewhat comparable to 2010. See 2011 Antidumping Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at Table I‐15; Antidumping Duty Final Determinations, USITC Pub. 3748 at Table IV‐4. 92 Most processors reported decreases in demand while most importers and purchasers reported increases or no change in demand. CR/PR at Table II‐5; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 14‐15; Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 9; see also VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 7. 63 consistent specifications, improving economy, increasing market share, and increased offers of U.S. product and shortage of large sized imports.93 Supply Considerations Domestically produced shrimp is overwhelmingly wild caught (ocean harvested).94 Harvesting takes place in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic Coast from the Carolinas to Florida.95 In the United States, the main fishing season is from May to December, with different times of the year being better for different species and sizes of shrimp.96 During the off season (roughly January through April), some fishermen make repairs and upgrades, and U.S. processors make sales from inventory. Historically, prices have been higher when the supply of both fresh and frozen shrimp is lower, such as in the off season. 97 Phenomena that affect the waters in which shrimp is harvested and in the coastal areas where fishing boats are docked and processing plants are located will also affect the supply of the domestic like product. Processors reported that hurricanes and other weather‐related problems, pollution‐ caused diseases, and “black gill” disease affected the shrimp harvest and consequently the supply of frozen shrimp.98 Additionally, areas in the Gulf were closed to fishing for various periods of time in 2010 because of the BP Oil Spill; most U.S. processors said the BP Oil Spill both reduced supply and undermined demand, while British Petroleum (“BP”)’s willingness to pay for losses and its hiring of boats for the clean‐up effort reduced the number of boats engaged in shrimping. 99 Respondents argue that the supply of U.S. shrimp is finite and the processors depend on biological factors (e.g., how many shrimp can be harvested from the Gulf and southern Atlantic coast) for their livelihood. 100 During the period of investigation, the domestic industry supplied 93 CR at II‐16 and II‐17. 94 CR at I‐12 and II‐1; PR at I‐9 and II‐1. 95 CR at II‐5. 96 CR at II‐6. 97 CR at II‐6 and II‐7. 98 CR at II‐9 and II‐10. 99 CR at II‐9. In June 2010, as much as 37 percent of the Gulf of Mexico was closed to fishing due to the BP Oil Spill, and portions of state waters closed to fishing ranged from 2 percent (Florida) to 95 percent (Mississippi). The spill lasted for nearly three months during the prime fishing season, and a small area close to the well that caused the spill remained closed for much longer. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 11 and Exhibit 4 (“The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and the Gulf of Mexico Fishing Industry,” Congressional Research Service at 1 (Feb. 17, 2011)); see also 2011 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4221 at II‐5, n.10. During this period, a large percentage of the Gulf shrimping fleet received payments from BP either for assistance in the Gulf clean‐up or as compensation for damages. Because boats used in the clean‐up effort were not shrimping, supply was lower. CR at II‐9. 100 Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 8; see also VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 13‐15. As the Commission previously has noted, "there is no short supply provision in the statute" and "the fact that the domestic industry may not be able to supply all of demand does not mean the industry may not be materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports." Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 108, n.310 (Dec. 2003); see also Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1143 (Final), USITC Pub. 4062 at 22‐23 (Feb. 2009); Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1110 (Final), USITC Pub. 3984 at 27 n.109 (Mar. 2008). 64 between 9.6 percent and *** of apparent U.S. consumption on an annual basis. 101 That is substantially less than the share supplied by either subject or nonsubject imports.102 Shrimp imported from subject sources is primarily farm raised; shrimp of many different species can be farmed, and shrimp farms generally are designed principally to produce shrimp for export.103 Most importers describe the subject imports as having no business cycles or seasonality because farming permits year‐round availability. 104 However, farmed shrimp are more prone than wild shrimp to exposure to diseases that may dramatically impact harvest levels because shrimp populations in ponds are much denser.105 A disease called Early Mortality Syndrome (“EMS”) is currently affecting farm‐raised shrimp in three subject countries (China, Malaysia and Vietnam) and nonsubject country Thailand. 106 While the specific cause of EMS was identified in the spring of 2013, there still is no test that can reliably identify infected broodstock. Opinions consequently differ as to how quickly the disease will be contained and when production levels in these countries will recover.107 ***.108 Subject imports supplied a large share of apparent U.S. consumption during the period of investigation, ranging from 33.2 percent to *** of the U.S. market on an annual basis. 109 Imports from three of the subject countries (China, India, and Vietnam) were subject to antidumping duty orders during the period of investigation. 110 Nonsubject sources supplied the majority of the U.S. market, but their share declined from 57.2 percent in 2010 to 53.8 percent in 2011 and *** in 2012. 111 The largest sources of nonsubject imports during the period of investigation were Thailand, Indonesia, and Mexico. Other major nonsubject sources included Honduras, Peru, Guyana, Bangladesh, Singapore, and Venezuela.112 101 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 102 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 103 CR at II‐11. Imports of shrimp from nonsubject sources are available both as farmed and wild‐caught; Mexico, the third largest nonsubject source of imports, provides wild‐caught shrimp with the same seasonal supply period as U.S. product. Id. at II‐13. 104 CR at I‐11 and II‐7. 105 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9. 106 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐ 9. Some farms in China and Thailand reportedly have lost 60 to 80 percent of their stock to the disease. Id. 107 CR at I‐11; PR at I ‐9. According to Petitioner, the industries in the affected countries have learned to control the diseases after major research this year and are expected to recover by the end of this year or in 2014. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 18‐19; Hearing Tr. at 43‐44. Respondents argue that while the disease was recently identified, a reliable cure has not been developed and it likely will take longer to recover. Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 5‐7; Hearing Tr. at 189. 108 CR at I‐12; PR at I‐9. 109 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 110 The antidumping duty orders covering shrimp from Ecuador were revoked with respect to all producers on August 15, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg. 48257 (Aug. 23, 2007). The order on subject imports from India was revoked with respect to producer Devi effective February 1, 2009. 75 Fed. Reg. 41813 (July 19, 2010). The United States also maintains antidumping duty orders on imports of frozen shrimp from Brazil and Thailand, CR at I‐6 and I‐7, but imports from Brazil and Thailand are not subject to these countervailing duty investigations. 111 CR/PR at Table IV‐6. 112 CR at II‐13 and II‐14. 65 Substitutability The parties have expressed divergent views on the substitutability of the domestic like product and the subject imports, with Petitioner arguing that the products are at least moderately substitutable 113 and Respondents arguing that any competition between the domestic like product and the subject imports is attenuated.114 As indicated in the discussion of cumulation, U.S. processors and importers provided different general assessments of interchangeability, with U.S. processors overwhelmingly reporting that the domestic like product and imports from each subject country were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable, and most responding importers reporting that the domestic like product and imports from each subject country were “sometimes” interchangeable.115 Most purchasers reported that subject imports are “always,” “frequently,” or “sometimes” used interchangeably with each other and with the domestic like product.116 Most purchasers also reported that the U.S. product and subject imports “always” or “usually” meet minimum quality specifications, 117 and most purchasers reported that the U.S. product and shrimp from subject sources were comparable in product and shipment consistency, minimum quantity requirements, freshness, taste/flavor profile, and their ability to meet purchasers’ quality standards. 118 When asked whether differences other than price are ever significant to purchasers in choosing between shrimp from subject countries and shrimp from the United States, a plurality of responding domestic processors reported “never.”119 Responding importers were divided on the question, with a plurality reporting that differences other than price are “always” significant comparing the U.S. product to subject imports, but only “sometimes” between subject sources.120 Responding purchasers also were divided on the question, with a plurality reporting 113 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 3‐4; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 19‐24. Petitioner contends that imported and domestic product compete across the market, at the same major purchasers, in retail, food service, and distribution, and across product forms, sizes, and types, and that purchasing decisions come down to price. According to Petitioner, domestic producers produce a full range of value‐added shrimp, prices for different species fluctuate within a narrow band, and no consistent premium is paid for a particular type of shrimp. Petitioner also refutes claims that the domestic industry cannot serve large national accounts under long‐term contracts. 114 Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 10‐15; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 15‐16; VASEP/SEAI’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐2 and 10‐13. Respondents argue that domestic wild‐caught shrimp and imported farm‐raised shrimp are interchangeable only in the broadest sense, i.e., both forms can be cooked and eaten with little difference in taste noted by the average consumer, and that domestic wild‐caught shrimp is not a substitute for the vast majority of buyers. Thus, they argue that competition between domestic and imported shrimp is attenuated for a wide variety of reasons, including differences between wild‐caught and farm‐raised shrimp; species of shrimp; size, flavor and texture of shrimp; degree of processing; country of origin; year‐round vs. seasonal availability; contract vs. spot sales; ability to supply large volumes; individually quick frozen (IQF) vs. block‐frozen forms; and other factors. According to Respondents, significant purchasers buy both or, to put it another way, they have no preference for either because they seek to satisfy as many customers as they can in order to maximize their revenues and profits. 115 CR/PR at Table II‐13. 116 CR/PR at Table II‐13. 117 CR/PR at Table II‐14. 118 CR/PR at Table II‐12. 119 CR/PR at Table II‐15. 120 CR/PR at Table II‐15. 66 that differences other than price are “always,” “frequently,” or “sometimes” significant comparing the U.S. product to subject imports, but only “sometimes” between subject sources.121 One distinction between the domestic like product and the subject imports is that the domestic like product is overwhelmingly wild‐caught, while the subject imports are predominantly farm‐raised. However, the record does not indicate that this distinction, taken alone, significantly limits substitutability between the domestic like product and the subject imports. The record in these investigations also does not indicate clear distinctions in the markets or customers served by the domestic like product and the subject imports. Both the domestic like product and the subject imports are available in every region of the country and through the same channels of distribution. 122 The record indicates that the domestic industry supplies all major product forms. Although a large proportion of domestic production is block‐frozen product, the domestic industry has the capacity to produce appreciable quantities of IQF product.123 The domestic industry also offers products in all possible size ranges. Similarly, the record does not indicate any major product form that the subject imports do not supply.124 I find that differences in product mix and availability among the subject imports and the domestic like product limit to some extent the substitutability of warmwater shrimp from different sources. Nevertheless, I do not perceive significant differences in availability or product range among the domestically produced and subject products. I find that the record in these investigations supports finding that the products are at least moderate substitutes and that they compete for sales in the U.S. market. Other Conditions Most U.S. processors and importers of Chinese product reported selling frozen shrimp in the spot market, while most importers of frozen shrimp from the other four subject countries reported selling frozen shrimp under short‐term contracts.125 Both U.S. processors and importers entered into short‐term contracts of three to six months duration with both price and quantity fixed.126 U.S. processors reported that fuel is the most important cost for fishermen. 127 High fuel costs can serve as a disincentive to fishermen to take their boats out to harvest shrimp.128 121 CR/PR at Table II‐15. 122 CR/PR at Tables II‐1 and II‐2. The majority of both domestically produced product and subject imports in 2012 was sold to distributors, although the share to distributors and retail/institutional customers has differed among the subject countries and has fluctuated annually. Id. at Table II‐1. 123 CR/PR at Table III‐6. 124 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III‐6 and VII‐7. 125 CR/PR at Table V‐2. For responding U.S. processors and importers of Chinese product, 86.9 percent and 74.0 percent, respectively, reported selling frozen shrimp in the spot market. Id 126 CR at V‐3; PR at V‐3. Two importers that use long‐term contracts reported providing such contracts for two years or less. Id. 127 CR/PR at V‐1; Conf. Tr. at 39 (“Fishermen in turn need to be able to cover their cost of production, the most significant of which is fuel.”). 67 Diesel prices in the Gulf Coast region increased irregularly from about $3 to $4 per gallon from January 2010 to May 2011, and then remained at about the $4 level through June 2013. 129 Volume of Subject Imports As discussed above in Conditions of Competition, the United States and certain of the subject countries’ industries faced supply challenges during the period of investigation. The BP (Gulf) oil spill affected the volume of shrimp available to domestic processors in 2010 and diseases impacted certain subject and nonsubject producers later in the period of investigation. Despite these challenges for subject frozen shrimp imports, cumulated subject import volume was significant in absolute terms, and increased, throughout the period. These imports totaled 415.2 million tons in 2010, capturing a 33.2 percent share of the domestic market. Subject imports increased each of the following two years, reaching 462.3 million pounds in 2011 and 484.8 million pounds in 2012. The January‐March 2013 volume totaled 107.8 million pounds, compared to 99.3 million pounds in January‐March 2012. Overall, subject imports increased to a share of apparent U.S. consumption of *** percent in 2012, *** percentage points above the 2010 market share.130 This increase is particularly significant in light of several conditions prevailing in the US market. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption declined over the period of investigation, 2010‐12, by *** percentage points. While the U.S. industry was able to make a small gain in market share, increasing to *** percent in 2012 from 9.6 percent in 2010, it was the subject imports that captured the largest increase.131 When the shrimp industries in several Asian countries developed EMS, including subject producers in China and Malaysia, and the largest producer and source for U.S. imports, Thailand, the U.S. market experienced a sudden shortage of supply from the affected countries. Although recognizing that imports supply the majority of domestic consumption, the domestic industry had reasonably expected to be able to take advantage of this supply opportunity, in attempting to regain sales volumes and return to pre‐spill levels similar to those experienced in 2009, as it recovered from the impact on its operations from the BP oil spill and its aftermath. Instead, subject producers were able to quickly ramp up production and exports to the U.S. market. Combined data for the five subject countries shows that capacity and production increased during the period of investigation by 15.6 and 13.7 percent, respectively, enabling them to take advantage of declining imports from EMS‐affected countries to increase their U.S. market presence in both absolute and relative terms. Accordingly, I find the volume of subject imports to be significant, both absolutely and relative to domestic consumption. 128 CR/PR at II‐5, and V‐1; Hearing Tr. at 36, 65 and 71 (“A fishermen has no incentive to do so {go out every day to catch the shrimp} if the price he gets at the dock cannot cover the cost of fuel, maintenance, labor, food, and other costs, and eventually the shrimper has to make the only rational business decision he can: tie up the boat.”). 129 CR/PR at Figure V‐1. 130 CR/PR at Tables IV‐6. 131 Table IV‐6. 68 Price Effects of Subject Imports As the Commission found in its preliminary determinations, domestic and subject imported frozen warmwater shrimp are at least moderate substitutes. As discussed above in conditions of competition, domestic processors, importers of subject merchandise and purchasers reported that domestic frozen shrimp and the subject imports are interchangeable at least to a certain degree, and comparable in nearly all factors addressed. The most significant differences other than price were availability and reliability of supply. 132 While the importance of these two attributes is undeniable, even for these, responses showed a substantial number of purchasers rating the U.S. product as comparable to subject imports.133 Prices are negotiated on a near daily basis, contributing to price sensitivity in the U.S market. Thus, while the US and subject imported frozen shrimp show some level of differentiation, the market, particularly purchasers, find a substantial degree of comparability between the products, supporting the importance of price as a one of the leading considerations in purchasing decisions. During the period of investigation, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 168 of 333 quarterly comparisons, or 50.5 percent of instances. 134 Further, as COGSI argued and the record supports, underselling in each year occurred in over half of all comparisons, thus not lessening over the period as the domestic industry attempted to recover from the Gulf oil spill and the market faced some disruption as certain significant suppliers were affected by EMS.135 This level of underselling persisted despite certain of the subject imports being covered by antidumping duty orders and overall improvements in price trends during the period. Underselling allowed the subject imports to capture more of the market space vacated by EMS‐ affected countries than what the domestic industry gained. I find this underselling to be significant. I also find that petitioners’ arguments as to price suppression are supported by the record. Despite strong price increases during the period of investigation, domestic processors were not able to fully cover increases in cost of goods sold. Unit COGS improved from *** to *** per pound during 2010‐12, or by *** percent, while the unit value of net sales improved by less, from *** to *** per pound, or by *** percent.136 I find that the substantial and increasing volume of subject imports has prevented price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. 132 CR/PR at Table II‐12 – II‐14. 133 Table II‐12 showed that for availability, 32 purchasers reported the U.S. shrimp as comparable, 44 reported it as inferior, and 4 reported superior. For reliability of supply, results were 37 reporting the U.S. product as either comparable or inferior, and 4 reporting it as superior. 134 I note that Product 1 includes both deveined and undeveined product, which the Commission determined to neither give controlling weight nor disregard, in the previous antidumping duty investigations. If Product 1 were excluded, underselling by the subject imports would increase in magnitude, to *** percent of comparisons, or *** CR/PR at Table V‐3. 135 CR/PR at Table V‐3‐V‐9. 136 Supplemental Summary Table, EDIS Document Number 518620 (“Suppl. Summary”) at Table C‐2. 69 Impact of Subject Imports The domestic industry is comprised of both processors and fishermen. COGSI argued that while the domestic industry has seen some improvements since 2010, when the oil spill disrupted their operations, they have not returned to the prior sales level or domestic market share because of the rising volumes and price impact of the subject imports. Although parties are divided as to how best to interpret the domestic industry’s financial results, it is clear that the domestic industry has not performed well during the period of investigation. U.S. fishermen’s shipments initially improved in 2011, with shrimp harvested increasing from 9.2 million pounds in 2010 to 10.6 million pounds in 2011, before falling to 9.6 million pounds in 2012. The interim 2013 harvest data show 644 thousand pounds compared to 1.1 million pounds in interim 2012. Employment data followed a similar overall downward trend. Interim data show a nearly 50 percent decline, with 2,366 PRWs during interim 2013 compared to 4,253 PRWs in interim 2012. The number of days boats were at sea likewise declined over the period of investigation, from 19,108 in 2010 to 18, 201 in 2012; interim 2013 days were 2,434 compared to 3,404 in 2010. 137 Fishermen’s shipments by volume and value also initially improved in 2011 over 2010, before falling in 2012. All interim 2013 indicators were below the comparable ones in interim 2012. U.S. shipments increased from 9.4 million pounds in 2010 to 10.9 million pounds in 2011, before falling to 9.7 million pounds in 20112; interim 2013 U.S. shipments were 686 million pounds compared to 1.1 million pounds shipped during interim 2012. The per pound value of shipments for U.S. fishermen improved from $3.63 in 2010 to $3.80 in 2011, before falling to $3.77 in 2012. Interim 2013 U.S. shipments were $4.13 per pound, below the $4.32 level reported for interim 2012. 138 Domestic processors’ performance and certain financial indicators generally improved over the period of investigation, although its financial performance remained lackluster. Production gains were strong, as could be expected as fishing and processing again picked up as the Gulf was re‐opened to the industry in 2010. Production improved by *** percent from 2010 to 2012, from *** million pounds to *** million pounds; the interim 2013 production level however was well below that in 2012, *** million pounds compared to *** million pounds, a difference of *** percent. U.S. shipments initially gained in 2011, reaching *** million pounds from *** million pounds in 2010, before falling somewhat in 2012 to *** million pounds. 139 While the domestic industry showed overall production and shipment improvements, this follows the low 2010 levels impacted by the inability to fish and process shrimp during much of the 2010 shrimping season. The fact that unsold inventories represented a large and increasing percentage of the volume of U.S. producers’ total shipments undercuts arguments that rising domestic production contributed to any overall improved performance of the domestic processors. 140 137 CR/PR at Table D‐3. 138 CR/PR at Table D‐2. 139 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 140 Inventory quantities were *** million pounds in 2010 and *** million pounds in 2011, before increasing to *** million pounds in 2012, an increase of nearly *** percent over 2011. As a share of shipments, inventories grew from *** percent of shipments in 2010 and *** percent in 2011, to *** percent in 2012, an increase of *** 70 The domestic industry’s financial results were weak throughout the period. Net sales improved overall despite a drop in 2012 compared to 2011, from *** million pounds in 2010 to *** million pounds in 2011, an increase of *** percent, and *** million pounds in 2012, a drop of *** percent. The value of net sales initially increased consistent with the volume improvement, from *** million in 2010 to *** million in 2011, or by *** percent, before dropping to *** million in 2012, or by *** percent. This suggests that value held up somewhat, falling by less than the decline in net shipment volume. However, unit costs continued to increase, by *** percent overall and by *** percent from 2011 to 2012, when most production and shipment indicators fell. The domestic industry showed a *** percent operating margin in 2010, *** in 2011 and *** in 2012. This, however, reflects the higher SG&A costs in that year. Nevertheless, even adjusting for these SG&A costs, as argued by respondents, as well as anomalous company‐specific COGS, 141 the domestic industry still recorded only a very small (essentially break‐even) operating profit in 2012, of *** percent. 142 As discussed above, I have found the cumulated volume of subject imports and the market share of those imports to be significant over the period of investigation, along with significant underselling and significant price suppression. In conducting my impact analysis, I have also considered the role of other factors so as not to attribute injury from other factors to subject imports. I have considered the role of nonsubject imports, including any role that may be played by now‐nonsubject imports from Thailand, the largest single supplier to the U.S, market. Nonsubject import share declined sharply over the period of investigation, largely due to the impact of EMS on certain Asian suppliers. Nonsubject imports fell from 57.2 percent of the market in 2010 to *** percent in 2012, with Thailand accounting for the largest decline, *** percentage points, compared to a *** percentage point drop overall for nonsubject product. Although arguments have been made by the domestic industry that the Thai industry and others will recover ahead of time frames argued by the respondents, data on the record suggest that while producers of the subject product in Vietnam may be experiencing some recovery,143 producers in Thailand have not yet showed increased export volumes and instead remain at levels well below those early in the investigation period. Natural and manmade disasters such as the oil spill that affected the domestic industry’s performance during the period of investigation are commonplace for this industry. I note that percent over 2011, and growing at the same time that domestic shipments fell by *** percent. Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. 141 VASEP/SEAI’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐7; Importers’ Posthearing Brief at 1; Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 36‐47; VASEP/SEAI’s Prehearing Brief at 27‐31. 142 CR at VI‐12‐13, n. 35 and VI‐15, n.41; PR at VI‐7, n. 35 and VI‐8, n.41. With respect to the industry’s profitability, respondents argue the Commission should give weight to funds received from BP and accounted for as “other income.” Although I find that funds received from BP are properly excluded from operating income, I recognize that funds spent impacted SG&A expenses for the industry as a whole, as some companies applied these funds to pay compensation and other costs incurred prior to the period of investigation. Nevertheless, even adjusting oil spill compensation as argued by respondents does not change the fact that the domestic industry was only marginally profitable at best during the investigation period. 143 CR at I‐11 and 12; PR at I‐9. Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 18‐19; Importers’ Prehearing Brief at 5‐7’ Hearing Tr. At 43‐44 and 189. 71 the Commission’s analysis requires that I take the industry as I find it. 144 The domestic industry’s supply was affected by the oil spill during 2010, but began to improve to pre‐spill levels in 2011. Subject imports gained U.S. market share throughout 2011 and 2012 however, with the most significant increase occurring in 2012, when the domestic industry showed its weakest performance of the period.145 Consequently, I find that the cumulated subject imports have had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry producing frozen warmwater shrimp. I therefore determine that the domestic industry producing frozen warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of cumulated subject imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia and Vietnam. 144 See Iwatsu Electric Co. v. United States, 758 F. Supp. 1506, 1512, 1518 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1991.) 145 Suppl. Summary at Table C‐2. I‐1 PART I: INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (“COGSI”), Biloxi, MS, on December 28, 2012, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of frozen warmwater shrimp 1 from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The following tabulation provides information relating to the background of these investigations. 2 3 Effective date Action December 28, 2012 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the Commission's investigation (78 FR 764, January 4, 2013) January 25, 2013 Commerce’s notice of initiation (78 FR 5416) February 15, 2013 Commission’s preliminary determinations (78 FR 11221) June 4, 2013 Commerce’s preliminary determination; scheduling of final phase of Commission investigation (78 FR 35643, June 13, 2013) August 19, 2013 Commerce’s final determinations (78 FR 50379-50394) August 19, 2013 Commission’s termination of investigations on Indonesia and Thailand (78 FR 54912, September 6, 2013) August 13, 2013 Commission’s hearing September 20, 2013 Commission’s vote October 21, 2013 Commission’s determination to Commerce STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Statutory criteria Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission‐‐ 1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the merchandise subject to these investigations. 2 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in app. A, and may be found at the Commission’s website (www.usitc.gov). 3 A list of witnesses that appeared at the hearing is presented in app. B. I‐2 shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . . may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of imports. Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that‐‐ In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States is significant. . . . In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the Commission shall consider whether. . .(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. . . . In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to . . . (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II) factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping. Organization of report Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of I‐3 competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. processors. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries. MARKET SUMMARY Apparent U.S. consumption of frozen warmwater shrimp totaled approximately *** billion pounds ($*** billion) in 2012. U.S. shipments 4 of frozen warmwater shrimp totaled *** million pounds ($*** million) in 2012, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from subject sources totaled 484.8 million pounds ($1.9 billion) in 2012 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled 596.8 million pounds ($2.4 billion) in 2012 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C‐ 1. 5 U.S. industry data in Part III of this report are based on questionnaire responses of 48 firms, 39 of which provided usable data, which accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of frozen warmwater shrimp during 2012. 6 U.S. imports are based on official Commerce import data and from questionnaire responses from 31 companies, representing 40.7 percent of total subject imports, 78.1 percent of imports from China, 36.9 percent of imports from Ecuador, 31.1 percent of imports from India, 33.6 percent of imports from Malaysia, and 45.3 percent of 4 U.S. shipments are derived from National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) data. 5 Import data presented in table C‐1 are based on official Commerce statistics. U.S. industry data presented in table C‐1 are based on questionnaire responses from U.S. processors. Apparent U.S. consumption totals presented in table C‐1 are based on U.S. industry data provided by NMFS and official Commerce import statistics. 6 Staff’s coverage estimate is based on a comparison of data compiled from Commission questionnaires to official NMFS statistics for wild catch landings data and Granvil Treece, Texas A&M for farmed production data. I‐4 imports from Vietnam between 2010 and 2012.7 A summary of trade and financial data as well as related information for fishermen as collected is presented in appendix D.8 Appendix E contains alleged effects of imports on U.S. processors’ existing development and production efforts, growth, investment, and ability to raise capital. Appendix F contains alleged effects of imports on U.S. fishermen’s existing development and production efforts, growth, investment, and ability to raise capital. Appendix G contains processor‐specific financial information. PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS Frozen warmwater shrimp has been the subject of prior antidumping duty investigations in the United States. On December 31, 2003, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, Washington DC, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigations on certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐ 1063‐1068). In January 2005, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of frozen warmwater shrimp imports from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at LTFV. 9 In May 2005, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Commission instituted changed circumstances investigations (Inv. Nos. 751‐TA‐28‐29) on the antidumping duty orders from India and Thailand. In November 2005, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders covering warmwater shrimp from India and Thailand would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States.10 In August 2007, the order on imports from Ecuador was revoked as a result of World Trade 7 Prior to 2012, warmwater and coldwater shrimp were both provided for in HS subheading 0306.13. HS subheadings 0306.16 and 0306.17 were created in 2012 to provide separately coldwater and warmwater shrimp. Therefore, while staff recognizes that HS subheading 0306.16 contains out of scope product (coldwater shrimp), it is included in the import data statistics in this report (along with HTS subheadings 0306.13 and 0306.17) to maintain data consistency across the entire period. Import data statistics also include certain residual or “basket” classifications, such as statistical reporting numbers 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1030, 1605.21.1030, and 1605.29.1010, which may include non‐subject merchandise. 8 In some instances, fishermen provided trade data, but no financial data (and/or vice versa). For this reason, trade and financial data do not reconcile. 9 Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, 70 FR 3943, January 27, 2005. The Commission also determined that an industry in the United States was not injured by reason of imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns that had been found by Commerce to be sold at LTFV. Additionally, the Commission determined that imports from Brazil, Ecuador, and India of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns were negligible. 10 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from India and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 751‐TA‐ 28‐29, USITC Publication 3813, Nov. 2005. I‐5 Organization (“WTO”) panel findings. 11 In March 2011, the Commission completed its first five year reviews on the antidumping duty orders on Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, and determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.12 NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES Subsidies On August 19, 2013, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its affirmative final determinations in the countervailing duty investigations of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, India, Malaysia, China, and Vietnam and negative final determinations in the countervailing duty investigations of imports from Indonesia and Thailand. 13 The Commission terminated its investigations of Indonesia and Thailand on August 19, 2013. 14 Table I‐1 presents Commerce’s findings. Table I-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Commerce’s subsidy determinations with respect to imports from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam Country and firm Subsidy rate (percent) China Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (Guolian) and its cross-owned affiliates (collectively, the Guolian Companies) 18.16 All others 18.16 Ecuador Promarisco S.A. 13.51 Songa 10.13 All others 11.68 Table continued on next page. 11 Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador: Notice of Determination Under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 72 FR 48257, August 23, 2007. 12 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, 76 FR 18782, April 5, 2011. 13 78 FR 50379‐50394, August 19, 2013. 14 78 FR 54912, September 6, 2013. I‐6 Table I-1--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Commerce’s subsidy determinations with respect to imports from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam Country and firm Subsidy rate (percent) India Devi Fisheries Limited 10.54 Devi Seafoods Ltd. 11.14 All others 10.84 Indonesia PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari, PT. Central Proteinaprima Tbk. 0.23 (de minimis) PT. First Marine Sea-foods, PT. Khom Foods. 0.27 (de minimis) All others (de minimis) Malaysia Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Asia Aquaculture), Star Feedmills (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Star Feedmills), and Charoen Pokphand Foods (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (CPFM), (collectively, the Asia Aquaculture Companies) 10.80 Kian Huat Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd. (Kian Huat) 54.50 All others 54.50 Thailand Marine Gold Products Limited 1.52 (de minimis) Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co. Ltd/Thai Union Seafoods Co., Ltd. 1.41 (de minimis) All others (de minimis) Vietnam Minh Qui Seafood Co. Ltd 7.88 Nha Trang Seaproduct Company 1.15 All others 4.52 Source: 78 FR 50379-50394, August 19, 2013. THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE Commerce’s scope Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows: Certain frozen warmwater shrimp includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild‐caught (ocean harvested) or farm‐raised (produced by aquaculture), head‐on or head‐off, shell‐on or peeled, tail‐on or I‐7 tail‐off,15 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild‐caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell‐on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain “battered shrimp” (see below). “Battered shrimp” is a shrimp‐based product: (1) that is produced from fresh (or thawed‐from‐frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non‐shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (“IQF”) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting 15 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. I‐8 above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par‐fried.16 Tariff treatment Based upon the scope set forth by the Department of Commerce, information available to the Commission indicates that the subject goods are imported under the following provisions of the 2013 HTS: subheadings 0306.17.00 (statistical reporting numbers 0306.17.0003, 0306.17.0006, 0306.17.0009, 0306.17.0012, 0306.17.0015, 0306.17.0018, 0306.17.0021, 0306.17.0024, 0306.17.0027, and 0306.17.0040), 1605.21.10 (statistical reporting number 1605.21.1030), and 1605.29.10 (statistical reporting number 1605.29.1010).17 The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. THE PRODUCT Description and applications The imported products subject to these investigations are frozen warmwater shrimp. The subject product can be any species of warmwater shrimp and includes both shrimp that were harvested from the ocean (wild‐caught) and those produced by aquaculture (farm‐raised). The shrimp can be in a wide variety of processed forms including head‐on or head‐off, tail‐on or tail‐off, shell‐on or peeled, and deveined or not deveined. They may be raw or further processed by cooking, skewering, or addition of marinades, spices, or sauces. Food preparations containing more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp are included in the subject product, as are dusted shrimp. Warmwater shrimp are crustaceans that usually inhabit salt waters in coastal regions in the tropics and subtropics. There are also freshwater species of shrimp. The warmwater shrimp subject to these investigations are either wild‐caught or farm‐raised in tropical or subtropical 16 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 50391. August 19, 4013. Commerce’s scope is the same for China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. 78 FR 33342‐33351, June 4, 2013. On August 12, 2013, Commerce issued its Final Scope ruling and found that the scope does not exclude onboard brine‐frozen shrimp. Commerce also found the definitions of onboard brine‐frozen shrimp put forward by Petitioner are not administrable and invite circumvention of any orders that result from these investigations. Thus, the final scope of scope of investigation is the same as in the preliminary investigations in these proceedings. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine‐Frozen Shrimp, August 12, 2013. 17 The HTS general duty rates for these subheadings are free. I‐9 regions, are generally classified in the Penaeidae family, and comprise shrimp of several genera and species.18 Imported shrimp are often farm‐raised in ponds. One advantage of producing shrimp through aquaculture is that harvests of farm‐raised shrimp are available year‐round. Also, producers can adjust production to respond to demand for different sizes and species.19 A downside of shrimp farming, however, is that shrimp ponds are periodically affected by diseases that can dramatically impact harvest levels. While these diseases can also affect wild shrimp, they are more common in farming because shrimp populations in ponds are much denser.20 A disease called Early Mortality Syndrome (“EMS”) is currently affecting farm‐raised shrimp in China, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Some farms in China and Thailand reportedly lost 60 to 80 percent of their stock to the disease.21 Opinions differ as to how quickly production levels in these countries will recover. The specific strain of bacterium causing EMS was identified in the spring of 2013, but so far, there is no test that can reliably identify infected broodstock before the disease takes over. Based on the experience of white spot disease in Thailand in the 1990s, and forecasts such as those published by Rabobank, petitioners expect affected areas to recover by 2014. 22 Respondents argue that relatively little is known about EMS, how it spreads, and exactly how to resolve it, so it will likely take longer to recover.23 ***.24 In the United States, virtually all warmwater shrimp are wild‐caught.25 The catch is composed primarily of brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), and pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum). Shrimp vary greatly in size, depending on age and species. 18 In the previous investigations, it was noted that subject imports included, but were not limited to, shrimp from the following species: whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Machrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). 19 Hearing transcript, pp. 249‐50 (Stern). 20 Hearing transcript, p. 90 (Veal). 21 FAO, “Culprit behind Massive Shrimp Die‐offs in Asia Unmasked,” May 3, 2013. 22 Hearing transcript, p. 43‐44 (Drake). 23 Hearing transcript, p. 189 (Stern). 24 ***. 25 Shrimp aquaculture in the United States peaked in 2003 at around 4.5 percent of production and, in 2012, represented approximately *** of production. Staff correspondence with Granvil Treece, Texas A&M, January 31, 2013 and ***. U.S. shrimp aquaculture is constrained by the cost of coastal land and environmental and water quality regulations, among other factors. (Hearing transcript, p. 174 (Veal)). I‐10 They typically grow to a harvestable size within one year; their size largely depends on the time of year they are harvested. 26 Fresh shrimp (never frozen) in any form are excluded from Commerce’s scope definition. Likewise, coldwater shrimp in any form, 27 shrimp in prepared meals, breaded shrimp, canned shrimp, and dried shrimp are excluded from the subject product. Over the subject period, U.S. consumption of shrimp was consistent from year to year, at around 4 pounds per capita.28 Warmwater shrimp are used principally for human consumption and are sold primarily on the basis of size. Because the tail section is the edible portion and spoilage is more rapid with the head on, most shrimp are marketed raw and frozen with the heads off. The market tendency is for large shrimp (less than 36 per pound, heads‐off, shell‐on basis) to be sold raw and frozen to restaurants, hotels, and other food institutions; for small to medium shrimp (36 to 60 per pound) to be breaded, canned, or sold at retail; and for extra small (61 to 70 per pound) and tiny shrimp (more than 70 per pound) to be used by canners, dryers, and producers of specialty products. In the previous investigations, it was estimated that 80 percent of shrimp in the U.S. market are bought by restaurants.29 MANUFACTURING PROCESSES Harvesting The U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic warmwater shrimp30 fleet is composed of vessels31 spread across about two dozen port communities. The vessels fall into one of three broad categories: recreational shrimpers, commercial bait shrimpers, and commercial shrimpers. The catch of recreational shrimpers and commercial bait shrimpers is very small in proportion to the 26 U.S. shrimp fisheries in both the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico are seasonal, and seasonal peaks vary by species, with white shrimp and brown shrimp peaking between the late spring and the fall, and pink shrimp peaking in the first half of the calendar year. 27 Species of coldwater shrimp, which are generally classified in the Pandalidae family, have different physical characteristics than warmwater species. In particular, they are generally much smaller in size than warmwater species. Coldwater shrimp are harvested and processed in cold water regions (e.g., the U.S. Pacific Northwest, New England, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway). 28 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fisheries of the United States, 2011, August 2012, 96. 29 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Final), USITC Publication 3748, January 2005, p. I‐6. 30 Shrimp harvested off the Pacific and Northern Atlantic coasts is coldwater shrimp. 31 The number of shrimp vessels has declined substantially in recent years. In 2005, NOAA estimated that the number of vessels dropped from 4,000 to 2,500 between 2000 and 2005, and the number has reportedly declined further since then. In press reports, the COGSI (Petitioner) reported a 50 percent decline in the number of vessels in the past ten years (Hotakainen, “U.S. Shrimp Processors Seek Federal Help to Slow Imports,” McClatchy, January 15, 2013, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/15/179931/us‐shrimp‐processors‐seek‐ federal.html#storylink=cpy (accessed July 22, 2013)). I‐11 catch of commercial shrimpers, who account for the great bulk of all U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic warmwater shrimp landings. There are two categories of commercial shrimpers. Inshore shrimpers operate small boats typically manned by one person on day‐long trips in bays, estuaries, and shallow near‐ shore waters. Offshore shrimpers operate larger vessels typically manned by a crew of three in deeper waters to the 200‐mile U.S. territorial limit. In 2011, shrimp caught less than 3 miles offshore accounted for about 42 percent of warmwater shrimp landings, with the remaining 58 percent caught between 3 and 200 miles offshore. Some offshore vessels can freeze their catch and thus make trips lasting several weeks.32 Offshore shrimpers use vessels that are typically 56 to 85 feet in length, constructed of steel, and diesel‐powered. Such vessels are often equipped with sophisticated electronic gear for navigation, communication and locating shrimp. Most vessels are individually owned, often by the skipper. Major costs of operating a vessel include crew share (wages) and fuel as well as depreciation, mortgage payments, insurance, and maintenance on the vessel. Vessels catch shrimp by towing one or more large, funnel‐shaped nets. The U.S. fleet, particularly that portion in the Gulf, is relatively mobile and migrates with the seasonal warmwater shrimp populations, or away from areas of poor fishing. Therefore vessels may land shrimp at different ports in different states. Some shrimp vessels are equipped to perform simple processing steps (e.g., deheading, washing, grading, icing, or freezing) while at sea. Shrimp may be placed in mesh bags prior to freezing. Thus, warmwater shrimp can be landed either whole or headed (heads‐off) and either fresh or frozen, and shrimp in different forms can be landed from the same trip. Upon unloading, shrimp are generally sold at dockside to dealers or processors. As payment, the vessel’s crew typically receive a percentage of the revenue generated by the catch. While horizontal and vertical integration is limited, some shrimpers also process shrimp and/or own multiple vessels. 33 Because of the differing feeding habits, migration patterns, and habitats of the different species, Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp vessels usually land one species at a time. Likewise, harvesting activities and hence, landings in the U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic, exhibit seasonal patterns that are influenced by the natural patterns of development of the different species of warmwater shrimp. 32 NMFS, Fisheries of the United States, 2011, August 2012, 15. 33 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Final), USITC Publication 3748, January 2005, p. I‐7. I‐12 Processing While some processors own their boats, most have buying arrangements with several shrimp vessels. After unloading, shrimp are transferred to processing facilities, which are often located dockside, and undergo initial processing such as separating shrimp from ice, weighing, washing, sizing, and grading. 34 At this stage, shrimp may either be frozen in whole form (head‐on, shell‐on) or may undergo a number of further steps such as deheading, peeling, deveining, and cooking. Resulting from these steps are shrimp in a variety of forms (e.g., head‐on, shell‐on; headless, shell‐on; raw, peeled; and cooked, peeled). Regardless of their specific processed form, shrimp then are typically frozen (with the exception that cooked, peeled shrimp may be canned rather than frozen). Many processing steps (e.g., washing, grading, peeling, deveining, and cooking) may be performed manually or mechanically using purpose‐built machinery.35 Peeling can be done by one of two types of machines – the Laitram machine that operates by pushing the shrimp out of its shell, or the Jonsson machine that must be fed manually and that peels the shrimp with cutting equipment. Freezing may take either of two forms: block frozen or individually quick frozen (IQF). In the block freezing method, shrimp and water are poured into a frame and frozen, typically in 5‐ pound blocks. The block is then sealed with a wrap that provides a barrier to moisture and vapor. IQF uses carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or ammonia to freeze each shrimp individually as it travels on a belt.36 IQF lines require significant capital investment and are thus less common among smaller processors.37 Block frozen shrimp is most suited to customers who know that they are going use at least the full block in one day,38 since it must be defrosted all at once. IQF technology thus allows processors to serve additional market segments, but there is little to no price premium for IQF over block frozen shrimp.39 Figure I‐1 presents the production process for frozen warmwater shrimp. 34 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Final), USITC Publication 3748, January 2005, p. I‐7. 35 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Final), USITC Publication 3748, January 2005, p. I‐8. 36 Conference transcript, p. 88 (Babin). 37 Hearing transcript, p. 92 (Gibson) and p. 93 (Gollott). 38 Conference transcript, pp.88‐89 (Babin). 39 Hearing transcript, p. 87 (Gibson). I‐13 Figure I-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Production process Processing of warmwater shrimp is conducted by a variety of types of operations. Dealers (a.k.a. shrimp houses or fish houses) and packing houses perform minimal processing steps (e.g., weighing, washing, sorting, and packing) for other processors or distributors. Other processors, variously known as freezers, peelers, and breaders, produce the variety of processed forms of shrimp noted previously and perform additional steps such as breading, cutting, and preparing specialty items. Processors often hold shrimp in inventory, for anywhere from a few days to six months. 40 DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES In making its preliminary determinations, the Commission used the “semifinished product” like product analysis to determine whether fresh shrimp should be included in the same like product as the processed frozen shrimp products within the scope, as it was in the 40 Hearing transcript, p. 144 (Gibson). I‐14 prior Commission proceedings concerning this product.41 Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations and on application of the semifinished product analysis, the Commission defined a single domestic like product encompassing both fresh warmwater shrimp and the frozen warmwater shrimp described in the scope definition. 42 In the final phase of these investigations, Petitioner argues that the Commission should define the domestic like product as certain frozen warmwater shrimp produced in the United States and exclude fresh shrimp and brine‐frozen shrimp from the domestic like product.43 Domestic interested party AHSIC, comprised of primarily shrimp fishermen, argues that the Commission should define the domestic like product to encompass both fresh warmwater shrimp and those frozen articles describe in Commerce’s scope as it did in the preliminary phase investigations. 44 Respondents also argue that the domestic like product should include fresh warmwater shrimp as it has in the prior investigations and reviews.45 41 In a semifinished product analysis, the Commission examines the following: (1) whether the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses; (2) whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; (3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4) differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles; and (5) the significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the downstream articles. 42 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from, China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐491‐497 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4380, February 2013, pp. 10‐11. On August 12, 2013, Commerce issued its Final Scope ruling and found that the scope includes onboard brine‐frozen shrimp. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine‐Frozen Shrimp, August 12, 2013. 43 Hearing transcript, pp. 43‐44, 98 (Drake). 44 AHSIC’s posthearing brief, pp. 1‐15. 45 National Fisheries Institute prehearing brief, p. 4; Indian and Vietnamese Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 4‐6. II‐1 PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS Warmwater shrimp are intended for human consumption and may be farm‐raised or wild‐caught, and may be processed to varying levels (e.g., peeled, deveined, shell‐off, tail‐off, marinated, skewered, or sauced). There are also multiple species of shrimp both farm‐raised and wild‐caught, and they exist in a range of sizes.1 For U.S.‐processed warmwater shrimp, fresh shrimp are harvested (generally wild) and brought to dock by fishermen. Some deheading, sorting, and freezing may take place on the fishing boats. U.S. processors buy the fresh or frozen shrimp at the dock, and then may inspect, weigh, count, devein, peel, and cook it before freezing (refreezing) it. Some of the production will be put into inventory for later sale. U.S. processors may sell the warmwater shrimp to distributors or to retail customers directly, or have their sales handled by brokers. The market is similar for importers of warmwater shrimp; however, importers may sometimes import the warmwater shrimp and then process it themselves, either into another form of warmwater shrimp (e.g., marinated or sauced) or into a nonsubject product (e.g., breaded shrimp).2 Some processors process both U.S. and imported shrimp.3 U.S. PURCHASERS Questionnaires were sent to the four largest purchasers reported by all the producers and importers that submitted questionnaires in the preliminary investigation, and firms for which there were lost sales or lost revenue allegations in the preliminary investigation. Thirty purchasers returned usable questionnaires. Overall, purchasers reported purchasing 1.16 billion pounds of U.S. and imported frozen warmwater shrimp between 2010 and 2012, an amount equal to 30.8 percent of apparent consumption during that period. The largest responding purchasers were ***. No other purchaser purchased close to 100 million pounds over the three years. 1 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China , India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063,1064,1066‐1068 (Review), USITC Publication 4221, March 2011, p. II‐1. 2 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063‐1068 (Final), USITC Publication 3748, January 2005, p. II‐ 1. 3 Hearing transcript, p. 59 (Gollott). II‐2 CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION U.S. processors and U.S. importers from all subject countries sold more to distributors than to end users or retailers/institutional buyer during 2010‐12 and the first quarter of 2013 (table II‐1). Imports from Thailand, a nonsubject country, were sold principally to retail and institutional buyers. Imports of product from other nonsubject countries were mainly sold to distributors. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Both U.S. processors and U.S. importers reported selling frozen warmwater shrimp to all regions in the contiguous United States (table II‐2). Processors reported selling 22.8 percent within 100 miles of their production facility, 36.5 percent between 101 and 250 miles, 16.1 percent between 250 and 500 miles, and 24.6 percent over 500 miles. A larger share of imported product from both subject and nonsubject countries was shipped within 100 miles than domestic product, but a smaller share of imports was shipped 101 to 250 miles than domestic product (table II‐3). For shipments over 250 miles, shares of shipments varied by country. II‐3 Table II-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by sources and channels of distribution, 2010-12, and January-March 2013 Item Period 2010 2011 2012 Jan.-March 2013 Share of U.S. shipments (percent) U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp: Distributors 82.6 82.9 81.2 79.1 End users 5.4 5.2 5.5 4.7 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 12.0 11.9 13.4 16.3 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from China: Distributors 92.5 85.1 76.6 75.2 End users 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 7.5 14.9 23.4 24.8 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador: Distributors 80.9 77.5 64.2 56.8 End users 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.8 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 18.8 21.7 35.4 42.4 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from India: Distributors 82.0 4.7 71.9 72.7 End users 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 17.9 95.3 27.7 26.9 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from Malaysia: Distributors 34.3 79.9 82.6 74.7 End users 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 65.6 20.1 17.4 25.3 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam: Distributors 50.1 49.6 50.9 54.7 End users 3.6 2.6 2.3 3.5 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 46.4 47.8 46.8 41.8 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from all subject countries: Distributors 72.5 22.0 67.6 66.3 End users 1.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 26.5 77.7 31.7 32.8 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia:3 Distributors 48.4 50.8 55.2 55.3 End users 13.0 11.1 6.7 7.9 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 38.6 38.1 38.1 36.9 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand:3 Distributors 44.4 45.1 40.7 38.7 End users 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 54.8 54.0 58.3 60.3 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp from all other countries: Distributors 62.0 67.3 66.9 68.4 End users 3.1 1.7 1.9 2.2 To retailers1 /institutional buyers 2 34.9 31.1 31.2 29.4 1 Entities that purchase and resell to end users (i.e., supermarkets and other retailers that sell to customers). 2 Entities such as restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. 3 Nonsubject country. Note.—Numbers may not add to 100 because of rounding. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐4 Table II-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Geographic market areas in the United States served by U.S. processors and importers, by number of responding firms Region U.S. producers China Ecuador India Malaysia Vietnam Indonesia3 Thailand3 South Atlantic (Gulf Coast) 1 65.9 28.2 22.6 41.3 18.7 19.9 15.2 19.9 Northeast 10.3 22.6 18.0 12.0 23.9 18.8 29.2 26.7 Midwest 9.8 18.4 19.2 17.3 14.5 14.3 8.0 12.5 Southeast 8.6 6.8 12.2 3.0 12.2 13.5 8.5 12.6 Central Southwest 1.3 3.1 1.6 3.0 3.9 3.3 1.4 2.8 Mountains 1.0 5.2 7.0 4.9 6.4 7.8 4.9 7.1 Pacific Coast 2.4 14.9 18.9 18.0 20.0 21.9 32.3 16.9 Other 2 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.3 1 Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. 2 All other U.S. markets, including AK, HI, PR, VI, among others. 3 Nonsubject country. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table II-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Distance shipping reported by U.S. producers and importers Item Share of sales (percent) 0 to 100 miles 101-250 miles 250 to 500 miles 500+ miles U.S. producers 22.8 36.5 16.1 24.6 China 62.3 3.6 5.9 28.3 Ecuador 31.9 22.9 20.8 24.5 India 82.4 4.2 5.4 8.0 Malaysia 26.1 28.9 20.3 24.7 Vietnam 28.5 14.2 15.7 41.6 Indonesia 1 55.7 18.7 13.6 12.0 Thailand 1 29.6 14.7 17.0 38.7 1 Nonsubject country. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS U.S. supply U.S. supply of fresh shrimp and natural cycle U.S. fishermen generally harvest white, pink, and brown shrimp from the Gulf, and white and pink shrimp from the Carolina and Florida Atlantic coasts, respectively. U.S. shrimp fishermen primarily harvest only shrimp. Shifting to harvests of other animals would be II‐5 expensive since their equipment (trawlers, nets, etc.) are not appropriate for catching other forms of seafood. Fishermen’s decisions on whether or not to shrimp depend on fixed costs including the cost of the boat, boat maintenance, insurance, and debt‐servicing costs, and variable costs, including most importantly fuel, as well as equipment repair and replacement, and labor. 4 Supply of warmwater shrimp in the United States Eleven of the 43 responding U.S. processors and 8 of the 29 responding importers reported changes in their product range, product mix, and/or marketing since January 2010. U.S. processors reported changes in the types of shrimp caught, increases in direct sales to retail, more value added products and a shift from block frozen to IQF shrimp; increased marketing of U.S. shrimp; poor seasons, the oil spill and fuel prices changed product range; and the effects of imports on the U.S. market. Importers reported changes, including: processors selling directly to customers; a shift to larger sized shrimp; a shift from Black Tiger to Vannimei shrimp; more sales of peeled and deveined shrimp rather than shell on; and a shift from cooked to raw product. Seasonality The U.S. supply of wild‐caught fresh shrimp varies by season. The main fishing season is May to December, although different times of the year are better for particular species and sizes. In the offseason (roughly January through April), some fishermen take time for maintenance and upgrades while others continue fishing. Although U.S. processors are able to maintain some supply of warmwater shrimp during the offseason by freezing part of their in‐ season inventory for later sale, prices have been historically higher in the offseason as the supply of both fresh and frozen shrimp is lower. U.S. processors and fishermen have described his seasonal supply characteristic as a necessary cycle for fishermen and U.S. processors to make money (through higher offseason prices) and make needed repairs and upgrades.5 Most U.S. processors (37 of 43 responding firms) reported that there are business cycles or seasonality in U.S. warmwater shrimp supply.6 U.S. processors reported that U.S. shrimping tends to be seasonal, although they hold inventories of frozen shrimp for year round sales. In contrast, most importers, 17 of 31 reported no business cycles or seasonality. Most processors (19 of 37) and most importers (13 of 19) reported no change in business cycles or conditions of competition since 2010. The change that processers reported most frequently was the effect of the BP oil spill. 4 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063,1064,1066‐1068 (Review), USITC Publication 4221, March 2011, p. II‐4. 5 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, , India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063,1064,1066‐1068 (Review), USITC Publication 4221, March 2011, p. II‐6. 6 Some processors reported that business was not seasonal because they carried product for year round sales. II‐6 U.S. processors’ supply Based on available information, U.S. warmwater shrimp processors have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in their quantity of shipments to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of supply responsiveness are some availability of inventories, and large unused processing capacity. Supply responsiveness is limited most importantly by the biological/environmental limits on the amount of fresh shrimp that can be fished from U.S. waters and by few alternative markets and production alternatives. Industry capacity U.S. processors’ capacity increased from 571 million pounds in 2010 to 617 million pounds in 2012. The capacity utilization rate fluctuated within a small range between 2010 and 2012, increasing from 25.4 percent in 2010 to 27.7 percent in 2011 before decreasing to 26.6 percent in 2012. This low level of capacity utilization suggests that U.S. processors may have substantial capacity to increase processing of frozen warmwater shrimp in response to an increase in prices. The actual responsiveness of supply, given excess capacity, depends on the availability of shrimp to be processed which is determined by the amount of shrimp available and the size and success of the shrimp fishing fleet. Export markets U.S. processors’ exports, as a percentage of total shipments, were *** throughout the period. U.S. processors may have very little, if any, ability to shift shipments between the U.S. market and other markets in response to price changes. Inventory levels U.S. processors maintain inventories to respond to year‐round demand for warmwater shrimp and seasonal fluctuations in landings. U.S. processors’ inventories, as a ratio of their total warmwater shrimp shipments, increased irregularly from 20.2 percent in 2010 to 26.5 percent in 2012. These inventory levels suggest that U.S. processors may have some ability to respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity shipped from inventories. Production alternatives Only 2 of 42 responding processors stated that they could switch production from frozen warmwater shrimp to other products. Other products that processors reported producing on the same equipment as frozen warmwater shrimp are fresh shrimp, breaded shrimp, and other fish. II‐7 Supply constraints Twenty‐nine of 42 responding processors reported that they had been unable to supply shrimp since January 1, 2010 citing low prices that did not cover the cost of fishing; high fuel costs that reduced vessel profit; the BP oil spill; vessels hired to work for BP; closed shrimping areas; lack of inventories and supply in different sizes, no supply, lower landings, and shrimp in short supply; the lack of availability of preservative free shrimp for processing; and production affected by availability of labor. U.S. processors reported that fishing, safety, sanitary, environmental, business, and employment regulations increased their costs, thus affecting their supply. A number of processors questioned whether imports faced the same level of regulation/enforcement as they faced. Processors were also asked about “manmade” or natural disasters or diseases. Most processors mentioned that the BP oil spill both reduced supply and undermined demand, while BP’s willingness to pay for losses and hiring of boats for the cleanup effort reduced the number of boats used for shrimping. Firms also reported that hurricanes and other weather related problems, 7 pollution causing diseases, and “black gill” disease affected the supply of frozen warmwater shrimp. Respondents reported that the BP oil spill severely curtailed shrimping activity, as annual wild‐catch landings were *** million pounds, below the 40‐year average landings volume of 260 million pounds. They also stated that numerous purchasers stopped buying processed domestic shrimp due to their fears of adverse health effect, which in turn affected domestic processors’ sales levels.8 Most processors reported that they faced different regulations than importers. U.S. regulations that affect supply include: labor laws, environmental regulations, FDA, HACCP,9 and other regulations that increase costs even though they also may improve the quality and safety of the food produced. Most processors reported that other countries’ regulations were less costly than those they faced, and some reported that a lack of regulation in other countries reduce their competitors’ costs. Also, the EU has banned substances that are permitted or not tested for by the United States, allowing a lower grade of warmwater shrimp to be imported into the U.S. market than into the EU. The EU also has a tariff on U.S. product sold in the EU. 7 Other weather problems reported included: unusually warm weather that increased predation; freezes that reduced the shrimp population; and floods that reduced the shrimp population. 8 Respondents’ joint answers to Commissioner questions, p. A‐23. 9 Hazard analysis & critical control points (HACCP) “is a management system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product.” Source: HTTP://WWW.FDA.Gov/food/foodsafery/hazardanalysiscriticalcontrolpointsHACCP/default retrieved February 1, 2013. II‐8 Most of the importers (17 of 31) reported supply constraints, often citing EMS 10 which has affected supply from China, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam in 2012 and 2013, with one importer reporting that Thailand’s production has fallen almost 50 percent. Most importers reported that U.S. regulations affect supply, including: FDA inspections slow delivery; and antidumping regulations limiting availability. Most importers were uncertain of the importance of other countries’ regulations’ or knew of no effect from these regulations. Subject imports Warmwater shrimp production in subject foreign countries primarily uses farm‐raised shrimp unlike U.S. production which primarily uses wild‐caught shrimp. Shrimp of many different species can be farmed, and shrimp farms are usually designed principally for export. Imports from subject countries increased from 415 million pounds in 2010 to 485 million pounds in 2012. Imports from India and Ecuador increased, while from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam decreased. Subject imports increased from 33.2 percent of the quantity of all U.S. imports in 2010 to 39.8 percent in 2012. Country‐by‐country data were available for imports of the majority of product imported into the U.S. markets for all subject countries except Malaysia. These data including imports, capacity, capacity utilization, ratios of inventories to shipments, shares of sales to the United States and home markets are presented in table II‐4. Nonsubject imports Imports of warmwater shrimp from nonsubject countries are available both as farmed and wild caught. Nonsubject source Thailand, is larger than any subject source of shrimp to the U.S. market and nonsubject source Indonesia is larger than any subject source except Ecuador. Both Indonesia and Thailand supply mainly farmed shrimp. Their share of total imports decreased from 47.9 percent in 2010 to 39.9 percent in 2012. Mexico provides wild‐caught warmwater shrimp with the same seasonal supply surge as U.S. production. Other major nonsubject country sources include Honduras, Peru, Guyana, Bangladesh, Singapore, and Venezuela. Respondents report that nonsubject countries could supply the U.S. market with the current level of total imports without any imports from subject country sources11 and that nonsubject imports would have a similar impact on U.S. prices as product from subject countries.12 10 EMS is a shrimp disease reported in some Asian shrimp farms. HTTP://aquatichealth.net/taxonomy/term/page=5 retrieved July 11, 2013. 11 Hearing transcript, pp. 240‐41 (Connelly). 12 Ecuador National Chamber of Aquaculture (NCA) post conference brief, pp. 21‐22. II‐9 II-4 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Foreign producer capacity, total shipments to the U.S. market, capacity utilization, inventories, sales to various markets and overall capability to shift sales to the United States Year Total capacity U.S. imports 1 Capacity utilization Inventories to shipments Sales to markets Factors influencing supply responsiveness to changes in the U.S. market1,000 pounds Home U.S. Percent China: 2010 *** 54,591 *** *** *** *** *** . 2012 *** 30,537 *** *** *** *** Ecuador: 2010 505,895 141,620 40.9 4.1 1.9 41.2 Ecuador’s increasing capacity and increasing shipments to the U.S. market may increase its ability to increase supply to the U.S. market. Relatively low capacity utilization, and large quantities shipped to other markets also increase its ability to shift shipments to the U.S. market. Low inventories, however, reduce its ability to shift shipments to the U.S. market.2012 628,145 176,688 49.2 4.6 2.1 35.4 India: 2010 641,907 65,444 19.2 14.0 0.2 45.0 India has the second largest capacity of the subject countries and its capacity is growing, which may increase its ability to increase supply to the U.S. market. In addition, low capacity utilization (although rising), and a large share of production exported to other markets may allow it to increase shipments to the U.S. market. The growth of Indian exports into the U.S. market indicates that India may be able to increase U.S. shipments further.2012 752,968 143,163 27.9 13.1 0.1 56.1 Malaysia: 2010 *** 52,721 *** *** *** *** *** . 2012 *** 50,882 *** *** *** *** Vietnam: 2010 409,447 100,834 76.7 19.1 4.1 30.6 Vietnam’s large and rising capacity, falling capacity utilization, inventories, and moderate share sold to the U.S. market may increase its ability to shift product to the U.S. market. EMS may reduce the amount of Vietnamese shrimp available for processing.2012 444,227 83,534 57.6 23.7 2.1 29.1 Table continued on the next page. II‐10 Table II-4 Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Foreign producer capacity, total shipments to the U.S. market, capacity utilization, inventories, sales to various markets and overall capability to shift sales to the United States Year Total capacity U.S. imports 1 Capacity utilization Inventories to shipments Sales to markets Factors influencing supply responsiveness to changes in the U.S. market1,000 short tons Home U.S. Percent Indonesia: 2 2010 332,860 126,661 45.5 10.3 4.0 60.5 Indonesia had the second largest shipments of product to the U.S. market in 2009, however exports to the U.S. market have risen relatively little and it is no longer the second largest in 2011. High quantities sold may increase the ability to increase supply to the U.S. market; low capacity utilization increases Indonesia’s ability to shift shipments to the U.S. market.2012 318,333 157,702 59.7 11.6 2.1 72.3 Thailand:2 2010 1,006,024 414,954 67.5 17.9 5.5 50.2 Relatively high shipments to the U.S. market (more than twice as much as reported by any other subject country), and a majority of production shipped to the U.S. market may increase the ability to increase supply to the U.S. market. None-the-less both shipments to the United States and the share sold to the U.S. market have fallen. EMS may reduce the amount of Thai shrimp available for processing.2012 1,049,041 273,541 52.4 24.6 5.6 41.5 1 U.S. imports are from official Commerce statistics. All other data are from the foreign producers’ questionnaires. 2 Nonsubject country. Note.–Foreign producer data for most subject countries cover the majority of imports into the United States: China ***; Ecuador ***; Vietnam ***; and India ***; and from nonsubject countries Indonesia ***; and Thailand ***. Malaysian responding foreign producers, however, cover only ***% of Malaysian exports to the United States. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, and Official Commerce Statistics. New suppliers Only two purchasers indicated that new suppliers entered the U.S. market since 2010; the only new supplier listed was Vita Clean, a broker for product from Vietnam. Supply constraints Seventeen of 31 responding importers reported supply constraints since January 1, 2010. Importers reported a variety of constraints including: bad harvests; delayed shipments; shortages; smaller catches of wild shrimp forced the firm to replace U.S.‐produced product with imports because of a lack of availability of U.S. product; shifted to selling COD due to the economy; FDA inspection caused delays; demand can be higher than supply; limits on species and sizes available; refused customers out of delivery area or for credit reasons; antidumping duties bond requirements curtailed growth; and limitation in Asian supply due to disease and demand in other markets. Importers were asked if regulations in the United States or other countries affected supply. A number of importers stated that FDA inspections can delay shipments for up to 6 II‐11 weeks, increasing their need for inventories or causing delayed deliveries. A few reported that other countries’ regulations affected supply, including: in Ecuador, peelers are required to be full‐time employees with benefits, increasing cost by 25 percent; other purchasing countries have changed import policies; and restrictions on the use of antibiotic for product sold to other countries result in this product being supplied to the U.S. market. U.S. demand Demand for warmwater shrimp comes primarily from retail sellers of both prepared and unprepared warmwater shrimp (e.g., grocery stores) and restaurants. In recent years, larger restaurant chains and U.S. seafood processors (i.e., breaders, skewers, and marinaters) have demanded warmwater shrimp in larger quantities, with year‐round availability, standardized sizes, and lower prices. There is some seasonality in U.S. shrimp demand, which is typically higher around the Easter, Christmas, and New Year’s holidays. 13 End uses U.S. demand for frozen warmwater shrimp depends on the demand for shrimp as food either as a standalone item or as an ingredient with other food. Downstream products include breaded shrimp, frozen meals, and skillet meals. Petitioners report that the “food service industry” purchases the majority of frozen warmwater shrimp in the United States. In the food service industry, larger shrimp are used as a “center‐of‐the‐plate item”, and accounts for the largest portion of the costs of the meal. 14 Business cycles The majority of all questionnaire respondents reported that there are business cycles or conditions of competition that are distinct to the industry. Producers and importers frequently reported that demand for shrimp is stronger during the holiday season and holidays in general and the Lenten period than at other times of the year. Apparent consumption Apparent U.S. consumption of frozen warmwater shrimp fluctuated between 2010 and 2012. It increased from 1,249 billion pounds in 2010 to 1,295 billion pounds in 2011, and then decreased to *** billion pounds in 2012. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption in 2012 was *** percent lower than in 2010. 13 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731‐TA‐1063, 1064, 1066‐1068 (Review), USITC Publication 4221, March 2011, p. II‐ 15. 14 Conference transcript, pp. 35‐36 (Kimbrough) and Hearing transcript, p, 80 (Folse). II‐12 Demand trends Most U.S. processors reported that U.S. demand had decreased since 2010, most importers reported that demand had increased or fluctuated since 2010, and most purchasers reported that demand had increased or was unchanged since 2010 (table II‐5). Reasons given for reduced demand include: the recession; more price sensitive customers; imports; the BP oil spill has created a negative perception of shrimp quality; price increases; reduced quality; availability; and prices are getting so high customers substitute meat. 15 Reasons given for increased demand include: health conscious eaters/health benefits from eating seafood; more eating out; the popularity of shrimp; promotion of seafood; rise in the price of competing meats; stable supply; high quality; consistent specifications; improving economy; increased market share; increased offers of U.S. product and shortage of large sized imports have increased consumption of U.S. produce; and increased interest in local product. Table II-5 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Number of firms reporting actual changes in demand in the United States since 2010 Supplier Increased No change Decreased Fluctuated U.S. processors 6 5 23 6 Importers 14 6 2 8 Purchasers 10 8 2 7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Firms were asked how demand had changed outside the U.S. market (table II‐6). Most processors reported demand was unchanged or had decreased, while most importers and purchasers reported that demand outside the United States had increased. Reasons given for increased demand include: strong economies; growing populations, emerging middle class; other countries being willing to pay prices equivalent to the U.S. market; demand in developing countries and China, preference for seafood; consistent quality; low price; and China is a net importer. Reasons given for decreased demand include: global economic decline, consumer perceptions from the BP oil spill; price; European reluctance to accept farm raised shrimp because of chemicals used in their production; and recession in Europe. Table II-6 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Number of firms reporting actual changes in demand outside the United States since 2010 Supplier Increased No change Decreased Fluctuated U.S. processors 3 7 7 1 Importers 14 2 1 3 Purchasers 12 4 1 3 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 15 U.S. processors also reported that demand had fallen because of low‐priced imports and U.S importers reported that the steady supply of shrimp increased demand. II‐13 Substitute products Almost all processors, importers, and purchasers reported that there were no substitutes for warmwater shrimp.16 The few firms reporting substitutes cited “any protein”, crawfish, lobsters, crabmeat, and scallops. While other proteins, particularly meats, fish, or shellfish may be consumed, they offer different tastes, textures, and presentations. One possible substitute for imported subject frozen warmwater shrimp is increased imports of value‐added product, such as breaded shrimp, produced overseas, rather than having the frozen warmwater shrimp imported and having the value added in the United States.17 Cost share Frozen warmwater shrimp accounts for a moderate‐to‐large share of the cost of the end‐use products in which it is used. Firms were specifically requested to report the cost share of shrimp in restaurant meals and in breaded shrimp. Six importers reported cost shares for restaurant meals, with four importers reporting that shrimp accounts for 25 to 30 percent of the cost, and two importers reporting that it was 70 to 75 percent. Two producers reported that shrimp was 95 percent of the cost of a meal. Three importers, four processors, and one purchaser reported the share of shrimp in frozen breaded shrimp. One importer and one processor reported it was 40 to 50 percent of the cost, three processors and one purchaser reported it was 65 to 70 percent of the cost of breaded shrimp, and two importers and one processer reported that it was 80 to 90 percent of the cost. Reported cost shares for other end uses were as follows: shrimp gumbo (25 percent); breaded shrimp with sauce (50 percent); other shrimp with sauce (60 percent); skillet meals (28 percent); frozen meals (17 percent); shrimp scampi (66 percent); shrimp bisque (54 percent); and seafood bisque (29 percent). SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES The degree of substitution between domestic and imported frozen warmwater shrimp depends upon such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., species characteristics, consistency, flavor profile, etc.), and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, availability, payment terms, product services, reliability of supply, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a moderate degree of substitutability between U.S.‐produced frozen warmwater shrimp and that imported from subject countries. 16 Two of 34 processers, 1 of 28 responding importers reported a substitute, and 1 of 22 responding purchasers reported substitutes. 17 Conference transcript, pp. 118, 159 (Paterson). II‐14 Knowledge of country sources Twenty‐one purchasers reported knowing the sources of frozen warmwater shrimp, with some firms reporting knowledge of as many as eight sources (table II‐7). Table II-7 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Sources known country of origin Country U.S. China Ecuador India Malaysia Vietnam Indonesia 1 Thailand1 Number of purchasers knowing source 21 8 20 16 4 15 18 19 1 Nonsubject country. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. As shown in table II‐8, most purchasers “always” make purchasing decisions based on the processor. In contrast most purchasers’ customers “sometimes” or “never” make purchase decisions based on the producer or country. Most purchasers “always” or “sometimes” make purchase decisions based on country of origin. Purchasers that reported that they “always” make decisions based on the producer frequently cited a number of concerns including: quality, food safety, regulatory requirements, consistency, buy from approved sources, social audits for non‐U.S. product, quality assurance approval from major customers, sustainability requirements, and brand. Table II-8 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Purchasing decisions based on producer and country of origin Purchaser/Customer Decision Always Usually Sometimes Never Purchaser makes decision based on producer 19 1 5 5 Purchaser’s customers make decision based on producer 4 8 7 9 Purchaser makes decision based on country 9 4 15 2 Purchaser’s customers make decision based on country 1 6 16 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Factors affecting purchasing decisions The most often cited top three factors firms consider in their purchasing decisions for frozen warmwater shrimp were quality (23 of 29 firms), price (16 firms), and availability (13 firms) as shown in table II‐9. Quality was cited most frequently as the most important factor (cited by 15 firms); price was the most frequently reported second most important factor (7 firms); and availability was the most frequently reported third most important factor (6 firms). When 29 responding purchasers were ask whether they “always,” “usually,” “sometimes,” or “never” purchase at the lowest price, two answered “always,” 11 answered “usually,” 12 answered “sometimes,” and four answered “never.” II‐15 Table II-9 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers, by number of reporting firms Factor First Second Third Total Quality 15 7 1 23 Price 4 7 5 16 Availability 3 4 6 13 Traditional supplier/related supplier 3 0 1 4 Approved source 2 0 0 2 Service 0 4 0 4 Consistency 0 2 1 3 Delivery time/delivery time accuracy 0 1 1 2 Other 1 1 2 3 6 1 Other factors includes: credit and meeting specification for second factors, and contracts, size availability, product line, and food safety for the third factor. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. When asked if they purchased frozen warmwater shrimp from one source although a comparable product was available at a lower price from another source, 19 purchasers reported yes and cited reasons including time to fill orders (shipping from South American takes less time than from Asia), quality, availability, reliability of supplier, a need to have two country sources of supply; require aquaculture for consistency; contracts; relationship with suppliers; require U.S. product for military; other than U.S. product do not make decisions based on country of origin; to secure quantity; amount of tri‐poly phosphate used, 18 prefer U.S. product even if a little higher priced; buy only U.S. product; qualified producer; meet sustainability standards; and availability. Fourteen of 28 responding purchasers reported that certain types of product were only available from a single source including 16/20 and 21/25 black tigers from Vietnam; smaller peeled shrimp are typically not available from India and Thailand but are available from China and some Latin American countries; aztecus, stifreus, and duorarum species are only available from U.S. and Mexico while the indicus species is only available from India; large shrimp from Vietnam; ezy peels, peeled and deveined, and tail‐on shrimp are not available from U.S. and Mexico; India grows larger 16/20 thru 26/30, others grow 31/40s to 51/60s; 6/9 products are available from India or Bangladesh; cooked peeled and deveined is available from limited countries; U.S. has best availability of colossal product from Brown shrimp fisheries; wild caught is available primarily from U.S. and Mexico, and is different from farm raised; the U.S. does not produce P&D products, India produces larger shrimp, Thailand produces small shrimp, Tigers are only produced in India and Vietnam; and browns are only produced by U.S. 18 Tri‐poly phosphate is used as a preservative in seafood and can increase the sales weight of seafood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sodium_triphosphate retrieved July 10, 2013. II‐16 Importance of specified purchase factors Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 25 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II‐10). Twenty‐six of 29 responding purchasers rated consistency within shipments, product consistency, and quality meets industry standards as “very important”. Other factors rated as “very important” by most responding purchasers were availability, consistency from one shipment to another, and sanitary standards (25 each); reliability of supply and taste/flavor profile (24); freshness and size of shrimp (23); proper cutting, handling, and packaging techniques (21); price (20); and delivery time (17). Factors rated as not important by 9 or more purchasers included processed by hand (13); and extension of credit and U.S. transportation costs (9). Table II-10 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers, by number of responding firms Factor Very important Somewhat important Not important Availability 25 3 1 Consistency from one shipment to another 25 3 1 Consistency within shipments 26 2 1 Delivery terms 15 13 1 Delivery time 17 11 1 Discounts offered 10 12 6 Extension of credit 6 13 9 Freshness 23 4 2 Minimum quantity requirements 4 17 7 Packaging 14 11 4 Price 20 8 1 Processed by hand 4 11 13 Product consistency 26 2 1 Product range 9 17 2 Proper cutting, handling, and packaging techniques 21 6 1 Quality meets industry standards 26 2 1 Quality exceeds industry standards 10 12 7 Reliability of supply 24 4 0 Sanitary standards 25 2 1 Size of shrimp 23 5 1 Species 15 12 1 Taste/flavor profile 24 4 1 Technical support/service 12 9 7 U.S. transportation costs 8 11 9 Wild caught shrimp 10 12 6 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Purchasers reported characteristics that determine the quality of frozen warmwater shrimp which included: factors to do with the aesthetic qualities of the shrimp, (flavor, odor, color, texture, and eye appeal); workmanship (proper deveining, lack of damaged or broken shrimp, and no excessive throat meat); proper handling (freshness, wholesomeness, amount of tri‐poly, and lack of freezer burn); consistency (size consistency and flavor consistency); and proper packing (proper labeling, net weight, proper sizing, uniform size, and count per pound). II‐17 Supplier certification Twenty of 30 responding purchasers require that all products they purchase be certified.19 Almost all purchasers (27 of 29) reported some standards for the product they purchased with 19 reporting that they require the same standards for both farmed and wild caught shrimp and the remaining 8 requiring different standards for wild caught shrimp than farm raised shrimp. Of those firms that reported the same standards for wild and farmed shrimp, most reported public standards such as HACCP compliance, GFS certificate USDA audits, and NOAA USDC 20 but others reported more general requirements such as sanitary environmental and social standards, or specific quality requirements. Firms that required different standards for wild caught and farmed shrimp required MSC certification21 or working for MSC certification or fishery improvement plan for wild caught shrimp and Best Aquaculture Practices certificate or GAA/BAP certificates for farmed shrimp. Purchasers reported that the time to qualify a new supplier ranged from 1 to 360 days. Seventeen firms reported that certification took 30 days or less, while ten reported that it took 30 days or longer.22 Five purchasers reported that suppliers had either lost certification or failed to be certified since 2010. Both domestic and foreign suppliers had failed in their attempts to qualify product, or had lost their approved status since 2010. One purchaser changed its standards to require “Best Aquaculture Practice” and some suppliers no longer wanted to pursue this business. One purchaser reported that price and an unstable supply had disqualified suppliers, one reported that it had rejected new suppliers because it did not need any new suppliers, one reported rejecting three firms ***, and one rejected three U.S. and three Indian sources. Six purchasers reported rejecting product, with freezer burn being the most common problem. Other problems include: temperature problems; lack of uniformity; weight problems;23 and contamination. 24 Changes in purchasing patterns Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2010 (table II‐11). Reasons reported for decreases in sourcing U.S. product included: reduced production of soup, the downstream product, the gulf oil spill, and lower supply caused share to decline. For increased U.S. purchases, purchasers noted customer 19 Eight reported that they did not require prequalification, and two reported that they required qualification for 80 percent of their purchases. 20 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides inspection services for fish, shellfish, and fishery products to the industry. Its Inspection Program uses the USDC moniker. NOAA Seafood inspection program, http://www.seafood.nmfs.noaa.gov/ retrieved July 10, 2013. 21 Marine Stewardship Council developed standards for sustainable fishing and seafood traceability. Marine Stewardship Council, retrieved July 10, 2013, http://wwwmsc.org/about‐us/what‐we‐do . 22 In addition, one purchaser reported that the time required could be both longer than and shorter than 30 days, reporting qualification time ranged from 1 to 60 days. 23 One purchaser reported rejecting product for weight or freezer burn issues from ***. 24 Firms rejected product from Ecuador, Guyana, the United States and Indonesia but gave no reason. II‐18 preference for U.S. product, expanding private label to include domestic, and increased number of “SKUS” and promotions. Reasons for fluctuating purchases included cost and change in retail strategy, customer requirements for U.S. shrimp, and purchases vary with availability and advertisement schedules. Reasons given for why Chinese purchases fluctuated include changed source based on quality and price; purchases slowed after 2012; and presence of EMS in 2009. Reasons for decreases in purchases of Ecuadorian product include: producing less soup and less small wild caught available. Reasons for increasing purchases of Ecuadorian product include: prompt delivery, cost, more customers, availability, quality, new product uses Ecuador’s small shrimp, product meets sustainability standards, and EMS in other countries. Purchasers reported that fluctuations in purchases of Ecuadorian product were based on prices. Reasons for changes in purchases of Indian product include: increased (more customers, price and ability, availability and quality, meets sustainability standards, and EMS in other countries) and fluctuate (offered best value and met quality needs and demands of customers and large shipments in 2012). Reasons for changes in purchases of product from Malaysia include: fluctuation (quality and a one‐time purchase in 2011). Reasons for changes in purchases from Vietnam include: reduced (EMS in 2010 and 2011, and changes in retail strategy); increased (more customers, product availability, quality and price, Tiger shrimp); and fluctuated (price). Reasons for changes in purchases of product from Indonesia included: increase (more customers, price and availability, supply quality and flavor, meets sustainability standards and EMS in other countries) and fluctuation (large shipments in 2012). Reasons for changes in purchases of product from Thailand include: reduced (lost share to Indonesia and EMS in 2012, availability, cost, and changes in retail strategy); increased (available pealed and raw and cooked and business expansion); and fluctuations (quality and price, price, and small supplier). Reasons for changes in purchases from other nonsubject sources include: reduced (quality and shift to other sources); increase (business expansion and cost); and fluctuations (quality and price and need). Only two purchasers reported that there were new suppliers; one reported a new broker for Vietnamese product. Table II-11 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Changes in purchase patterns from U.S., subject, and nonsubject countries, since 2010 Source of purchases Did not purchase Decreased Increased Constant Fluctuated United States 4 4 8 3 9 China 17 4 0 1 6 Ecuador 4 2 12 6 3 India 8 2 12 1 6 Malaysia 16 3 1 2 5 Vietnam 7 6 6 6 3 Indonesia 1 6 4 9 6 4 Thailand 1 6 8 3 6 5 All other countries 5 7 5 2 6 1 Nonsubject country. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐19 Importance of purchasing domestic product Ten of 29 responding purchasers reported no requirement to purchase U.S.‐produced product, 4 reported that purchasing U.S. product was required by law, 13 reported that it was required by customers, and 4 reported it was required for other reasons. Three firms reported shares required by law (2 and 85 percent),25 seven reported shares required by customers (0.1, 5, 10, 11, 20, 50, and 100 percent), and one reported amount required for other reasons (5 percent). Five purchasers explained why U.S. produced shrimp was required, including: Berry Amendment26 compliance (military accounted for 0.5 percent of purchases); orders for wild caught/product of U.S./specific species; traditionally sell some U.S. shrimp; always sell domestic shrimp at all locations as a competitive difference; and as a domestic processor, purchase domestic product. Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing frozen warmwater shrimp produced in the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries. First, purchasers were asked for a country‐by‐country comparison on the same 25 factors (table II‐12) for which they were asked to rate the importance in purchasing decisions. Most purchasers reported that the U.S. product and subject imports from each of the subject countries, and nonsubject countries Indonesia and Thailand, were comparable on nine factors including: consistency from one shipment to another, delivery terms, discounts offered, extension of credit, minimum quantity requirement, packaging, size of shrimp, species, and U.S. transportation cost. Most purchasers reported that U.S. product was superior to product from all subject countries for availability of wild caught shrimp. Most purchasers reported that U.S. product was inferior to all subject countries except Malaysia and Vietnam for availability. Most responding purchasers reported U.S. and Chinese product were comparable with regard to 11 factors, that U.S. was superior for delivery time and wild caught shrimp, that the U.S. product was inferior on availability, price, hand processing, and product range, there was no clear majority for product consistency, proper cutting, handling and packing techniques, reliability of supply, sanitary standards, quality meets and quality exceeds firm standards, and taste/flavor profile. Most purchasers reported that U.S. and Ecuador product was comparable on 20 factors, and that U.S. product was inferior on availability, price, and reliability of supply; U.S. was superior for delivery time and availability of wild caught shrimp. Most firms reported that U.S. and Indian product was comparable on 13 factors with most reporting that U.S. product was inferior on availability, and reliability of supply, and was superior on delivery time and wild caught shrimp. No majority was reported for consistency from one shipment to another, consistency within shipment, price, processed by hand, quality exceeds firm standard, sanitary 25 Two purchasers reported that 2.0 percent of their purchases were required by law to be from the United States. 26 The Berry Amendment was passed by Congress in 1941 to promote the purchase of U.S. goods. II‐20 standards, species, and taste/flavor profile. Half or more the responding purchasers reported U.S. and Malaysian product were comparable for 23 factors. The U.S. product was superior for availability of wild caught shrimp; there was no consensus for taste/flavor profile. Most responding purchasers reported the U.S. and Thai product were comparable for 14 factors and that U.S. product was superior for delivery time and wild caught shrimp; U.S. product was inferior for availability, processed by hand, product range, and sanitary standard; while there was no consensus on consistency within shipments, freshness, quality exceeds firm standard, price, and taste/flavor profile. Most of the responding purchasers reported the U.S. and Vietnamese product were comparable for 20 factors and that the U.S. product was superior for delivery time and wild caught shrimp; while there was no consensus on availability, product range, and taste/flavor profile. Most purchasers reported product was comparable for all products for all subject country pairs and therefore, no table with comparisons is presented. Table II-12 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Purchasers’ comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported product Factor U.S. vs. China U.S. vs. Ecuador U.S vs. India U.S. vs. Malaysia S C I S C I S C I S C I Availability 1 5 6 0 7 13 2 5 12 1 6 4 Consistency from one shipment to another 1 8 3 0 11 8 2 9 7 1 8 2 Consistency within shipment 1 8 3 0 11 8 2 9 7 1 8 2 Delivery terms 4 8 0 5 14 0 6 12 0 3 8 0 Delivery time 9 3 0 12 7 0 12 5 1 5 6 0 Discounts offered 0 8 4 0 15 4 2 13 3 1 9 1 Extension of credit 2 9 1 1 17 1 2 14 2 2 9 0 Freshness 2 6 4 1 13 5 2 11 5 2 6 3 Minimum quantity requirements 3 8 1 3 12 4 5 10 3 2 8 1 Packaging 0 9 3 0 16 2 1 15 2 1 7 3 Price 1 1 4 7 3 4 12 1 8 9 2 6 3 Processed by hand 1 4 7 0 10 9 2 8 8 1 6 4 Product consistency 1 6 5 0 11 8 2 10 6 1 8 2 Product range 1 4 7 0 12 7 1 9 7 1 7 3 Proper cutting, handling and packing techniques 1 6 5 0 11 8 2 11 5 1 8 2 Quality meets your firm’s standards 1 6 5 0 13 6 3 10 5 1 8 2 Quality exceeds your firm’s standards 1 5 5 0 11 8 3 9 6 1 8 2 Reliability of supply 1 5 6 0 9 10 2 5 11 1 8 2 Sanitary standards 1 5 6 1 10 8 2 9 7 1 7 3 Size of shrimp 2 7 3 2 13 4 3 14 1 1 9 1 Species 1 10 1 3 11 5 5 9 4 1 8 2 Taste/flavor profile 3 6 3 4 10 4 7 8 3 4 5 2 Technical support/service 2 8 1 1 14 3 3 12 3 2 6 3 U.S. transportation costs 1 4 7 1 4 13 1 6 10 1 4 7 0 Wild caught shrimp 7 3 2 8 7 2 13 4 1 7 2 1 Table continued on next page II‐21 Table II-12--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Purchasers’ comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported product Factor U.S vs. Vietnam U.S vs. Indonesia 2 U.S. vs. Thailand2 U.S vs. nonsubject countries S C I S C I S C I S C I Availability 0 9 9 1 5 14 2 6 12 1 7 5 Consistency from one shipment to another 0 10 8 1 12 7 1 11 8 1 9 3 Consistency within shipment 0 11 7 1 11 8 1 10 9 1 9 3 Delivery terms 4 14 0 5 15 0 6 14 0 2 10 0 Delivery time 10 7 1 10 9 1 11 7 2 6 7 0 Discounts offered 0 16 2 1 15 4 1 16 3 0 13 0 Extension of credit 1 16 1 2 16 2 2 16 2 0 13 0 Freshness 0 12 6 2 9 9 1 10 9 0 11 2 Minimum quantity requirements 3 13 1 3 14 3 3 14 3 1 12 0 Packaging 0 16 2 1 15 4 0 17 3 0 13 0 Price 1 1 10 7 2 7 11 1 9 10 1 10 2 Processed by hand 0 10 8 1 7 12 0 9 11 0 11 2 Product consistency 0 11 7 1 10 9 1 9 10 0 10 3 Product range 1 8 9 1 10 9 0 9 11 1 10 2 Proper cutting, handling and packing techniques 0 12 6 1 10 9 0 11 9 0 11 2 Quality meets your firm’s standards 0 14 4 1 12 7 0 12 7 0 10 3 Quality exceeds your firm’s standards 0 13 4 1 12 7 0 11 8 0 10 3 Reliability of supply 0 10 8 1 8 11 0 11 9 1 8 4 Sanitary standards 0 11 7 1 8 11 1 8 11 1 11 1 Size of shrimp 2 12 4 4 14 2 3 14 3 1 10 2 Species 2 11 5 4 12 4 4 11 5 2 10 1 Taste/flavor profile 4 9 5 8 8 4 7 8 5 0 12 1 Technical support/service 2 10 5 2 13 5 2 12 6 1 12 0 U.S. transportation costs 1 6 11 0 6 13 1 6 13 1 3 10 0 Wild caught shrimp 11 5 1 13 4 2 11 6 2 3 10 0 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation costs is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the U.S. product was generally priced lower than the imported product. 2 Nonsubject country Note: S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first list country’s product is inferior. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐22 Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported frozen warmwater shrimp In order to determine whether U.S.‐produced frozen warmwater shrimp can generally be used in the same applications as imports from both subject and nonsubject countries U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As shown in table II‐13, most processors reported that product from all pairs could “always” or “frequently" be used interchangeably.27 Most importers reported that product from all country pairs was “sometimes” or never interchangeable. Similarly, most purchasers reported that U.S. and imported product from all countries could only “sometimes” or “never” be used interchangeably. However, most purchasers reported product from other countries pairs “always” or “frequently” could be used interchangeably except for Malaysia compared with China, India, and Ecuador, and “other” nonsubject countries compared to China, Malaysia, and Vietnam, as well as nonsubject countries Thailand and Indonesia. In these cases most purchasers reported that they were at least “sometimes” interchangeable. 27 In the importers prehearing brief, the respondents stated that U.S.‐produced shrimp is not closely substitutable with imports due to such factors as customer preferences for domestic wild caught as compared to farm raised domestic shrimp, quality differences, geographic differences , and species differences. Importers’ prehearing brief, pp. 20‐23. In their posthearing brief, the petitioner’s stated that differences other than price are rarely significant in purchasing decisions. They noted that many purchasers buy both the domestic wild caught and imported farm raised shrimp for the same purposes. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 3. II‐23 Table II-13 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Perceived interchangeability between frozen warmwater shrimp produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs Country pairs Number of U.S. processors reporting Number of U.S. importers reporting Number of purchasers reporting A F S N A F S N A F S N U.S. vs. subject countries: U.S. vs. China 22 10 4 3 0 2 9 6 4 2 8 6 U.S. vs. Ecuador 23 9 4 3 0 0 11 9 4 5 8 5 U.S. vs. India 22 10 4 3 0 1 10 10 4 1 13 5 U.S. vs. Malaysia 22 9 4 3 1 1 9 7 3 0 10 5 U.S. vs. Vietnam 22 9 4 3 0 1 11 8 3 2 11 7 Subject vs. subject countries: China vs. Ecuador 18 9 3 1 1 1 12 0 6 6 5 1 China. vs. India 19 8 2 1 1 2 12 1 7 4 6 1 China. vs. Malaysia 20 8 2 1 0 2 11 0 4 3 7 1 China. vs. Vietnam 20 8 2 1 1 2 12 1 7 6 4 1 Ecuador vs. India 17 8 3 1 2 0 15 2 5 8 7 1 Ecuador vs. Malaysia 18 9 3 1 1 0 10 1 3 4 7 2 Ecuador vs. Vietnam 18 9 3 2 2 0 14 2 6 9 4 2 India vs. Malaysia 20 7 2 1 0 2 11 1 7 1 8 1 India vs. Vietnam 20 7 2 2 2 3 14 0 9 7 5 1 Malaysia vs. Vietnam 20 7 2 1 3 1 10 1 9 4 5 1 U.S. vs. nonsubject: U.S. vs. Indonesia 22 9 5 3 0 1 11 9 4 0 13 6 U.S. vs. Thailand 23 9 4 3 1 0 12 9 4 2 10 7 U.S. vs. Nonsubject 20 7 4 3 0 0 10 6 3 2 9 4 Subject vs. nonsubject countries:1 China. vs. Indonesia 21 6 2 2 1 2 12 1 6 4 7 1 China. vs. Thailand 21 7 2 1 1 2 12 1 7 6 4 1 China vs. Nonsubject 18 6 3 1 0 1 12 0 4 3 7 1 Ecuador vs. Indonesia 19 7 3 1 2 2 15 2 5 8 6 0 Ecuador vs. Thailand 19 9 3 1 2 0 15 2 7 8 4 1 Ecuador vs. Nonsubject 18 6 3 1 1 0 12 1 4 5 7 1 India vs. Indonesia 20 6 2 1 3 3 14 0 9 4 7 0 India vs. Thailand 20 7 2 1 2 3 15 0 9 7 6 0 India vs. Nonsubject 18 5 3 1 0 0 14 1 6 4 7 1 Malaysia vs Indonesia. 18 7 2 1 2 1 10 1 8 2 7 1 Malaysia vs. Thailand 20 7 2 1 3 2 9 1 9 4 2 3 Malaysia vs. Nonsubject 18 5 3 1 1 0 11 0 5 1 6 1 Vietnam vs. Indonesia 20 7 2 1 4 4 12 0 9 6 5 0 Vietnam vs.Thailand 20 8 2 1 4 2 14 0 7 4 6 1 Vietnam vs. Nonsubject 18 5 3 1 0 0 14 1 5 2 7 2 Nonsubject vs. nonsubject countries:1 Indonesia vs. Thailand 21 6 2 1 4 4 13 0 11 7 3 1 Indonesia vs. Nonsubject 18 5 3 1 1 0 14 1 5 3 7 1 Thailand vs. Nonsubject 18 5 3 1 1 0 14 1 5 3 7 1 1 Indonesia and Thailand are nonsubject countries. Note.—A=Always, F=Frequently, S=Sometimes, N=Never. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐24 Only 8 of 28 responding purchasers reported that domestically‐produced product “always” met minimum quality specifications (table II‐14) and only a minority of purchasers reported imported product “always” met minimum quality standards for all countries for which data were collected, but most purchasers did report that product from all countries at least “usually” met purchaser’s minimum standards. Table II-14 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source and number of reporting firms 1 Source Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never United States 8 8 5 3 China 6 3 2 1 Ecuador 11 6 1 2 India 7 9 4 1 Malaysia 1 4 1 1 Mexico 6 6 2 1 Vietnam 12 8 0 1 Indonesia 2 7 10 1 1 Thailand2 11 10 0 1 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported frozen warmwater shrimp meets minimum quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. 2 Nonsubject country. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. In addition, producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of frozen warmwater shrimp from the United States, subject, or nonsubject countries. As shown in table II‐15, most processors reported that there were either “never” or only “sometimes” differences other than price for product from each of the country pairs. Most importers, however, reported there were “always” or “frequently” differences other than price between U.S. and imported product but that there were “sometimes” differences between all but one subject pair. 28 Purchasers responses were more varied, particularly when comparing U.S. product with product from other countries. Most purchasers agreed that there were at least “sometimes” differences other than price for all country pairs. Purchasers reported “always” and “frequently” more often when comparing U.S. product with product from the subject countries than when comparing pairs of subject countries. 28 For Malaysia compared to Thailand six reported there were “sometimes” differences other than price, three each reported “frequently” and “never” difference other than price and two reported that there were “always” differences other than price. II‐25 Table II-15 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Significance of differences other than price between frozen warmwater shrimp produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pairs Number of U.S. processors reporting Number of U.S. importers reporting Number of purchasers reporting A F S N A F S N A F S N U.S. vs. subject countries: U.S. vs. China 7 4 8 19 8 5 2 1 5 4 6 3 U.S. vs. Ecuador 7 3 7 20 11 2 4 2 7 6 6 2 U.S. vs. India 7 6 7 18 13 4 2 1 6 3 11 2 U.S. vs. Malaysia 7 3 7 19 9 4 3 1 4 1 10 1 U.S. vs. Vietnam 7 3 7 19 12 4 3 1 6 5 8 3 Subject vs. subject countries: China vs. Ecuador 3 3 7 15 2 3 9 0 3 2 10 2 China. vs. India 3 4 5 16 2 2 10 0 3 0 12 2 China. vs. Malaysia 3 4 6 14 2 2 9 0 3 0 9 1 China. vs. Vietnam 3 3 7 14 2 2 9 1 3 2 10 2 Ecuador vs. India 3 4 6 15 3 3 11 1 3 2 14 2 Ecuador vs. Malaysia 3 3 5 15 3 2 7 1 4 1 8 1 Ecuador vs. Vietnam 3 3 5 15 3 2 11 1 3 4 11 2 India vs. Malaysia 3 3 6 14 2 3 9 0 4 0 9 1 India vs. Vietnam 3 3 6 15 2 3 13 0 4 2 13 3 Malaysia vs. Vietnam 3 3 5 16 2 2 9 3 4 3 10 3 U.S. vs. nonsubject countries: U.S. vs. Indonesia 7 4 7 19 12 3 4 1 7 3 10 2 U.S. vs. Thailand 7 3 7 20 13 5 2 1 6 6 8 2 U.S. vs. Nonsubject 6 3 6 18 7 4 4 1 3 4 9 1 Subject vs. nonsubject countries:1 China. vs. Indonesia 3 3 6 15 2 2 10 0 3 0 12 2 China. vs. Thailand 3 3 7 15 2 3 9 0 3 2 10 2 China vs. Nonsubject 3 3 5 15 1 2 10 0 3 0 9 2 Ecuador vs. Indonesia 3 3 5 16 3 2 12 1 3 3 12 2 Ecuador vs. Thailand 3 3 6 16 3 3 11 2 3 5 10 2 Ecuador vs. Nonsubject 3 3 5 15 2 2 10 1 3 0 11 2 India vs. Indonesia 3 3 6 14 2 3 14 0 4 2 12 2 India vs. Thailand 3 4 6 15 2 4 13 0 4 2 13 2 India vs. Nonsubject 3 4 5 14 0 2 13 0 3 0 10 3 Malaysia vs.Indonesia 3 3 5 16 2 2 7 3 5 1 7 2 Malaysia vs. Thailand 3 3 7 14 2 3 6 3 4 2 10 3 Malaysia vs. Nonsubject 3 3 5 14 1 2 7 2 3 0 8 2 Vietnam vs. Indonesia. 3 3 5 16 2 2 12 3 4 2 13 3 Vietnam vs. Thailand. 3 3 5 16 2 2 11 4 5 2 12 3 Vietnam vs. Nonsubject 3 3 5 14 1 2 10 1 3 0 10 2 Nonsubject vs. nonsubject countries: 1 Indonesia vs. Thailand 3 3 5 17 2 3 10 5 5 2 12 3 Indonesia vs. Nonsubject 3 3 5 15 1 2 10 2 3 0 10 2 Thailand vs. Nonsubject 3 3 5 14 1 2 10 2 3 0 10 3 1 Indonesia and Thailand are nonsubject countries. Note.—A=Always, F=Frequently, S=Sometimes, N=Never. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐26 Reported differences other than price not previously listed in this section include: small shrimp from Ecuador is hand peeled and phosphate free; BP oil spill has messed up local production, quality, and infrastructure; U.S. facilities lack good food safety controls; seasonality and labor expertise differ between countries; quality and technical support is available from Vietnam, and nonsubject Thailand and Indonesia; import product provides a year round supply; Vietnam and India produce tiger shrimp not produced in the United States; Thailand produces small vannamei shrimp in large volumes and the United States does not produce these in large volumes; customers prefer block frozen material that can’t be easily damaged; and Indian product is lower quality than that from Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as from nonsubject countries Indonesia and Thailand. ELASTICITY ESTIMATES This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these estimates as an attachment to their prehearing or posthearing brief. Comments by parties that were included with their posthearing submissions are discussed along with the estimates. U.S. supply elasticity The domestic supply elasticity for frozen warmwater shrimp measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of frozen warmwater shrimp. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.‐produced frozen warmwater shrimp. Analysis of these factors earlier indicates that the U.S. industry is likely to have limited ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market which depends upon how much can be harvested; an estimate in the range of 2 to 5 is suggested. However, this depends on how much can be harvested. U.S. demand elasticity The U.S. demand elasticity for frozen warmwater shrimp measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of frozen warmwater shrimp. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of the frozen warmwater shrimp in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for frozen warmwater shrimp is likely to be moderately elastic; a range of ‐1 to ‐3 is suggested. II‐27 The respondents agree that the elasticity of the overall quantity of shrimp demanded in the United States is ‐1 to ‐3. 29 However, they state that the elasticity of demand for U.S.‐ produced shrimp is lower than the overall elasticity because wild caught domestic shrimp does not face competition from farm raised imported shrimp. Even if domestic and imported shrimp are not particularly close substitutes, domestic shrimp would still face competition from other protein sources. The cost of U.S. produced shrimp accounts for a substantial share of the cost of end‐use applications as discussed earlier, and therefore, a substantial increase in its price would likely lead to a large reduction in demand. Therefore, there doesn’t appear to be a case for estimating a different demand elasticity for the domestic product than for imports. Substitution elasticity The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products. 30 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality (e.g., chemistry, appearance, et cetera) and conditions of sale (e.g., availability, sales terms/ discounts/ promotions, et cetera). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.‐produced frozen warmwater shrimp and imported frozen warmwater shrimp is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5. The petitioner’s believe that the substitution elasticity is higher, ranging from 5 to 10. 31 They use this range in a compas analysis of the effects of subsidies on sales and profitability for the domestic industry.32 While the evidence indicates that there is some substitution between U.S.‐produced shrimp and imports, a level of 10 seems to be too high considering all information developed in the investigations. 29 Respondents’ Joint Answers to Commissioner questions, p. A‐58 30 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change. 31 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1. 32 One potential problem with this compas analysis is that it assumes a supply elasticity of 10 to infinity for the fair import supply (nonsubject imports) and an infinite supply elasticity for subject imports. Because of the effects of EMS affecting the largest nonsubject supplier, Thailand, and subject import suppliers, China, Malaysia, and Vietnam, these supply elasticities do not appear to be realistic. III‐1 PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND EMPLOYMENT The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the subsidies was presented in Part I of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of 48 U.S. processors, 40 of which provided usable data that accounted for the *** percent of U.S. production of frozen warmwater shrimp during 2012. 1 U.S. PROCESSORS Warmwater shrimp is largely wild‐caught in the United States in the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeastern Atlantic. Table III‐1 presents warmwater shrimp landings and farm production, by region, in 2012. Table III-1 Warmwater shrimp: Wild-catch landings and farm production, by region, 2012 Region Wild-catch landings Farm production All warmwater shrimp Quantity (1,000 pounds) Gulf *** 3,414 *** South Atlantic *** ( 1 ) *** Total *** 3,414 *** 1 Data not available. Source: Staff correspondence with Granvil Treece, Texas A&M, January 31, 2013 and ***. Table III‐2 presents a list of current domestic processors of frozen warmwater shrimp and each company’s position on the petition, processing location, and share of reported production of frozen warmwater shrimp in 2012. 1 Staff’s coverage estimate is based on a comparison of data compiled from Commission questionnaires (164.1 million pounds) to official NMFS statistics. III‐2 Table III-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors of frozen warmwater shrimp, their positions on the petition, processing locations, and shares of reported production, 2012 Firm Position on petition Location Share of 2012 reported production (percent) Bama Sea Products, Inc. *** FL *** Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc. *** LA *** Biloxi Freezing and Processing, Inc. *** MS *** Bluewater Shrimp Company *** LA *** Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. *** AL *** Cape Canaveral Shrimp Co., Inc. *** FL *** Carson & Co., Inc. *** AL *** CF Gollot & Sons *** MS *** David Chauvin Seafood Co., LLC *** LA *** Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc. *** LA *** Dominicks Seafood *** AL *** DoRan Seafood, LLC *** LA *** Fisherman's Reef Shrimp Company *** TX *** Fulton Seafood, Inc. *** TX *** Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. *** MS *** Gulf Crown Seafood Company, Inc. *** LA *** Gulf Fish, Inc. *** LA *** Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood II, LLC *** LA *** Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc. *** MS *** Gulf South, Inc. *** LA *** Hi Seas of Dulac, Inc. *** LA *** Intracoastal Seafood *** LA *** International Oceanic Enterprises, Inc. *** AL *** James F Dubberly DBA Dubberly's Seafood *** GA *** Table continued on next page. III‐3 Table III-2--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors of frozen warmwater shrimp, their positions on the petition, production locations, and shares of reported production, 2012 Firm Position on petition Location Share of 2012 reported production (percent) JBS Packing Co. *** TX *** Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp. *** LA *** Livingston's Bulls Bay Seafood *** SC *** Michael E.Cooper dba P&M Seafood *** MS *** Ocean Harvest Wholesale, Inc. *** TX *** Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc. *** MS *** Palacios Processors, Inc. DBA Lighthouse Seafood *** TX *** Pamlico Packing Co., Inc. *** NC *** Paul Piazza & Son, Inc. *** LA *** Pearl, Inc. d/b/a Indian Ridge Shrimp Co. *** LA *** Penguin Frozen Foods, Inc. *** IL *** Philly Seafood *** TX *** RA Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc *** MS *** Roundtree Inc dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co *** SC *** Sea Gold Inc *** LA *** Sea Pearl Seafood Company, Inc. *** AL *** Seabrook Seafood, Inc. *** TX *** Tampa Bay Fisheries, Inc. *** FL *** Texas Gulf Seafood, Inc. *** TX *** Texas Pack, Inc. *** TX *** Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc. *** LA *** Tommy's Seafood, Inc. *** LA *** Vincent Piazza Jr. & Sons Seafood, Inc. *** LA *** Wood's Fisheries, Inc. *** FL *** Total 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III‐4 Table III‐3 presents U.S. processors’ ownership, and related and/or affiliated firms. Table III-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms * * * * * * * Thirty‐six U.S. processors indicated that the Gulf Oil Spill in 2010 affected the shrimp supply. Other events reported by the domestic industry include the following: two firms *** reported plant openings; three firms *** reported plant closings; three firms *** reported relocations; five firms *** reported expansions; three firms *** reported acquisitions; two firms *** reported revised labor agreements resulting in wage increases for employees; and seven firms *** reported investments in new equipment used for: sorting, freezing, packing and weighing frozen warmwater shrimp. Two U.S. processors *** reported that they process other products, including fresh shrimp, breaded shrimp, and other fish utilizing the same equipment and related workers used to produce frozen warmwater shrimp. Ten firms *** indicated being involved in a toll agreement regarding the production of frozen warmwater shrimp and one firm *** indicated that it processed frozen warmwater shrimp in a foreign trade zone. U.S. PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION Table III‐4 presents U.S. processors’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. Between 2010 and 2012, U.S. processors’ production capacity increased by 8.1 percent. Increases in capacity reflect upgrades in equipment or investments in different kinds of capacity to produce different kinds of products to meet market demand.2 2 Hearing transcript, p. 65 (Authement). Counsel for Petitioner used the example of a processor adding an IQF line to its facility without discarding its existing block freezing equipment. Hearing transcript, p. 90 (Drake). III‐5 Table III-4 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, 2010- 12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Capacity (1,000 pounds) 571,040 598,385 617,340 151,386 152,487 Production (1,000 pounds) 145,175 165,957 164,063 20,189 15,437 Capacity utilization (percent) 25.4 27.7 26.6 13.3 10.1 Note: The interim periods for which data were collected coincide with the shrimping offseason (roughly January through May) when processors typically rely on their in-season inventories for production. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Constraints on capacity Table III‐5 presents a ranking of constraints on U.S. processors’ capacity to produce frozen warmwater shrimp. As indicated below, live shrimp supply was the most important constraint reported by U.S. processors. 3 Table III-5 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Constraints on production capacity Item Not applicable Most Important 2nd most important 3rd most important 4th most important 5th most important Freezing capacity 30 3 3 3 1 1 Live shrimp supply 9 22 8 1 0 0 Machinery or equipment other than freezers 27 0 3 4 1 3 Storage capacity 27 0 3 2 3 4 Labor availability 22 3 5 4 2 2 Other 8 7 2 0 0 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3 Wild catch landings are subject to environmental, biological, and economic constraints. Hearing transcript, pp. 35‐36 (Drake). III‐6 Freezing capacity Table III‐6 presents the U.S. processors’ total and allocated freezing capacity. Between 2010 and 2012, block freezing capacity increased by 7.3 percent and IQF freezing capacity increased by 7.0 percent.4 Table III-6 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ freezing capacity, by type, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Item Quantity (1,000 pounds) Total potential freezing capacity 546,465 570,450 584,689 180,574 180,890 of which allocated to frozen warm water shrimp 484,118 507,861 522,078 129,055 129,255 Block freezing capacity 360,974 373,980 387,475 114,426 114,140 IQF freezing capacity 167,931 181,410 179,654 80,299 80,511 Total other *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. PROCESSORS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORTS Table III‐7 presents U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. Three firms *** reported transfers to related firms; four firms *** reported internal consumption; and four firms *** reported exports to Canada. Commercial shipments accounted for at least 91.6 percent of total shipments between 2010 and 2012. 4 There are no quality differences between block freezing and IQF. IQF technology, which is a more expensive method, allows flexibility in terms of usage for a consumer since shrimp are individually frozen; however, these shrimp have a shorter shelf life compared to block frozen shrimp. Hearing transcript, pp. 111‐112 (Gollott) and pp. 112‐113 (Gibson). III‐7 Table III-7 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors U.S. shipments, exports shipments, and total shipments, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Commercial shipments 153,144 160,003 145,847 26,200 29,493 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Value (1,000 dollars) Commercial shipments 552,517 601,318 565,173 110,176 118,096 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Unit value (dollars per pound) Commercial shipments $3.61 $3.76 $3.88 $4.21 $4.00 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Share of quantity (percent) Commercial shipments 96.4 94.4 91.6 92.6 95.1 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note.-Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III‐8 U.S. PROCESSORS’ INVENTORIES Table III‐8 presents U.S. processors’ end‐of‐period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments over the period. The domestic industry’s inventories increased by 31.4 percent from 2010 to 2012, and were 14.8 percent higher in interim 2013 than in interim 2012. U.S. processors hold more inventories in the offseason, which is at the end and the very beginning of the calendar year, and sell those products until the next shrimping harvest season.5 Table III-8 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ inventories, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 32,103 31,207 42,192 22,345 25,651 Ratio to production (percent) 22.1 18.8 25.7 27.7 41.6 Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 20.3 18.5 26.6 19.8 20.7 Ratio to total shipments (percent) 20.2 18.4 26.5 19.7 20.7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. PROCESSORS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES One processor, Tampa Bay Fisheries, reported direct imports of frozen warmwater shrimp.6 Sixteen U.S. processors reported purchases of imports from subject sources.7 Table III‐ 9 presents U.S. processors’ imports and purchases of frozen warmwater shrimp. Table III-9 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ U.S. production, imports and purchases, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 * * * * * * * 5 Conference transcript, p. 64 (Drake). Hearing transcript, pp. 145‐146 (Kimbrough). 6 At the staff conference, an official from Tampa Bay Fisheries testified that it purchases and processes foreign shrimp, as well as products from U.S. vessels. Conference transcript, p. 114 (Paterson). 7 Given the seasonality of the shrimp harvest, U.S. processors may purchase imported shrimp to supplement their inventory, allowing them to supply shrimp to their customers 52 weeks a year. Hearing transcript, p. 139 (Kimbrough). III‐9 U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY Table III‐10 shows U.S. processors’ employment‐related data during the period examined. The number of PRWs fluctuated from 2010 to 2012, but had an overall increase of 3.5 percent. Aggregate wages paid increased by 16.5 percent between 2010 and 2012. Table III-10 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such employees, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Production and related workers (PRWs) 1,980 2,055 2,050 1,649 1,583 Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 3,827 3,939 4,202 891 1,197 Hours worked per PRW 1 1,943 1,926 2,060 543 761 Wages paid (1,000 dollars) 43,449 47,889 50,605 10,176 11,709 Hourly wages 1 $11.31 $12.11 $11.98 $11.25 $9.70 Productivity (pounds produced per hour) 1 37.3 41.6 38.3 21.0 11.9 Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.30 $0.29 $0.31 $0.50 $0.76 1 Ratios do not include ***, which failed to provide data concerning hours worked. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV‐1 PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, AND MARKET SHARES U.S. IMPORTERS The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 52 firms believed to be importers of subject frozen warmwater shrimp, as well as to all U.S. producers of frozen warmwater shrimp. 1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 31 companies, representing 40.7 percent of total subject imports (China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam), 78.1 percent of imports from China, 36.9 percent of imports from Ecuador, 31.1 percent of imports from India, 33.6 percent of imports from Malaysia, and 45.3 percent of imports from Vietnam between 2010 and 2012. 2 Table IV‐1 lists all responding U.S. importers of frozen warmwater shrimp, the countries they import from, and their shares of subject U.S. imports in 2012. 3 1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms that, based on a review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have accounted for more than *** percent of total imports under HTS subheadings in table IV‐3 since 2010. 2 Coverage was calculated based on official Commerce import statistics compared to the quantity of imports reported in questionnaire data between 2010 and 2012. Prior to 2012, warmwater and coldwater shrimp were both provided for in HS subheading 0306.13. HS subheadings 0306.16 and 0306.17 were created in 2012 to provide separately coldwater and warmwater shrimp. Therefore, while staff recognizes that HS subheading 0306.16 contains out of scope product (coldwater shrimp), it is included in the import data statistics in this report (along with HTS subheadings 0306.13 and 0306.17) to maintain data consistency across the entire period. Import data statistics also include certain residual or “basket” classifications, such as statistical reporting numbers 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1030, 1605.21.1030, and 1605.29.1010, which may include non‐subject merchandise. 3 Calculation of subject countries’ share of 2012 imports includes China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam. IV‐2 Table IV-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. importers, countries from which they import, and shares of subject imports, 2012 Importer China Ecuador India Indonesia Malaysia Thailand Vietnam Share of subject imports Arista Industries, Inc *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Censea, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Choice Canning Co., Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Contessa Premium Foods *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** CP Food Products, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Crystal Harbor Seafood *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Delco, Inc *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Devi Seafoods, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Eastern Fish Company *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Expack Seafood, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Good World Foods, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** H&N Foods International *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Lucky Food, LLC *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** MV and Sons-Texas, LP *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mazzetta Company *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** North Food Group, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ocean Bistro Corporation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** OFI International, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ore-Cal Corporation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Pacific Breeze Seafood *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Pescanova, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Prime Seafood *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Quirch Foods Co. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Red Chamber *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Rubicon Resources, LLC *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Sea Port Products *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SSC, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Sunnywell Seafood *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Suram Trading Corp. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Tampa Bay Fisheries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Tri-Union Frozen Products *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total 100.0 Note.--Calculation of subject countries’ share of 2012 imports includes China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV‐3 Of the responding U.S. importers, a number of firms reported being related to firms that are engaged in the production of frozen warmwater shrimp or being related to firms engaged in importing or exporting frozen warmwater shrimp. A list of these firms is presented in table IV‐2. Table IV-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Related U.S. importers * * * * * * * U.S. imports Table IV‐3 and figure IV‐1 present and depict data for U.S. imports of frozen warmwater shrimp. Between 2010 and 2012, Ecuador and India were the two largest subject sources of frozen warmwater shrimp, while Thailand and Indonesia were was the two largest nonsubject sources. Between 2010 and 2012, the volume of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from India and Ecuador increased, while the volume of imports from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam decreased.4 Overall, the quantity of imports from subject countries increased by 16.8 percent between 2010 and 2012 and was 8.6 percent higher in interim 2013 compared to interim 2012. The quantity of imports from nonsubject countries decreased by 16.4 percent between 2010 and 2012 and was 19.9 percent lower in interim 2013 than in interim 2012. 5 According to official Commerce statistics, U.S. imports from Malaysia had the lowest average unit values, ranging from $2.92 per pound to $3.40 per pound between 2010 and 2012, while imports from Vietnam had the highest average unit values, ranging from $5.07 per pound to $5.23 per pound between 2010 and 2012. 4 Between 2010 and 2012, U.S. imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from India and Ecuador increased by 118.8 and 24.8 percent, respectively. Over the same period, U.S. imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from: China decreased by 44.1 percent; Malaysia decreased by 3.5 percent; and Vietnam decreased by 17.2 percent. Increases in shrimp production in India can be attributed to the country’s switch from Black Tiger to vannamei species, which as proven very adaptable to the climate of India. Hearing transcript, p. 286 (Lunn). 5 As noted earlier, shrimp output in subject countries (China, Malaysia, and Vietnam) as well as nonsubject countries (Thailand) have been adversely affected by Early Mortality Syndrome. U.S. imports from Thailand, the single largest source of frozen warmwater shrimp, decreased by 34.1 between 2010 and 2012, and were 23.2 percent lower in interim 2013 than in interim 2012. IV‐4 Table IV-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports, by sources, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Source Imports (1,000 pounds) China 54,591 42,032 30,537 4,812 3,311 Ecuador 141,620 160,422 176,688 41,827 38,278 India 65,444 104,960 143,163 22,393 38,076 Malaysia 52,721 63,415 50,882 13,327 12,221 Vietnam 100,834 91,503 83,534 16,903 15,882 Subtotal, (subject) 415,210 462,331 484,803 99,263 107,767 Indonesia 126,661 146,747 157,702 41,578 37,350 Thailand 414,954 375,072 273,541 61,975 47,640 All other sources 172,475 174,570 165,568 42,961 32,327 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 714,090 696,389 596,811 146,514 117,318 Total U.S. Imports 1,129,300 1,158,720 1,081,615 245,777 225,085 Value ($1,000) 1 China 174,857 159,147 105,754 18,964 10,896 Ecuador 418,571 540,443 568,268 137,126 133,885 India 308,832 529,412 577,239 101,512 157,218 Malaysia 153,999 212,566 173,098 48,192 39,717 Vietnam 511,515 504,949 436,745 98,746 79,709 Subtotal, (subject) 1,567,773 1,946,517 1,861,103 404,540 421,425 Indonesia 485,466 686,296 660,349 184,404 163,873 Thailand 1,480,787 1,655,821 1,152,011 278,931 201,294 All other sources 638,578 681,566 627,468 171,528 148,175 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 2,604,831 3,023,683 2,439,829 634,863 513,342 Total U.S. Imports 4,172,604 4,970,199 4,300,932 1,039,403 934,767 Unit value (per pound) China 3.20 3.79 3.46 3.94 3.29 Ecuador 2.96 3.37 3.22 3.28 3.50 India 4.72 5.04 4.03 4.53 4.13 Malaysia 2.92 3.35 3.40 3.62 3.25 Vietnam 5.07 5.52 5.23 5.84 5.02 Subtotal, (subject) 3.78 4.21 3.84 4.08 3.91 Indonesia 3.83 4.68 4.19 4.44 4.39 Thailand 3.57 4.41 4.21 4.50 4.23 All other sources 3.70 3.90 3.79 3.99 4.58 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 3.65 4.34 4.09 4.33 4.38 Total U.S. Imports 3.69 4.29 3.98 4.23 4.15 Table continued on the next page. IV‐5 Table IV-3--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports, by sources, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Source Share of volume (percent) China 4.8 3.6 2.8 2.0 1.5 Ecuador 12.5 13.8 16.3 17.0 17.0 India 5.8 9.1 13.2 9.1 16.9 Malaysia 4.7 5.5 4.7 5.4 5.4 Vietnam 8.9 7.9 7.7 6.9 7.1 Subtotal, (subject) 36.8 39.9 44.8 40.4 47.9 Indonesia 11.2 12.7 14.6 16.9 16.6 Thailand 36.7 32.4 25.3 25.2 21.2 All other sources 15.3 15.1 15.3 17.5 14.4 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 63.2 60.1 55.2 59.6 52.1 Total U.S. Imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Share of value (percent) China 4.2 3.2 2.5 1.8 1.2 Ecuador 10.0 10.9 13.2 13.2 14.3 India 7.4 10.7 13.4 9.8 16.8 Malaysia 3.7 4.3 4.0 4.6 4.2 Vietnam 12.3 10.2 10.2 9.5 8.5 Subtotal, (subject) 37.6 39.2 43.3 38.9 45.1 Indonesia 11.6 13.8 15.4 17.7 17.5 Thailand 35.5 33.3 26.8 26.8 21.5 All other sources 15.3 13.7 14.6 16.5 15.9 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 62.4 60.8 56.7 61.1 54.9 Total U.S. Imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Landed, duty-paid Note.-Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Source: Compiled from official Commerce Statistics, HTS numbers 0306.13.0003, 0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009,0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015, 0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 0306.13.0040, 0306.16.0003, 0306.16.0006,0306.16.0009, 0306.16.0012, 0306.16.0015, 0306.16.0018, 0306.16.0021, 0306.16.0024, 0306.16.0027, 0306.16.0040, 0306.17.0003, 0306.17.0006, 0306.17.0009, 0306.17.0012, 0306.17.0015, 0306.17.0018, 0306.17.0021, 0306.17.0024, 0306.17.0027, 0306.17.0040, 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1030, 1605.21.1030, 1605.29.1010. Prior to 2012, warmwater and coldwater shrimp were both provided for in HS subheading 0306.13. HS subheadings 0306.16 and 0306.17 were created in 2012 to provide separately coldwater and warmwater shrimp. Therefore, while staff recognizes that HS subheading 0306.16 contains out of scope product (coldwater shrimp), it is included in the import data statistics in this report (along with HTS subheadings 0306.13 and 0306.17) to maintain data consistency across the entire period. Import data statistics also include certain residual or “basket” classifications, such as statistical reporting numbers 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1030, 1605.21.1030, and 1605.29.1010, which may include non-subject merchandise. IV‐6 Figure IV-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports, by sources, 2010- 2012 Source: Table IV-3 NEGLIGIBILITY The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.6 Negligible imports are generally defined in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12‐month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12‐month period, then imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.7 6 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1), 1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)). 7 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). IV‐7 Imports from each subject country and its share of total imports are presented in table IV‐4. 8 Table IV-4 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports and shares of total imports, by sources, December 2011-November 2012 Country Imports (1,000 pounds) Share of total imports (percent) China 32,185 3.2 Ecuador 160,049 15.7 Malaysia 45,129 4.4 Vietnam 84,369 8.3 India 134,488 13.2 Subtotal (subject) 456,220 44.9 Indonesia 154,520 15.2 Thailand 276,900 27.2 All others 129,360 12.7 Subtotal (nonsubject) 560,780 55.1 Total 1,017,000 100.0 Note.-Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Data for December 2011 includes coldwater shrimp. Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines whether U.S. imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product and has generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets, (3) common or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Issues concerning fungibility and channels of distribution are addressed in Part II of this report. With regard to geographical markets, official Commerce statistics show that the majority of U.S. imports from China entered the United States through Los Angeles while the majority of imports from Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam entered through Los Angeles and New York. Both U.S. producers and U.S. importers reported shipping frozen warmwater shrimp geographically throughout the 8 Chinese Respondents argue that Commerce statistics include non‐subject merchandise and note that ***. Chinese Respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 5. ***. Chinese Respondents also argue that shipment data from Chinese foreign producer questionnaire responses constitute substantial evidence of the actual quantity of subject shipments from China; however, given that questionnaire coverage is incomplete, Commerce statistics have been deemed more reliable. IV‐8 United States. 9 Imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam were present in every month of the period for which data were collected.10 Petitioners argue that the Commission should cumulate imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam.11 Respondents take no position on whether imports should be cumulated for the Commission’s injury analysis, but argue that each country be considered individually for the purposes of the Commission’s threat analysis.12 APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of frozen warmwater shrimp are shown in table IV‐5. While wild catch landings increased by *** percent between 2010 and 2012, 13 apparent U.S. consumption decreased by *** percent, which can be attributed to declining imports from EMS‐affected countries.14 Table IV-5 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Item Calendar year January-March1 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Wild catch landings 198,992 234,196 *** *** ( 1 ) Farmed production 2 2,974 2,192 3,414 100 100 Exports 11,175 19,259 17,432 3,096 2,446 Domestic production 190,791 217,129 *** *** ( 1 ) Converted U.S. shipments 3 120,008 136,574 *** *** ( 1 ) Table continued on the next page. 9 See Part II, Table II‐2. 10 Official Commerce statistics. 11 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 2. 12 Hearing transcript, pp. 284‐285 (Connelly); Joint Respondents Answers to Commissioner Questions, p. A‐94. In their posthearing brief, Vietnamese Respondents’ argue that imports from Vietnam should be decumulated in the Commission’s threat analysis. Vietnamese Respondents’posthearing brief, p. 1. 13 Fishing grounds were closed during the peak of fishing season in 2010 as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Wild catch landings for that year were 22 percent below the annual average. Hearing transcript, pp. 33‐34 (Drake). 14 Hearing transcript, p. 161 (Drake). IV‐9 Table IV-5-Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Item Calendar year January-March1 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 U.S. imports: China 54,591 42,032 30,537 4,812 3,311 Ecuador 141,620 160,422 176,688 41,827 38,278 India 65,444 104,960 143,163 22,393 38,076 Malaysia 52,721 63,415 50,882 13,327 12,221 Vietnam 100,834 91,503 83,534 16,903 15,882 Subtotal, (subject) 415,210 462,331 484,803 99,263 107,767 Indonesia 126,661 146,747 157,702 41,578 37,350 Thailand 414,954 375,072 273,541 61,975 47,640 All other sources 172,475 174,570 165,568 42,961 32,327 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 714,090 696,389 596,811 146,514 117,318 Total U.S. Imports 1,129,300 1,158,720 *** *** 225,085 Total U.S. consumption 1,249,308 1,295,294 *** *** ( 1 ) Value ($1,000) U.S. shipments 4 543,754 701,719 *** *** ( 1 ) U.S. imports: China 174,857 159,147 105,754 18,964 10,896 Ecuador 418,571 540,443 568,268 137,126 133,885 India 308,832 529,412 577,239 101,512 157,218 Malaysia 153,999 212,566 173,098 48,192 39,717 Vietnam 511,515 504,949 436,745 98,746 79,709 Subtotal, (subject) 1,567,773 1,946,517 1,861,103 404,540 421,425 Indonesia 485,466 686,296 660,349 184,404 163,873 Thailand 1,480,787 1,655,821 1,152,011 278,931 201,294 All other sources 638,578 681,566 627,468 171,528 148,175 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 2,604,831 3,023,683 2,439,829 634,863 513,342 Total U.S. Imports 4,172,604 4,970,199 4,300,932 1,039,403 934,767 Total U.S. consumption 4,716,358 5,671,919 *** *** ( 1 ) Footnotes on next page. IV‐10 1 Data for wild catch landings from the Gulf region for March 2013 are not yet available; therefore, domestic industry data and apparent U.S. consumption for interim 2013 are not presented in table IV-5 since data between the periods would not be comparable. 2 Data for farmed production for the interim periods consist of an estimate of production from indoor facilities, which account for less than 10 percent of the total annual production of outdoor ponds. 3 U.S. production quantities have been converted to pounds of headless shell-on weight using a conversion factor of 0.629. 4 U.S. processor shipment values estimated using an average of Urner Berry price series for 6 intermediate sizes of brown and white shrimp. Source: Wild catch landings data for 2010 and 2011 compiled from National Marine Fisheries Service. Wild catch landings data for 2012, January-March 2012 and 2013 compiled from ***. Farmed production data from staff correspondence with Granvil Treece, Texas A&M. U.S. imports compiled from official import statistics using aforementioned HTS numbers. U.S. exports compiled from official export statistics, using the same HTS numbers as imports in chapter 03. The Schedule B export numbers used for chapter 16 are 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1025, and 1605.21.1025. Figure IV-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports and converted U.S. shipments, 2010-2012 * * * * * * * U.S. MARKET SHARES U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table IV‐6. 15 U.S. shipments’ market share, by quantity, increased by *** percentage points between 2010 and 2012. Over the same period, the market share for subject countries increased by *** percentage points and the market share for nonsubject countries decreased *** percentage points. 15 Data for wild catch landings from the Gulf region for March 2013 are not yet available; therefore, apparent U.S. consumption and market share data for interim 2013 are not presented since data between the periods would not be comparable. IV‐11 Table IV-6 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Item Calendar year January-March 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Apparent U.S. consumption 1,249,308 1,295,294 *** *** ( 1 ) Value (1,000 dollars) Apparent U.S. consumption 4,716,358 5,671,919 *** *** ( 1 ) Share of quantity (percent) U.S. shipments 9.6 10.5 *** *** ( 1 ) U.S. imports from: China 4.4 3.2 *** *** ( 1 ) Ecuador 11.3 12.4 *** *** ( 1 ) India 5.2 8.1 *** *** ( 1 ) Malaysia 4.2 4.9 *** *** ( 1 ) Vietnam 8.1 7.1 *** *** ( 1 ) Subtotal, (subject) 33.2 35.7 *** *** ( 1 ) Indonesia 10.1 11.3 *** *** ( 1 ) Thailand 33.2 29.0 *** *** ( 1 ) All other sources 13.8 13.5 *** *** ( 1 ) Subtotal, (nonsubject) 57.2 53.8 *** *** ( 1 ) Total U.S. Imports 90.4 89.5 *** *** ( 1 ) Share of value (percent) U.S. shipments 11.5 12.4 *** *** ( 1 ) U.S. imports from: China 3.7 2.8 *** *** ( 1 ) Ecuador 8.9 9.5 *** *** ( 1 ) India 6.5 9.3 *** *** ( 1 ) Malaysia 3.3 3.7 *** *** ( 1 ) Vietnam 10.8 8.9 *** *** ( 1 ) Subtotal, (subject) 33.2 34.3 *** *** ( 1 ) Indonesia 10.3 12.1 *** *** ( 1 ) Thailand 31.4 29.2 *** *** ( 1 ) All other sources 13.5 12.0 *** *** ( 1 ) Subtotal, (nonsubject) 55.2 53.3 *** *** ( 1 ) Total U.S. Imports 88.5 87.6 *** *** ( 1 ) 1 Data for wild catch landings from the Gulf region for March 2013 are not yet available; therefore, apparent U.S. consumption and market share data for interim 2013 are not presented in table IV-6 since data between the periods would not be comparable. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV‐12 RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION Table IV‐7 presents data on the ratio of U.S. imports to converted U.S. shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp. 16 Table IV-7 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Ratio of U.S. imports to converted U.S. shipments, 2010-12 Item Calendar year 2010 2011 2012 Ratio of U.S. imports to converted U.S. shipments (percent) China 45.5 30.8 *** Ecuador 118.0 117.5 *** India 54.5 76.9 *** Malaysia 43.9 46.4 *** Vietnam 84.0 67.0 *** Subtotal, (subject) 346.0 338.5 *** Indonesia 105.5 107.4 *** Thailand 345.8 274.6 *** All other sources 143.7 127.8 *** Subtotal, (nonsubject) 595.0 509.9 *** Total U.S. Imports 941.0 848.4 *** Note.-Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. January-March 2012 and 2013 converted production data not presented. Source: Compiled from National Marine Fisheries Service “Fisheries of the United States” 2010, 2011, and 2012 production data, converted to pounds of headless shell-on weight using a conversion factor of 0.629; and from official Commerce statistics. 16 U.S. production quantities have been converted to pounds of headless shell‐on weight using a conversion factor of 0.629. V‐1 PART V: PRICING DATA FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES Production Costs U.S. processors reported that fuel is the most important cost for fishermen, and with rising fuel costs they need higher prices for shrimp in order to continue fishing. 1 Diesel prices in the Gulf Coast region increased irregularly from about $3 per gallon to $4 per gallon from January 2010 to May 2011; and have fluctuated at about that level ($4) through June 2013 (Figure V‐1). Figure V-1 Cost: Gulf coast diesel price by month, January 2010-June 2013 Source: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ U.S. inland transportation costs Eighteen U.S. processors provided usable U.S. transportation costs data, with costs ranging from 1 to 20 percent of the total delivered cost of their U.S. shipments (14 of these reported transportation costs of 6 percent or less).2 Twenty‐three importers reported usable U.S. transportation costs, ranging from less than 1 percent to 15 percent. Nineteen firms reported transportation costs at 4 percent or less of total delivered costs. 1 Conference transcript, p. 39 (Babin). 2 Transportation costs reported as 50 percent or higher, or as zero were not used. 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 Dollars per gallon diesel price V‐2 PRICING PRACTICES Pricing methods Thirty‐three U.S. processors reported that they set prices for frozen warmwater shrimp on a transaction‐by‐transaction basis, 12 reported using price lists, and 6 reported using contracts (table V‐1). Thirty importers reported setting prices on a transaction‐by‐transaction basis, 22 reported using contracts, and 14 reported using price lists. Price lists may be issued as frequently as once per week and may contain different prices for different sizes and species, for the freezing method (block or IQF), and for the extent of peeling. Table V-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. producers and importers reported price setting methods, by number of responding firms 1 Method U.S. producers Importers Transaction-by-transaction 33 30 Contract 6 22 Set price list 12 14 Other 7 1 1 The sum of responses is larger than the total number of responding firms as each firm was instructed to check all applicable price setting methods employed. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Firms were asked what share of their sales were spot sales, short term contracts, and long term contracts.3 Importers were asked for their spot and contract sales by country of origin. U.S. processors reported selling 86.9 percent of their product via spot sales, 4 12.4 percent using short‐term contracts and 0.7 percent using long‐term contracts (table V‐2). Importers of Chinese product also sell principally on a spot basis, but for other importers, the majority of sales are made under short‐term contracts. 3 Long term contracts were defined as being longer than one year in length. Firms reporting long term contracts of one year or less were included in short term contracts. 4 In their posthearing response to Commission questions, respondents stated that domestic processors can only process what the shrimpers catch which means that they are frequently unable to provide assurances to purchasers that they can meet their supply needs. This is the primary reason why processors rely primarily on the spot market for sales. Respondent’s Joint Answers to Commission Questions, pp. A‐87‐A88. V‐3 Table V-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Reported selling methods, by percent Country Long term contract Short term contract Spot sales United States 0.7 12.4 86.9 China 0.5 25.6 74.0 Ecuador 1.9 49.7 48.4 India 6.2 57.3 36.6 Malaysia 4.4 66.2 29.4 Vietnam 6.9 55.7 37.4 Indonesia 1 3.6 56.0 40.4 Thailand 1 9.0 66.6 24.4 1 Nonsubject country. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. processors’ and importers’ short‐term contracts were generally three to six months with both price and quantity fixed during the contract period, and did not contain meet‐or‐ release provisions. Two importers that use long‐term contracts reported that the length of time for those contracts was two years or less in both cases.5 Purchasers were asked to report the frequency of the shrimp purchases. Six purchasers reported that they purchase product daily, 11 purchase weekly, 4 purchase monthly, 2 quarterly; 2 yearly, and others on an as needed basis. 6 Purchasers were asked for the size of their typical orders. Typical order size ranged widely from *** pounds. Ten of 30 responding purchasers reported that some processors had been unable to provide their typical order. Four of these ten reported that specific sizes or species were sometimes not available. Other purchasers reported that shrimp was in short supply from U.S. processors and processors in Ecuador, Indonesia and Mexico. One reported short supplies from “most overseas packers.” Twenty of 30 responding purchasers reported that their purchasing patterns had not changed since 2010. Nine of the ten reporting changes in their purchase patterns explained the changes. Two purchasers reported difficulty getting supply. The other seven purchasers reported changing suppliers, increasing or reducing purchases, an index program with an importer, an attempt to set up a program with suppliers, and an increasing frequency of 5 All three of the importers reporting characteristics of long term contracts, reported that prices and quantities are fixed during the contract period. Two of these importers reported that long term contracts do not allow for renegotiation of prices and two reported that meet‐or‐release provisions do not apply. 6 In addition, one purchaser (***) reported that it generally purchases three times a week, but the quantity varies greatly based on the market. Another purchaser (***) reported purchasing U.S. shrimp on an as needed basis and imported shrimp via ***. V‐4 purchases and the diversification of its supply base.7 Purchasers reported contacting up to 10 suppliers. Most (22 of 30) purchasers contact 1 to 5 suppliers before making a purchase. Sales terms and discounts Frozen warmwater shrimp is most commonly sold on a delivered basis. Among 43 responding processors, 31 sell only on a delivered basis, 11 sell only on a free on board (fob) basis, and one sells on both a delivered and fob basis. Among 31 responding importers, 14 sell only on a delivered basis, 10 sell only on a fob basis, and 7 sell on both a delivered and fob basis. Thirty‐five of 43 responding U.S. processors and 24 of 31 responding importers reported sales terms of 30 days. Overall, 22 of 42 responding U.S. processors, and 21 of 31 responding importers reported offering no discounts or limited discounts. However, 17 U.S. processors and 6 importers reported offering quantity and/or total volume discounts; and 9 U.S. processors and 4 importers offer other types of discounts. 8 Price leadership Most purchasers did not report any industry price leaders and no firms were reported to be price leaders by more than one purchaser. PRICE DATA The Commission requested U.S. processors and U.S. importers of frozen warmwater shrimp to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and value of frozen warmwater shrimp that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market by quarters for the period January 2010–March 2013. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows: Product 1.‐‐ Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 71 to 90 count, headless, peeled (whether or not deveined), tail‐off, block frozen (cut or not cut). Product 2.‐‐ Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 41 to 50 count, P&D (peeled and deveined), tail‐off, block frozen (cut or not cut). Product 3.‐‐ Frozen, cooked warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 26 to 30 count, P&D (peeled and deveined), headless, tail‐on or tail‐off, IQF (individually quick frozen). 7 One purchaser reported changing the amount of the shrimp purchased, not the type of purchase made. 8 Four processors and four importers offered both quantity discounts and other discounts. V‐5 Product 4.‐‐ Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 16 to 20 count, headless, shell on, IFQ (individually quick frozen). Product 5.‐‐ Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 21 to 25 count, headless, shell on, block frozen (cut or not cut). Product 6.‐‐ Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 21 to 25 count, headless P&D (peeled and deveined), headless, tail‐on, IQF (individually quick frozen). Product 7.‐‐ Frozen, cooked warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 31 to 40 count, headless P&D (peeled and deveined), headless, tail‐on or tail off, IQF (individually quick frozen). Thirty‐four U.S. processors9 and 27 importers10 of product from subject countries provided usable price data for sales of the seven products, although not all firms reported prices for all products and all quarters. Reported pricing products represented *** percent of U.S. shipments of U.S.‐produced products, 8.0 percent of shipments of imports from China, 14.2 percent for Ecuador, 41.8 percent for India, 15.4 for Malaysia, and 34.5 percent of shipments of imports from Vietnam during January 2010 through March 2013. Among nonsubject countries, pricing products accounted for 25.3 percent of shipments of imports from Indonesia and 24.9 percent of shipments of imports from Thailand during the same period. Price trends Quarterly price data and shipments quantities for U.S. processors and importers from subject countries for all seven products are presented in tables V‐3‐V‐9 and figures V‐2‐V‐8 for January 2010 through March 2013. U. S. processor prices and prices of imports from the five subject countries fluctuated during the period, but increased irregularly for the majority of products for all countries except Vietnam during periods where prices were reported. 11 Percentage changes in prices by country during the periods where shipments were reported are presented in table V‐10. 9 Processors providing usable price data were: ***. 10 Importers providing usable price data were: ***. 11 Prices for the three nonsubject countries, Indonesia, Mexico, and Thailand also increased irregularly for the majority of products as shown in the tables and charts. V‐6 Table V-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 ` United States China Ecuador Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 2.90 3,796,661 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 3.72 3,295,828 *** *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 2.75 5,189,943 *** *** *** 3.40 503,816 (23.4) Oct.-Dec. 2.55 5,393,006 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 2.47 3,923,424 *** *** *** 4.55 376,234 (84.3) April.-June 2.43 7,096,226 *** *** *** 3.88 359,226 (59.7) July-Sept. 2.71 6,684,072 *** *** *** 3.92 320,433 (44.6) Oct.-Dec. 2.67 5,696,641 *** *** *** 3.04 219,529 (13.5) 2012: Jan.-March 3.19 3,941,560 *** *** *** 3.33 367,748 (4.3) April.-June 2.76 6,560,537 *** *** *** 3.38 446,139 (22.6) July-Sept. 2.52 7,324,558 *** *** *** 3.41 481,036 (35.4) Oct.-Dec. 2.45 5,805,236 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 2.69 3,185,532 *** *** *** 5.27 243,322 (95.9) United States India Malaysia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 2.90 3,796,661 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 3.72 3,295,828 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 2.75 5,189,943 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 2.55 5,393,006 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 2.47 3,923,424 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 2.43 7,096,226 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 2.71 6,684,072 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 2.67 5,696,641 *** *** *** 2.93 648,030 (9.4) 2012: Jan.-March 3.19 3,941,560 -- -- -- 3.12 71,600 2.1 April.-June 2.76 6,560,537 -- -- -- 2.88 166,920 (4.2) July-Sept. 2.52 7,324,558 *** *** *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 2.45 5,805,236 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 2.69 3,185,532 -- -- -- *** *** *** Table continued on next page. V‐7 Table V-3--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States Vietnam Indonesia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 2.90 3,796,661 *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 3.72 3,295,828 *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 2.75 5,189,943 *** *** *** 4.72 2,180,921 Oct.-Dec. 2.55 5,393,006 *** *** *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 2.47 3,923,424 *** *** *** 5.12 3,476,762 April.-June 2.43 7,096,226 *** *** *** 5.34 2,850,023 July-Sept. 2.71 6,684,072 *** *** *** 5.19 3,052,518 Oct.-Dec. 2.67 5,696,641 *** *** *** 5.39 2,818,737 2012: Jan.-March 3.19 3,941,560 *** *** *** 5.16 2,466,588 April.-June 2.76 6,560,537 *** *** *** 5.02 2,893,562 July-Sept. 2.52 7,324,558 *** *** *** 4.78 2,913,442 Oct.-Dec. 2.45 5,805,236 *** *** *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 2.69 3,185,532 -- 0 -- 3.93 51,462 United States Thailand Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 2.90 3,796,661 *** *** April.-June 3.72 3,295,828 *** *** July-Sept. 2.75 5,189,943 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 2.55 5,393,006 *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 2.47 3,923,424 *** *** April.-June 2.43 7,096,226 *** *** July-Sept. 2.71 6,684,072 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 2.67 5,696,641 *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 3.19 3,941,560 *** *** April.-June 2.76 6,560,537 *** *** July-Sept. 2.52 7,324,558 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 2.45 5,805,236 -- 0 2013: Jan.-March 2.69 3,185,532 *** *** 1 Product 1.—Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 71 to 90 count, headless, peeled (whether or not deveined), tail-off, block frozen (cut or not cut). Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐8 Table V-4 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States China Ecuador Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 3.07 1,517,908 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 3.50 858,309 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.43 3,102,581 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.29 2,081,640 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 3.67 1,589,512 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 3.34 2,429,397 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.34 5,246,836 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.92 1,420,857 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 4.44 826,065 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 4.03 1,661,710 -- -- -- 3.24 1,068,599 19.7 July-Sept. 3.80 3,585,598 -- -- -- 3.05 826,173 19.6 Oct.-Dec. 3.90 1,736,883 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 4.06 938,109 *** *** *** *** *** *** United States India Malaysia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 3.07 1,517,908 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 3.50 858,309 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.43 3,102,581 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.29 2,081,640 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 3.67 1,589,512 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 3.34 2,429,397 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.34 5,246,836 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.92 1,420,857 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 4.44 826,065 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 4.03 1,661,710 *** *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.80 3,585,598 *** *** *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.90 1,736,883 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 4.06 938,109 *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. V‐9 Table V-4--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States Vietnam Indonesia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 3.07 1,517,908 *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 3.50 858,309 *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.43 3,102,581 *** *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.29 2,081,640 *** *** *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 3.67 1,589,512 *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 3.34 2,429,397 *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.34 5,246,836 *** *** *** 6.16 88,927 Oct.-Dec. 3.92 1,420,857 *** *** *** 9.41 86,330 2012: Jan.-March 4.44 826,065 *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 4.03 1,661,710 *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.80 3,585,598 *** *** *** 4.88 30,316 Oct.-Dec. 3.90 1,736,883 *** *** *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 4.06 938,109 *** *** *** *** *** United States Mexico Thailand Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 3.07 1,517,908 *** *** *** *** April.-June 3.50 858,309 *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.43 3,102,581 -- -- *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.29 2,081,640 -- -- *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 3.67 1,589,512 -- -- *** *** April.-June 3.34 2,429,397 *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.34 5,246,836 *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.92 1,420,857 *** *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 4.44 826,065 *** *** *** *** April.-June 4.03 1,661,710 *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 3.80 3,585,598 -- -- *** *** Oct.-Dec. 3.90 1,736,883 -- -- -- -- 2013: Jan.-March 4.06 938,109 -- -- *** *** 1 Product 2.—Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 41 to 50 count, P&D (peeled and deveined), tail- off, block frozen (cut or not cut). Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐10 Table V-5 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 31 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States China Ecuador Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 5.50 292,031 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 6.27 324,909 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 6.40 306,362 *** *** *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 6.88 460,704 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 7.00 223,720 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 7.77 332,159 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 6.81 449,946 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 6.18 191,711 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 5.93 234,095 *** *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 5.67 341,113 *** *** *** 4.33 406,625 23.6 Oct.-Dec. 5.94 245,356 *** *** *** -- - -- 2013: Jan.-March 6.16 244,736 *** *** *** *** *** *** United States India Malaysia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 5.50 292,031 4.02 84,290 26.9 -- 0 -- April.-June 6.27 324,909 *** *** *** -- 0 -- July-Sept. 6.40 306,362 *** *** *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 6.88 460,704 5.15 155,530 25.2 *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 7.00 223,720 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 7.77 332,159 5.86 223,535 24.5 *** *** *** July-Sept. 6.81 449,946 6.17 226,350 9.5 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. *** *** 5.74 298,691 *** -- 0 -- 2012: Jan.-March 6.18 191,711 6.74 274,049 (9.0) *** *** *** April.-June 5.93 234,095 6.17 178,597 (3.9) *** *** *** July-Sept. 5.67 341,113 5.72 191,048 (1.0) *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.94 245,356 5.40 337,663 9.2 -- -- -- 2013: Jan.-March 6.16 244,736 6.39 260,652 (3.9) *** *** *** Table continued on next page. V‐11 Table V-5--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 31 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States Vietnam Indonesia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 5.50 292,031 5.01 139,668 9.0 3.54 470,190 April.-June 6.27 324,909 4.93 120,936 21.4 3.52 564,223 July-Sept. 6.40 306,362 5.83 122,585 8.9 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 6.88 460,704 5.84 198,764 15.2 *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 7.00 223,720 *** *** *** 4.58 660,135 April.-June 7.77 332,159 5.93 146,057 23.6 4.90 696,132 July-Sept. 6.81 449,946 7.00 63,543 (2.7) 4.59 681,345 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 6.75 157,317 *** 6.04 546,853 2012: Jan.-March 6.18 191,711 7.16 61,030 (15.7) 4.26 769,828 April.-June 5.93 234,095 6.76 85,609 (13.9) 3.96 801,002 July-Sept. 5.67 341,113 6.16 102,326 (8.7) 4.07 1,096,425 Oct.-Dec. 5.94 245,356 6.57 55,953 (10.6) *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 6.16 244,736 6.43 72,524 (4.4) 5.29 236,916 United States Mexico Thailand Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 5.50 292,031 -- -- 4.78 1,900,162 April.-June 6.27 324,909 -- -- 5.03 2,564,758 July-Sept. 6.40 306,362 -- -- 4.80 2,450,219 Oct.-Dec. 6.88 460,704 -- -- 5.91 3,463,292 2011: Jan.-March 7.00 223,720 -- -- 6.14 1,540,184 April.-June 7.77 332,159 -- -- 6.63 1,658,773 July-Sept. 6.81 449,946 *** *** 6.69 702,202 Oct.-Dec. *** *** -- -- 6.95 2,335,737 2012: Jan.-March 6.18 191,711 -- -- 6.84 1,198,598 April.-June 5.93 234,095 -- -- 6.84 1,260,260 July-Sept. 5.67 341,113 -- -- 6.41 1,350,237 Oct.-Dec. 5.94 245,356 -- -- 5.93 1,515,601 2013: Jan.-March 6.16 244,736 -- -- 5.92 1,405,915 1 Product 3.— Frozen, cooked warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 26 to 30 count, P&D (peeled and deveined), headless, tail-on or tail-off, IQF (individually quick frozen). Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐12 Table V-6 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 41 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States China Ecuador Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 5.11 1,144,010 -- -- -- -- -- -- April.-June 5.59 1,087,118 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 5.53 1,341,902 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 5.00 1,391,042 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 6.54 840,468 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 6.40 1,269,257 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 5.76 1,925,918 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 4.75 1,865,850 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 6.24 1,112,630 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 5.82 1,174,548 *** *** *** -- -- -- July-Sept. 5.43 1,825,203 *** *** *** -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 4.76 1,910,107 *** *** *** -- -- -- 2013: Jan.-March 6.32 1,115,164 *** *** *** -- -- -- United States India Malaysia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 5.11 1,144,010 *** *** *** -- -- -- April.-June 5.59 1,087,118 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 5.53 1,341,902 *** *** *** -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 5.00 1,391,042 *** *** *** -- -- -- 2011: Jan.-March 6.54 840,468 *** *** *** -- -- -- April.-June 6.40 1,269,257 *** *** *** -- -- -- July-Sept. 5.76 1,925,918 *** *** *** -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 4.75 1,865,850 *** *** *** -- -- -- 2012: Jan.-March 6.24 1,112,630 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 5.82 1,174,548 *** *** *** -- -- -- July-Sept. 5.43 1,825,203 *** *** *** -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 4.76 1,910,107 *** *** *** -- -- -- 2013: Jan.-March 6.32 1,115,164 4.75 223,488 24.9 -- -- -- Table continued on next page. V‐13 Table V-6--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 41 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States Vietnam Indonesia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 5.11 1,144,010 *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 5.59 1,087,118 *** *** *** 4.91 56,430 July-Sept. 5.53 1,341,902 *** *** *** 5.01 76,465 Oct.-Dec. 5.00 1,391,042 -- -- -- *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 6.54 840,468 -- -- -- *** *** April.-June 6.40 1,269,257 -- -- -- *** *** July-Sept. 5.76 1,925,918 -- -- -- *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.75 1,865,850 -- -- -- *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 6.24 1,112,630 *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 5.82 1,174,548 *** *** *** 5.16 419,399 July-Sept. 5.43 1,825,203 *** *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.76 1,910,107 *** *** *** 4.26 1,493,072 2013: Jan.-March 6.32 1,115,164 -- 0 -- 4.81 276,372 United States Mexico Thailand Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 5.11 1,144,010 -- -- 4.59 567,600 April.-June 5.59 1,087,118 *** *** 5.03 495,380 July-Sept. 5.53 1,341,902 *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.00 1,391,042 *** *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 6.54 840,468 -- -- 6.24 250,153 April.-June 6.40 1,269,257 -- -- *** *** July-Sept. 5.76 1,925,918 -- -- *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.75 1,865,850 -- -- *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 6.24 1,112,630 -- -- *** *** April.-June 5.82 1,174,548 -- -- *** *** July-Sept. 5.43 1,825,203 -- -- 5.95 62,131 Oct.-Dec. 4.76 1,910,107 -- -- *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 6.32 1,115,164 *** *** 4.69 141,830 1 Product 4.— Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 16 to 20 count, headless, shell on, IFQ (individually quick frozen). Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐14 Table V-7 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 51 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States China Ecuador Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 4.22 1,254,911 -- -- -- *** *** *** April.-June 5.36 1,167,221 -- -- -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 5.23 1,021,119 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.30 1,487,722 -- -- -- 5.83 293,870 (9.9) 2011: Jan.-March 5.87 724,504 -- -- -- 6.18 503,695 (5.2) April.-June 5.41 960,808 -- -- -- 5.46 768,803 (1.0) July-Sept. 5.30 1,204,763 -- -- -- 5.28 715,660 0.3 Oct.-Dec. 5.53 1,249,367 -- -- -- 5.05 356,087 8.6 2012: Jan.-March 5.68 690,870 -- -- -- 4.75 653,860 16.4 April.-June 5.34 1,072,361 -- -- -- 4.55 778,090 14.6 July-Sept. 4.96 1,460,066 *** *** *** 4.05 1,004,645 18.3 Oct.-Dec. 4.65 1,317,813 *** *** *** 4.94 250,230 (6.2) 2013: Jan.-March 5.61 1,076,604 *** *** *** 6.27 460,405 (11.8) United States India Malaysia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 4.22 1,254,911 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June 5.36 1,167,221 *** *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 5.23 1,021,119 5.60 362,812 (7.0) *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.30 1,487,722 5.51 603,560 (3.9) *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 5.87 724,504 5.43 852,404 7.4 *** *** *** April.-June 5.41 960,808 5.41 916,448 0.0 *** *** *** July-Sept. 5.30 1,204,763 5.20 898,760 1.9 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.53 1,249,367 2.91 1,516,327 47.4 *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 5.68 690,870 4.50 1,315,664 20.9 *** *** *** April.-June 5.34 1,072,361 4.40 1,169,811 17.6 *** *** *** July-Sept. 4.96 1,460,066 4.09 1,412,032 17.6 4.21 58,320 15.2 Oct.-Dec. 4.65 1,317,813 3.95 1,641,455 14.9 *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 5.61 1,076,604 4.75 2,078,460 15.4 *** *** *** Table continued on next page. V‐15 Table V-7--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 51 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States Vietnam Indonesia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 4.22 1,254,911 *** *** *** 3.91 124,896 April.-June 5.36 1,167,221 *** *** *** 4.28 145,212 July-Sept. 5.23 1,021,119 *** *** *** 5.17 55,584 Oct.-Dec. 5.30 1,487,722 *** *** *** 5.43 190,312 2011: Jan.-March 5.87 724,504 5.80 83,688 1.3 5.41 180,876 April.-June 5.41 960,808 *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 5.30 1,204,763 *** *** *** 4.83 120,696 Oct.-Dec. 5.53 1,249,367 7.36 26,136 (33.2) 5.01 32,424 2012: Jan.-March 5.68 690,870 *** *** *** 4.51 93,716 April.-June 5.34 1,072,361 *** *** *** 4.10 171,736 July-Sept. 4.96 1,460,066 *** *** *** 4.23 79,884 Oct.-Dec. 4.65 1,317,813 *** *** *** 4.10 20,496 2013: Jan.-March 5.61 1,076,604 *** *** *** *** *** United States Mexico Thailand Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 4.22 1,254,911 *** *** 3.77 1,060,608 April.-June 5.36 1,167,221 *** *** 4.43 464,632 July-Sept. 5.23 1,021,119 *** *** 4.99 825,336 Oct.-Dec. 5.30 1,487,722 *** *** 5.18 1,020,351 2011: Jan.-March 5.87 724,504 *** *** 5.22 629,878 April.-June 5.41 960,808 *** *** 5.43 307,540 July-Sept. 5.30 1,204,763 *** *** 5.44 254,102 Oct.-Dec. 5.53 1,249,367 *** *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 5.68 690,870 *** *** *** *** April.-June 5.34 1,072,361 *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 4.96 1,460,066 *** *** 4.50 151,532 Oct.-Dec. 4.65 1,317,813 *** *** 4.51 150,356 2013: Jan.-March 5.61 1,076,604 *** *** 4.76 112,408 1 Product 5.— Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 21 to 25 count, headless, shell on, block frozen (cut or not cut). Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐16 Table V-8 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 61 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States China Ecuador Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 4.40 1,363,634 -- 0 -- -- -- -- April.-June 4.61 1,074,651 -- 0 -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 4.36 1,122,505 -- 0 -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.65 955,888 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 5.53 529,106 *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 4.70 955,986 -- 0 -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.23 899,285 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 5.15 635,496 -- 0 -- *** *** *** April.-June 5.11 820,541 -- 0 -- *** *** *** July-Sept. 4.32 1,125,316 -- 0 -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.84 1,115,571 -- 0 -- *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 6.00 530,729 -- 0 -- *** *** *** United States India Vietnam Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March 4.40 1,363,634 *** *** *** 6.23 457,541 (41.5) April.-June 4.61 1,074,651 *** *** *** 6.42 529,924 (39.1) July-Sept. 4.36 1,122,505 5.41 521,570 (24.0) 6.82 384,412 (56.2) Oct.-Dec. 4.65 955,888 5.88 355,354 (26.6) 7.37 483,760 (58.7) 2011: Jan.-March 5.53 529,106 4.83 620,559 12.7 7.34 296,350 (32.8) April.-June *** *** 6.10 650,254 *** 7.38 358,140 *** July-Sept. 4.70 955,986 6.14 830,443 (30.7) 8.08 378,968 (71.9) Oct.-Dec. 5.23 899,285 6.10 825,426 (16.6) 7.74 467,261 (48.1) 2012: Jan.-March 5.15 635,496 5.69 782,131 (10.7) 6.56 356,169 (27.6) April.-June 5.11 820,541 5.46 785,160 (6.9) 6.28 407,204 (23.0) July-Sept. 4.32 1,125,316 5.18 877,978 (19.9) 6.06 381,766 (40.4) Oct.-Dec. 4.84 1,115,571 4.83 1,011,903 0.2 5.62 391,639 (16.1) 2013: Jan.-March 6.00 530,729 4.98 1,444,350 17.0 5.91 452,362 1.6 Table continued on next page. V‐17 Table V-8--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 61 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States Indonesia Mexico Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 4.40 1,363,634 4.90 471,212 *** *** April.-June 4.61 1,074,651 5.06 557,179 *** *** July-Sept. 4.36 1,122,505 5.62 440,620 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.65 955,888 5.83 351,544 *** *** 2011: Jan.-March 5.53 529,106 6.01 393,440 *** *** April.-June *** *** 6.07 633,196 *** *** July-Sept. 4.70 955,986 6.13 771,780 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.23 899,285 6.04 650,340 *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 5.15 635,496 5.45 495,107 *** *** April.-June 5.11 820,541 6.18 766,365 *** *** July-Sept. 4.32 1,125,316 4.96 689,635 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.84 1,115,571 4.72 517,989 *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 6.00 530,729 5.16 512,063 *** *** United States Thailand Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March 4.40 1,363,634 4.98 1,475,288 April.-June 4.61 1,074,651 5.78 1,223,592 July-Sept. 4.36 1,122,505 6.19 857,489 Oct.-Dec. 4.65 955,888 6.90 944,666 2011: Jan.-March 5.53 529,106 *** *** April.-June *** *** *** *** July-Sept. 4.70 955,986 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 5.23 899,285 *** *** 2012: Jan.-March 5.15 635,496 *** *** April.-June 5.11 820,541 *** *** July-Sept. 4.32 1,125,316 *** *** Oct.-Dec. 4.84 1,115,571 *** *** 2013: Jan.-March 6.00 530,729 *** *** 1 Product 6.— Frozen, raw warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 21 to 25 count, headless P&D (peeled and deveined), headless, tail-on, IQF (individually quick frozen).. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐18 Table V-9 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 71 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States China Ecuador Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- April.-June *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2011: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** July-Sept. *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2012: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March *** *** -- 0 -- *** *** *** United States India Malaysia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin 2010: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** April.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** 4.71 106,022 *** 2011: Jan.-March *** *** 4.27 261,215 *** *** *** *** April.-June *** *** 4.70 257,144 *** *** *** *** July-Sept. *** *** 4.80 269,613 *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. *** *** 4.70 338,889 *** -- 0 -- 2012: Jan.-March *** *** 4.62 204,446 *** *** *** *** April.-June *** *** 4.87 262,732 *** *** *** *** July-Sept. *** *** 4.46 352,000 *** *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. *** *** 4.71 498,408 *** *** *** *** 2013: Jan.-March *** *** 4.78 595,385 *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. V‐19 Table V-9--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 7,1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 Period United States Vietnam Indonesia Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Margin Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March *** *** 4.21 54,220 *** 4.32 922,581 April.-June *** *** 4.70 75,440 *** 4.37 883,529 July-Sept. *** *** 5.19 123,660 *** 4.68 312,991 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** 5.44 283,791 2011: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** *** 5.51 309,702 April.-June *** *** 5.43 107,744 *** 5.11 1,213,408 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** 5.39 1,169,523 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 5.23 696,220 *** 5.84 713,412 2012: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** *** 5.26 360,426 April.-June *** *** *** *** *** 5.12 413,840 July-Sept. *** *** 5.95 374,564 *** 5.52 444,003 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** 5.07 443,921 2013: Jan.-March *** *** 5.83 185,560 *** 5.28 690,526 United States Mexico Thailand Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) Price (dollars per pound) Quantity (pounds) 2010: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** 4.69 3,747,936 April.-June *** *** *** *** 4.88 3,463,480 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 4.99 2,650,770 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 4.83 6,638,229 2011: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** 5.39 2,895,893 April.-June *** *** *** *** 5.67 3,984,806 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 6.44 2,481,482 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 6.47 5,160,908 2012: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** 6.39 2,858,061 April.-June *** *** *** *** 6.50 3,217,706 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 6.19 2,742,659 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 6.03 4,668,448 2013: Jan.-March *** *** *** *** 6.08 2,672,398 1 Product 7.— Frozen, cooked warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 31 to 40 count, headless P&D (peeled and deveined), headless, tail-on or tail off, IQF (individually quick frozen). Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐20 Figure V-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 * * * * * * * Figure V-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 * * * * * * * Figure V-4 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 * * * * * * * Figure V-5 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 * * * * * * * Figure V-6 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 * * * * * * * Figure V-7 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6, by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 * * * * * * * Figure V-8 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 7, by quarter, January 2010-March 2013 * * * * * * * V‐21 Table V-10 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1 through 7 from the United States and subject countries Item Number of Quarters Low price (per pound) High price (per pound) Change in price1 (percent) Product 1 United States 13 $2.43 $3.72 (7.2) China 13 3.14 4.18 *** Ecuador 13 2.71 5.27 *** India 2 *** *** *** Malaysia 13 2.23 3.22 *** Vietnam 12 3.65 6.07 *** Product 2 United States 13 3.07 4.44 32.4 China 3 *** *** *** Ecuador 13 2.74 3.39 23.7 India 3 *** *** *** Malaysia 13 2.62 5.25 *** Vietnam 12 2.00 8.90 *** Product 3 United States 13 5.50 7.77 11.8 China 10 3.52 4.65 *** Ecuador 12 3.34 4.55 5.5 India 13 3.94 6.74 *** Malaysia 9 3.78 7.73 *** Vietnam 13 4.93 7.16 *** Product 4 United States 13 4.75 6.54 23.7 China 4 *** *** *** Ecuador 4 *** *** *** India 10 4.26 6.55 *** Malaysia 1 *** *** *** Vietnam 7 3.17 5.44 *** Product 5 United States 13 4.22 5.87 33.1 China 3 *** *** *** Ecuador 13 3.49 6.27 53.8 India 13 2.91 5.60 *** Malaysia 13 3.84 5.50 *** Vietnam 13 4.82 7.36 *** Product 6 United States 13 4.32 6.00 36.3 China 3 *** *** *** Ecuador 12 7.40 9.03 11.5 India 13 4.83 6.14 *** Vietnam 13 5.62 8.08 *** Product 7 United States 13 3.85 6.75 *** China 7 3.33 4.14 *** Ecuador 10 3.61 4.90 *** India 13 3.78 4.87 *** Malaysia 12 3.95 6.40 *** Vietnam 13 4.21 5.95 *** 1 Percentage change is based on unrounded data. 2 Changes are not reported for products for which data were not available in both the first and last year of the period. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐22 Price comparisons As shown in table V‐11, there were 333 instances where prices for domestic warmwater shrimp and imports from subject countries could be compared. Overall, subject imports were priced lower than domestic product in 168 of the possible comparisons; the average margin of underselling was 18.8 percent. Subject import prices were higher than domestic prices in 165 comparisons; the average margin of overselling was 34.0 percent. Data by country are provided in table V‐12. Table V-11 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Total instances of underselling/overselling1 and the range and average margins, January 2010-March 2013 Underselling Overselling Product Number of Instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) Number of Instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) 1 8 1.6-40.0 12.8 45 (42.7-127.1) (48.3) 2 27 2.4-42.7 17.1 17 (0.1-130.8) (61.4) 3 42 2.3-56.0 29.2 15 (0.3-35.5) (11.8) 4 21 2.0-42.7 15.1 7 (0.6-31.0) (13.6) 5 35 0.0-47.4 14.2 20 (1.0-33.2) (9.8) 6 7 0.2-19.6 8.6 34 (6.9-105.2) (45.4) 7 28 0.9-45.0 17.9 27 (0.3-41.3) (14.4) Total 168 0.0-56.0 18.8 165 (0.1-130.8) (34.0) 1 Countries included in the comparisons were China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐23 Table V-12 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average margin by country, January 2010-March 2013 Underselling Overselling Product Number of Instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) Number of Instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) China 1 0 -- -- 13 (8.2-60.4) (32.8) 2 1 *** 4.8 2 (3.0-13.8) (8.4) 3 10 (25.1-39.1) 34.4 0 -- -- 4 4 *** 17.3 0 -- -- 5 3 *** 36.0 0 -- -- 6 3 *** 9.5 0 -- -- 7 7 (11.0-45.0) 25.1 0 -- -- Total 28 (4.2-45.0) 26.1 15 (3.0-60.4) 29.6 Ecuador 1 2 6.4-27.2 16.8 11 (4.3-95.9) (41.4) 2 13 2.4-29.9 14.6 0 -- -- 3 12 23.6-56.0 41.5 0 -- -- 4 1 2.8-2.8 2.8 3 (0.6-25.0) (10.8) 5 7 0.9-35.5 13.8 6 (1.0-13.1) (7.9) 6 0 -- -- 12 (37.5-105.2) (68.2) 7 7 7.3-21.4 14.7 3 (0.6-19.6) (8.0) Total 42 0.9-56.0 22.0 35 (0.6-105.2) (39.4) India 1 0 -- -- 2 (19.2-112.9) (66.1) 2 0 -- -- 3 (2.0-44.9) (23.6) 3 9 (9.2-37.1) 22.8 4 (1.0-9.0) (4.5) 4 9 (2.0-24.9) 10.7 3 (3.7-31.0) (18.8) 5 10 (0.0-47.4) 14.8 3 (3.9-9.1) (6.7) 6 3 (0.2-17.0) 10.0 10 (6.9-38.6) (20.1) 7 8 (0.9-38.9) 16.8 5 (0.3-22.1) (8.3) Total 39 (0.0-49.0) 15.7 30 (0.3-112.9) (18.0) Malaysia 1 6 (1.6-40.0) 11.5 7 (4.2-21.7) (10.4) 2 11 (7.0-28.2) 17.1 2 (0.1-29.3) (14.7) 3 4 (5.4-41.0) 18.3 5 (0.7-35.5) (20.6) 4 1 *** 25.2 0 -- -- 5 11 (1.5-21.2) 11.3 2 (2.3-2.8) (2.5) 6 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 7 4 (1.9-30.3) 13.1 8 (0.8-33.2) (16.9) Total 37 (1.5-41.0) 14.4 24 (0.1-35.5) (14.4) Vietnam 1 0 -- -- 12 (36.7-127.1) (90.3) 2 2 (36.2-42.7) 39.5 10 (1.1-130.8) (92.7) 3 7 (2.3-25.9) 15.2 6 (2.7-15.7) (9.3) 4 6 (5.1-42.7) 20.5 1 (6.4-6.4) (6.4) 5 4 (1.3-6.5) 4.6 9 (4.7-33.2) (13.6) 6 1 (1.6-1.6) 1.6 12 (16.1-71.9) (43.6) 7 2 (13.7-22.6) 18.1 11 (1.1-41.3) (17.0) Total 22 (1.2-42.7) 16.6 61 (1.1-130.8) (47.6) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V‐24 Nonsubject Prices Prices for imported shrimp from Indonesia, Mexico, and Thailand combined were lower than prices for U.S‐produced shrimp in 95 of 231 comparisons and higher than U.S.‐produced product in 136 comparisons for the 7 products (TableV‐13). Table V-13 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Price comparisons between U.S.-produced shrimp and combined nonsubject imports from Indonesia, Mexico, and Thailand Product Number of quarters Lower1 Higher 1 0 25 2 8 24 3 22 5 4 20 10 5 33 6 6 5 34 7 7 32 Total 95 136 1 “Lower” signifies that the import price was lower than the U.S. price. Source: Compiled from data presented in tables V-3 through V-9. In price comparisons between subject countries and the combined nonsubject countries, subject countries as a group were priced lower than nonsubject countries in 515 out of 844 comparisons (table V‐14). Table V-14 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Price comparisons between imports from subject countries and combined nonsubject imports from Indonesia, Mexico, and Thailand Subject Country Number of quarters Lower1 Higher Total China 89 10 99 Ecuador 120 76 196 India 116 66 182 Malaysia 113 40 153 Vietnam 77 137 214 Grand Total 515 329 844 1 “Lower” signifies that the subject country price was lower than the nonsubject country price. Source: Compiled from data presented in tables V-3 through V-9. V‐25 LOST SALES LOST REVENUES U.S. processors provided 11 lost sales and 5 lost revenues allegations due to imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam (table V‐15). Processors were unable to provide the price that was rejected in most of the lost sales, therefore purchasers were asked to provide quantities and prices.12 The total volume of reported lost sales ranges from 57,500 to 674,400 pounds. The value of those lost sales for which the producers gave necessary information was $106,442. One purchaser responded and a summary of the information obtained follows. 13 Table V-15 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations * * * * * * * Table V-16 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations * * * * * * 12 Purchasers were requested to provide the prices they paid for imported product if they purchased imported product because its price was lower than U.S. prices. Therefore the price they report is a lower bound on what the U.S. price could have been during the period. This price was requested because it would be relatively easy to report. Purchasers were also requested to report the actual quantities of subject imports purchased. 13 Staff attempted to contact purchasers by fax, but the fax numbers provided in the petition were not usable. Staff then sent purchasers letters via Fedex. Allegations received in final investigation questionnaires had usable fax numbers and purchasers were contacted by fax. VI‐1 PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS BACKGROUND Forty one domestic firms provided usable financial results on their operations related to processing frozen warmwater shrimp.1 Commercial sales make up the majority of revenue reported by processors with relatively small amounts of revenue separately classified as transfers or internal consumption. 2 Accordingly, a single line item for revenue is presented in the relevant tables below. Most processors reported their financial results for calendar‐year periods using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) with the remaining processors reporting their financial results on either a cash or tax basis. 3 While also reflecting primarily calendar‐year periods, most fishermen reported their financial results on a tax or cash basis. 4 The scale of individual processing operations represents a relatively wide range in terms of company‐specific share of overall sales volume. A little over half of the U.S. processors (22 out of 41) had company‐specific shares of total sales volumes ranging from *** percent, while twelve processors had shares of total sales volume ranging from *** percent.5 The remaining seven producers, collectively accounting for 45.3 percent of total sales volume, had company‐ specific shares ranging from *** percent of total sales volume. With respect to those processors whose financial results are presented in the staff report, the majority of relevant processing operations were focused entirely, or almost entirely, on frozen warmwater shrimp. Companies that also processed other products generally indicated that frozen warmwater shrimp was still the majority, or close to the majority, of their 1 In the absence of correction/clarification, the following processors are excluded from the industry’s financial results: ***. USITC auditor notes (final phase). ***. Ibid. 2 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. Transfers, in some instances, were also a default category to report tolling volume and value. *** to USITC auditor. 3 *** specified the use of “accrual” accounting, as opposed to GAAP. In order to support the company‐specific financial results reported to the Commission and in response to a staff request, the following five U.S. processors provided corroborating financial information: ***. These and other relevant revisions are reflected in the industry’s financial results. August 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. USITC auditor notes (final phase). 4 Information on the warmwater shrimp operations of fisherman, including reported financial results, is presented in appendix D. Fishermen questionnaire responses which were not filed in a timely manner and/or otherwise determined to be incomplete are not included in appendix D. USITC auditor notes (final phase). 5 As indicated in Part III of this report, *** its processing operations during the period examined. VI‐2 overall processing operations. 6 Only a few processors reported that frozen warmwater shrimp was effectively the minority of their processing operations.7 8 PROCESSING OPERATIONS ON FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP Income‐and‐loss data for the industry’s operations on frozen warmwater shrimp are presented in table V1‐1. A variance analysis of the industry’s overall financial results is presented in table VI‐2. 9 Given the large number of processors, selected company‐specific financial information is presented separately in appendix G. Sales volume During the full‐year period, ten processors, including *** reported consecutive declines in annual sales volume. In contrast, nine processors reported consecutive annual increases in sales volume during the full‐year period with *** among this group. As shown in appendix G, while most processors reported increases in sales volume between 2010‐11 followed by decreases in sales volume between 2011‐12, there was less uniformity during the interim period; i.e., only a somewhat larger number of processors reported higher sales volume in interim 2013 compared to those reporting lower sales volume. While some processors reported notable differences (positive and negative) between their interim 2012 and interim 2013 sales 6 ***. July 10, 2013 e‐mail from *** to USITC auditor. 7 ***. ***. 8 ***. 9 The Commission’s variance analysis is calculated in three parts: sales variance, COGS variance, and SG&A expenses variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost/expense variance (in the case of the COGS and SG&A variances) and a corresponding volume (quantity) variance. The sales or cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit price/cost times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit price/cost. Summarized at the bottom of the variance analysis table, the price variance is from sales, the net cost/expense variance is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A, respectively, and the net volume variance is the sum of the sales, COGS, and SG&A volume variances. In general, the Commission’s variance analysis is more meaningful when period‐to‐period product mix is unchanged. With this in mind and in addition to changes in company‐specific product mix, it should be noted that changes in the industry’s overall average values (sales, COGS, and SG&A expenses) to some extent also reflect changes in company‐specific market share. VI‐3 Table VI-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Results of processors’ operations, calendar years 2010-2012, January- March 2012, January-March 2013 Item Calendar year January-March 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Total net sales quantity 156,098 169,282 158,225 28,463 30,807 Value ($1,000) Total net sales value 576,391 628,472 603,802 117,721 124,143 Total cost of goods sold 1 530,817 578,381 564,122 106,113 112,759 Gross profit 45,574 50,091 39,680 11,608 11,384 Total SG&A expenses 2 40,546 44,733 60,930 11,030 12,614 Operating income or (loss) 5,028 5,358 (21,250) 578 (1,230) Interest expense 3,848 3,633 3,459 870 825 Other expenses 9,355 17,432 17,399 3,471 2,415 Other income items 3 21,407 44,610 95,834 27,267 3,298 Net income or (loss) 13,232 28,903 53,726 23,504 (1,172) Depreciation/amortization 5,721 6,687 7,070 1,235 1,312 Estimated cash flow 18,953 35,590 60,796 24,739 140 Ratio to net sales (percent) Cost of goods sold 1 92.1 92.0 93.4 90.1 90.8 Gross profit 7.9 8.0 6.6 9.9 9.2 SG&A expenses 2 7.0 7.1 10.1 9.4 10.2 Operating income or (loss) 0.9 0.9 (3.5) 0.5 (1.0) Net income or (loss) 2.3 4.6 8.9 20.0 (0.9) Unit value (dollars per pound) Total net sales 3.69 3.71 3.82 4.14 4.03 Total cost of goods sold 1 3.40 3.42 3.57 3.73 3.66 Gross profit 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.41 0.37 SG&A expenses 2 0.26 0.26 0.39 0.39 0.41 Operating income or (loss) 0.03 0.03 (0.13) 0.02 (0.04) Number of processors reporting Operating losses 21 19 24 17 20 Data 41 41 41 39 39 1 While some processors reported the specific cost components requested in the Commission’s questionnaire, a number of processors effectively reported all relevant costs in a single line item; e.g., cost of “shrimp and prawns (domestic).” USITC auditor notes (preliminary phase). Accordingly and in order to avoid presenting potentially misleading cost trends, a single line item for COGS is presented in this table. 2 See the SG&A expenses section of this part of the staff report. 3 See the Other income section of this part of the staff report. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI‐4 Table VI-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Variance analysis of processors’ operations on frozen warmwater shrimp, calendar years 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Item Calendar year Jan.-March 2010-12 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Value ($1,000) Total net sales: Price variance 19,557 3,399 16,380 (3,273) Volume variance 7,854 48,682 (41,050) 9,695 Total net sales variance 27,411 52,081 (24,670) 6,422 Cost of sales: Net cost of sales: Cost variance (26,072) (2,731) (23,519) 2,093 Volume variance (7,233) (44,833) 37,778 (8,739) Total net cost of sales variance (33,305) (47,564) 14,259 (6,646) Gross profit variance (5,894) 4,517 (10,411) (224) SG&A expenses: Expense variance (19,832) (762) (19,119) (676) Volume variance (552) (3,425) 2,922 (908) Total SG&A variance (20,384) (4,187) (16,197) (1,584) Operating income variance (26,278) 330 (26,608) (1,808) Summarized as: Price variance 19,557 3,399 16,380 (3,273) Net cost/expense variance (45,904) (3,494) (42,638) 1,417 Net volume variance 69 425 (350) 48 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. volume, others reported sales volumes which were about the same in both interim periods. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 11 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 12 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 13 ***. July 18, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 14 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 15 ***. July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. 16 U.S. processors also indicated that lower company‐specific sales volume in interim 2013 compared to interim 2012 reflected an inability to generate adequate profit margins. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. July 16, 2013 e‐mail with VI‐5 In general, U.S. processors indicated that, while some processing takes place during the shrimping offseason, inventory is usually maintained year round in order to facilitate sales, especially during the first quarter when there is limited production. 19 20 For some companies, inventory is maintained in public freezers, as opposed to company‐owned freezers, which reportedly impacts the volume that can be processed and amount subsequently held in inventory.21 The amount of inventory that can be held is to some extent also limited by lines of credit.22 Sales value As shown in the table VI‐2 variance analysis, period‐to‐period changes in total revenue were largely a function of sales volume, as opposed to changes in average sales value. Table VI‐ 1 shows that the industry’s average sales value increased in each annual period, but was somewhat lower in interim 2013 compared to interim 2012. With respect to the higher average sales value in interim 2012, as compared to full‐year 2012, this appears to reflect, at least in part, the effect of normal seasonal reductions in shrimp supply in the first quarter.23 The relatively wide range of company‐specific average sales values, as presented in appendix G, appears to be generally consistent with differences in underlying product characteristics. The presence of tolling activity also impacts the comparability of company‐ specific average sales value to some extent. Notwithstanding these differences, the same directional trend in average sales value was reported by the majority of processors: period‐to‐ period increases in full‐year average sales value followed by lower averages sales value in interim 2013 compared to interim 2012. attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. Modulating sales volume, however, was not limited to the interim period. For example and as described by ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 17 ***. July 16, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 18 ***. July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. 19 ***. July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 20 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. 21 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 22 July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 23 July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor. VI‐6 Cost of goods sold While the components of COGS are not presented separately (see note to table VI‐1), the more detailed cost information reported to the Commission confirmed that the primary input was domestic shrimp which for the full‐year period ranged from a low of 84.2 percent of COGS in 2010 to a high of 86.8 percent of COGS in 2011. 24 In addition to the primary domestic shrimp input, several processors also reported processing imported shrimp.25 Other inputs (all other raw materials, direct labor, and other factory costs) as a share of total COGS generally remained within a narrow range throughout the period. The notable exception was other factory costs which reached 7.8 percent and 10.2 percent of total COGS in interim 2012 and interim 2013, respectively. This pattern is largely explained by ***.26 The share of “all other raw materials” to total COGS increased to a lesser degree and was ***.27 The majority of processors reported the same directional trend of higher full‐year average COGS between 2010‐11 and 2011‐12, followed by lower average COGS in interim 2013 compared to interim 2012. As noted previously, processing is generally limited in the first quarter with most sales being made from inventory. While variable costs decline as a result, costs such as freezing and fixed or semi‐fixed overhead reportedly remain at about the same level regardless of reduced production. 28 Gross profit or (loss) Higher average sales value entirely offset higher average COGS between 2010‐11, but only partially offset higher average COGS between 2011‐12. As a result, the COGS‐to‐sales ratio was essentially the same in 2010 and 2011 but increased in 2012 (see table VI‐1). While the majority of processors generated positive gross profit in each full‐year period, somewhat over 24 USITC auditor notes (final phase). While processors may be integrated to some extent with respect to the domestic shrimp input, this was described as being the exception rather than the rule. Conference transcript, p. 59 (Drake). ***. July 16, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 25, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor. 25 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 26 July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. 27 July 8, 2013 e‐mail with attachment to *** from USITC auditor. 28 July 16, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. July 16, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. VI‐7 half of the U.S. processors (24 of the 41) reported a lower gross profit ratio in 2012 compared to 2010 (see appendix G). Somewhat less than half (18 out of 39 reporting interim financial results) reported a lower gross profit ratio in interim 2013 compared to interim 2012. Company‐specific explanations regarding the pattern of gross profitability usually noted the difference between primary input costs and prevailing market price, with the level of import prices often referenced as a critical factor.29 30 31 32 In at least one instance, gross profitability was also negatively impacted by a shift in product mix.33 As noted above, the majority of U.S. processors generated gross profit throughout the full‐year period, albeit of varying magnitudes. In contrast, ***.34 ***.35 SG&A expenses With respect to the full‐year period, the industry’s SG&A expense ratio (total SG&A expenses divided by total sales value) moved within a relatively narrow range between 2010‐11 and then increased notably in 2012 to a high of 10.2 percent. As shown in table VI‐1, the industry’s SG&A expenses were $16.2 million higher in 2012 compared to 2011. While all companies reported some period‐to‐period variation in their SG&A expenses, which would normally be expected, the source of the above‐referenced increase is ***. ***.36 ***.37 ***. ***.38 ***.39 ***.40 41 29 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 30 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 31 ***. July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor. 32 ***. July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. ***. 33 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 34 ***. July 22, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 12, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 25, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor. 35 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. As shown in table VI‐1, ***, the industry’s 2012 COGS‐to‐sales ratio and gross profit ratio were 93.4 percent and 6.6 percent, respectively. ***. USITC auditor notes (final phase). 36 ***. January 31, 2013 e‐mail from *** to USITC auditor. ***. Since non‐recurring items by definition introduce a level of ambiguity in terms of how to interpret reported financial results, it is fair to say that they require careful consideration regardless of income statement classification. This statement applies equally to other relevant non‐recurring items impacting the industry’s financial results. 37 July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. July 23, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. VI‐8 In some instances, reductions in SG&A expenses in part explain relative improvements in company‐specific operating results. ***.42 Operating income or (loss) In addition to the processors noted above that reported gross losses throughout the full‐ year period and thereby also reported consecutive operating losses, eleven other processors reported operating losses of varying magnitude throughout the full‐year period. In some instances, processors reporting consistent operating losses generated gross profit ratios which appeared relatively high on a nominal basis, while others generated gross profit ratios which were too low to recover an average level SG&A expenses (see appendix G). In terms of explaining this pattern, most processors reporting consistent operating losses focused on factors directly impacting gross results (i.e., sales values and primary input costs), as well as the negative impact of being unable to recover lost sales volume.43 44 As shown in appendix G, twelve processors reported operating profit throughout the full‐ year period. In most instances and similar to processors reporting consistent operating losses, company‐specific explanations regarding the pattern of consistent operating profitability generally focused on factors impacting gross profit.45 46 Other income As shown in table VI‐1, “other income” ranged from a low of $21.4 million in 2010 to a high of $95.8 million in full‐year 2012. While “other income” includes various company‐specific 38 July 22, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 39 July 22, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 40 July 22, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. See footnote 3. 41 As shown in table VI‐1, the industry’s SG&A expense ratio and operating loss ratio in 2012 were 10.1 percent and (3.5) percent, respectively. Removing the above‐referenced company‐specific increases from the industry’s overall SG&A expenses in 2012 would yield, on a pro‐forma basis, an SG&A expense ratio of 7.5 percent and a corresponding operating loss ratio of (0.9) percent. USITC auditor notes (final phase). 42 July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 43 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 44 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 45 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 46 ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachment from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. VI‐9 items, the largest components identified were Gulf oil spill compensation from BP and CDSOA receipts.47 At the staff conference and hearing, petitioners took the position that the impact of all disbursements related to the Gulf oil spill should be considered a non‐operating item in terms of evaluating the industry’s financial results. In contrast, respondents generally asserted that the Commission’s analysis should take into account the positive impact of Gulf oil spill compensation from BP and CDSOA receipts and consider these items to be functional equivalents of operating income.48 To the extent that some expense items included in operating results are connected to “other income” reported below operating results (see SG&A expenses section), the Commission’s traditional division between “operating” and non‐operating “other” categories may be somewhat less meaningful. As described above (see footnote 36), a relatively large share of the total increase in 2012 SG&A expenses, from a funding perspective, was acknowledged to be related to the availability of Gulf oil spill compensation from BP. While classification as part of SG&A expenses is not incorrect from an accounting perspective, the item’s non‐recurring nature, as well as its acknowledged connection to Gulf oil spill compensation from BP, appear to be relevant when evaluating the industry’s reported financial 47 For each category and with respect to U.S. processors whose financial results are presented in the staff report, the following total amounts were reported: Gulf oil spill compensation from BP $14.8 million in 2010; $22.6 million in 2011; $70.6 million in 2012 (full‐year period); $22.4 million in interim 2012; and zero in interim 2013. CDSOA receipts $5.8 million in 2010; $17.7 million in 2011; $17.0 million in 2012 (full‐year period); $716 thousand in interim 2012; and $1.4 million in interim 2013. USITC auditor notes (final phase). The Commission’s questionnaire requested that U.S. processors also report the amount of prospective payments for CDSOA receipts and/or Gulf oil spill compensation from BP. With respect to the U.S. processors whose financial results are included in the industry total, the majority indicated that they anticipated payments in the future but in most cases could not estimate specific amounts. USITC auditor notes (final phase). In several instances, processors did not respond to the question. 48 With respect to Gulf oil spill compensation from BP and CDSOA receipts, the Commission’s final‐ phase questionnaire did not specify income statement classification. As indicated in the preliminary‐ phase staff report and in the context of the Commission’s standard income statement format for reviews, CDSOA receipts have traditionally been classified below operating results. While parties have presented different arguments regarding how the Commission should evaluate the financial impact of Gulf oil spill compensation from BP and CDSOA receipts, the corroborating financial information requested and reviewed by Commission staff (see footnote 3) generally indicated that Gulf oil spill compensation from BP and CDSOA receipts were both reported below operating results – either identified separately as part of “other revenue” (or similar term) or as a stand‐alone item. As part of “income from continuing operations,” which in general encompasses the Commission’s standard income statement through net income before taxes, this treatment is consistent with material “revenues . . . not related to the central operations of the company” which are also “unusual or infrequent” (Wiley GAAP 2012, p. 67). In the context of GAAP, the designation “extraordinary” (i.e., “unusual and infrequent”) would require an item to be presented below income from continuing operations and net of tax (Wiley GAAP 2012, pp. 73‐74). With respect to this industry and BP Gulf oil spill compensation and/or CDSOA receipts, “extraordinary” designation does not appear to be applicable. Respondents’ posthearing brief (Vietnam and India), exhibits 2‐4. VI‐10 results. The same statement would also generally apply to the other non‐recurring items which impacted the industry’s financial results during the period. Capital expenditures The responding processors’ combined data on capital expenditures are shown in table VI‐ 3. 49 50 Company‐specific capital expenditures are presented in appendix G. Table VI-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Processors’ capital expenditures, calendar years 2010-2012, January- March 2012, and January-March 2013 Item Calendar year January-March 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Value ($1,000) Capital expenditures 10,006 10,294 13,996 3,217 1,675 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. While some processors reported relatively consistent levels of capital expenditures throughout the period, others reported sporadic capital expenditures or none at all (see appendix G). While several processors reported capital expenditures in a similar range, ***.51 Based on testimony at the staff conference and while there is reportedly no industry‐ specific strategy/plan to use CDSOA funds for reinvestment, at least some of the reported capital expenditures during the period examined reflect the reinvestment of CDSOA funds. 52 As also described by industry witnesses at the staff conference, company‐specific capital expenditures were reportedly limited to some extent by low relative profitability and reduced access to financing. 53 A comparison of table VI‐3 and table VI‐1 shows that the total amount of reported capital expenditures ($35.9 million) during the period examined was somewhat higher compared to total depreciation expense ($20.8 million). 49 The following processors reported R&D expenses during the period: ***. July 15, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 50 Total assets are not presented in table VI‐3 due to staff concerns regarding the completeness and/or consistency of this information. 51 ***. July 22, 2013 e‐mail with attachments from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 52 Conference transcript p. 56 (Drake). 53 Conference transcript p. 40 (Babin), pp. 46‐47 (Gibson). VI‐11 Capital and investment The Commission requested that U.S. processors and fishermen describe any actual or anticipated negative effects on their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The comments/responses of U.S. processors and fishermen, respectively, that reported usable financial results information to the Commission are presented in appendix E and appendix F. VII‐1 PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that— In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other relevant economic factors 1‐‐ (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider {these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.” VII‐2 (VI) the potential for product‐shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, (VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both), (VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being imported at the time).2 Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product‐shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third‐ country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries. Generally speaking, the vast majority of the imported frozen warmwater shrimp from the subject countries came from farmed, rather than wild‐caught, inputs; there were limited home markets; and the largest export markets included the United States, the EU, and Japan.3 Several countries subject to these investigations (China, Malaysia, and Vietnam) and one that is not subject (Thailand) have been adversely affected by EMS, which have reduced the shrimp 2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material injury to the domestic industry.” 3 Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Rim countries were other frequently cited markets. VII‐3 output in these countries. Opinions differ as to how quickly production levels in these countries will recover. In total, 70 foreign producer questionnaires from subject countries were used to assemble the following data.4 The vast majority of producers/exporters did not have product shifting and two firms reported inventories in the United States.5 The most commonly reported constraints on production included: live shrimp supply, labor availability, and freezing capacity. The vast majority of firms did not anticipate any changes in operations in the future. THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA Table VII‐1 presents data provided by producers/exporters with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in China. Five firms, three of which reported exports to the United States, provided usable data. Exports to the United States reported by firms in China were equivalent to *** percent of subject U.S. imports from China in 2012. As noted earlier, China’s shrimp production has been adversely affected as a result of the outbreak of EMS. Responding Chinese producers reported that shrimp production in China decreased by *** percent between 2010 and 2012. Over the same period, reported exports to the United States decreased by *** percent, while exports to all other markets increased by *** percent. Export shipments accounted for between *** percent and *** percent of total shipments from China between 2010 and 2012. Chinese producers projected that shrimp production in 2014 would be ***. THE INDUSTRY IN ECUADOR Table VII‐2 presents data provided by producers/exporters with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Ecuador. Nine firms, all of which reported exports to the United States provided usable data. Exports to the United States reported by firms in Ecuador were equivalent to 60.8 percent of subject U.S. imports from Ecuador in 2012. Between 2010 and 2012, reported shrimp production in Ecuador increased by 49.2 percent; exports to the United States increased by 27.0 percent; and exports to all other markets increased by 63.3 percent. Responding producers from Ecuador reported that export shipments accounted for at least 96.4 percent of total shipments from Ecuador between 2010 and 2012. Producers from Ecuador projected that shrimp production in 2014 will be 58.7 percent higher than levels reported in 2010. 4 The Commission received responses from 72 firms from subject countries. Two firms *** certified that they had not produced or exported frozen warmwater shrimp since 2010. 5 The total for these two firms is as follows (in 1,000 pounds): *** in 2010; *** in 2011; *** in 2012; *** in January‐March 2012; and *** in January‐March 2013. VII‐4 Table VII-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Data for producers in China, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 * * * * * * * Table VII-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Data for producers in Ecuador, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 Actual experience Projections Calendar year January-March Calendar year Items 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Capacity 505,895 540,408 628,145 172,781 176,189 641,914 649,808 Production 206,957 284,190 308,754 72,315 70,375 304,350 328,425 End-of-period inventories 8,466 13,494 14,053 12,745 14,015 16,375 12,321 Shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to: United States 84,569 107,613 107,430 28,175 22,040 97,135 106,986 All other markets 114,244 157,658 186,560 41,258 45,390 192,510 210,624 Total exports 198,813 265,271 293,990 69,433 67,430 289,645 317,610 Total shipments 205,276 275,135 303,377 71,857 73,867 296,970 327,165 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 40.9 52.6 49.2 41.9 39.9 47.4 50.5 Inventories/production 4.1 4.7 4.6 4.4 5.0 5.4 3.8 Inventories/total shipments 4.1 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.7 5.5 3.8 Share of total shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to: United States 41.2 39.1 35.4 39.2 29.8 32.7 32.7 All other markets 55.7 57.3 61.5 57.4 61.4 64.8 64.4 Total exports 96.9 96.4 96.9 96.6 91.3 97.5 97.1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. THE INDUSTRY IN INDIA Table VII‐3 presents data provided by producers/exporters with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in India. Twenty‐eight firms, 27 of which reported exports to the United States, provided usable data. Exports to the United States reported by firms in India were equivalent to 79.0 percent of subject U.S. imports from India in 2012. VII‐5 Between 2010 and 2012, reported shrimp production in India increased by 70.5 percent and exports to the United States increased by 110.7 percent. Increases in shrimp production in India can be attributed to the country’s switch from Black Tiger to vannamei species, which has proven very adaptable to the climate in India. 6 Responding producers from India reported that exports accounted for at least 99.7 percent of total shipments from India between 2010 and 2012. Producers from India projected that shrimp production in 2014 would be 105.1 percent higher than levels reported in 2010. THE INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA Table VII‐4 presents data provided by producers/exporters with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Malaysia. Two firms, both of which reported exports to the United States, provided usable data. Exports to the United States reported by these firms in Malaysia were equivalent to *** percent of subject U.S. imports from Malaysia in 2012. THE INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM Table VII‐5 presents data provided by producers/exporters with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Vietnam. Twenty‐six firms, all of which reported exports to the United States, provided usable data. Exports to the United States reported by firms in Vietnam were equivalent to 89.0 percent of subject U.S. imports from Vietnam in 2012. 6 Hearing transcript, p. 286 (Lunn). VII‐6 Table VII-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Data for producers in India, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 Actual experience Projections Calendar year January-March Calendar year Items 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Capacity 641,907 674,690 752,968 194,614 205,148 784,289 788,937 Production 123,428 166,415 210,401 36,255 47,715 229,263 253,090 End-of-period inventories 16,666 18,258 26,399 19,044 25,865 28,904 33,900 Shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to: United States 53,660 86,099 113,035 16,129 27,488 125,623 136,656 All other markets 65,287 78,525 87,963 19,158 21,225 105,335 116,650 Total exports 118,947 164,624 200,998 35,287 48,713 230,958 253,306 Total shipments 119,318 164,827 201,332 35,540 48,745 231,124 253,539 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 19.2 24.7 27.9 18.6 23.3 29.2 32.1 Inventories/production 13.5 11.0 12.5 13.1 13.6 12.6 13.4 Inventories/total shipments 14.0 11.1 13.1 13.4 13.3 12.5 13.4 Share of total shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to: United States 45.0 52.2 56.1 45.4 56.4 54.4 53.9 All other markets 54.7 47.6 43.7 53.9 43.5 45.6 46.0 Total exports 99.7 99.9 99.8 99.3 99.9 99.9 99.9 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII‐7 Table VII-4 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Data for producers in Malaysia, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 * * * * * * * Table VII-5 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Data for producers in Vietnam, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 Actual experience Projections Calendar year January-March Calendar year Items 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Capacity 409,447 455,983 444,227 177,335 178,230 456,113 482,966 Production 314,151 311,723 255,915 44,573 45,352 295,836 331,055 End-of-period inventories 58,441 64,150 60,644 54,981 55,957 69,432 74,665 Shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 36,809 39,603 27,464 8,868 8,794 26,983 25,207 Home market 12,399 8,176 5,329 1,360 1,896 4,857 5,345 Exports to: United States 93,318 80,748 74,386 12,328 12,960 88,211 98,826 All other markets 162,736 175,881 148,271 26,546 23,845 172,843 194,682 Total exports 256,054 256,629 222,657 38,874 36,805 261,054 293,508 Total shipments 305,262 304,408 255,450 49,102 47,495 292,894 324,060 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 76.7 68.4 57.6 25.1 25.4 64.9 68.5 Inventories/production 18.6 20.6 23.7 30.8 30.8 23.5 22.6 Inventories/total shipments 19.1 21.1 23.7 28.0 29.5 23.7 23.0 Share of total shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 12.1 13.0 10.8 18.1 18.5 9.2 7.8 Home market 4.1 2.7 2.1 2.8 4.0 1.7 1.6 Exports to: United States 30.6 26.5 29.1 25.1 27.3 30.1 30.5 All other markets 53.3 57.8 58.0 54.1 50.2 59.0 60.1 Total exports 83.9 84.3 87.2 79.2 77.5 89.1 90.6 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. THE INDUSTRY IN THE FIVE SUBJECT COUNTRIES Table VII‐6 presents the combined data provided by foreign producers. In aggregate, shrimp production in the five subject countries, decreased by 13.7 percent between 2010 and VII‐8 2012. Over the same period, exports to the United States accounted for between 37.2 and 38.4 percent, and exports to all other markets accounted for between 51.5 and 54.8 percent. When combining exports to the United States and all other markets, export shipments from these five countries accounted for between 89.8 and 93.2 percent of total shipments between 2010 and 2012. Table VII-6 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Combined data from foreign producers in China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 Actual experience Projections Calendar year January-March Calendar year Items 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Capacity 1,821,848 1,948,177 2,106,643 615,710 625,390 2,111,227 2,149,922 Production 748,334 873,090 851,160 162,863 171,181 925,788 1,027,715 End-of-period inventories 119,245 144,930 138,399 131,464 124,847 149,373 152,903 Shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 39,591 43,034 30,602 9,644 14,183 30,580 29,345 Home market 33,959 31,585 27,123 5,766 6,720 28,841 40,968 Exports to: United States 277,351 313,018 325,715 61,132 68,839 338,719 375,718 All other markets 373,260 454,211 464,573 94,009 96,260 521,837 576,273 Total exports 650,611 767,229 790,288 155,141 165,099 860,556 951,991 Total shipments 724,161 841,848 848,013 170,551 186,002 919,977 1,022,304 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 41.1 44.8 40.4 26.5 27.4 43.9 47.8 Inventories/production 15.9 16.6 16.3 20.2 18.2 16.1 14.9 Inventories/total shipments 16.5 17.2 16.3 19.3 16.8 16.2 15.0 Share of total shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 5.5 5.1 3.6 5.7 7.6 3.3 2.9 Home market 4.7 3.8 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.1 4.0 Exports to: United States 38.3 37.2 38.4 35.8 37.0 36.8 36.8 All other markets 51.5 54.0 54.8 55.1 51.8 56.7 56.4 Total exports 89.8 91.1 93.2 91.0 88.8 93.5 93.1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Freezing capacities Table VII‐7 presents foreign producers’ reported totals and allocated freezing capacity for freeze‐processed products since 2010. VII‐9 Table VII-7 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Freezing capacity, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar year January-March Items 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Total potential freezing capacity 2,050,758 2,224,579 2,395,314 694,779 716,657 of which allocated frozen warmwater shrimp 1,750,783 1,910,829 2,119,616 574,101 590,377 Block freezing capacity 975,998 1,040,020 1,073,443 300,544 306,477 IQF freezing capacity 1,000,101 1,105,672 1,213,099 357,546 366,611 Other freezing capacity 125,157 123,156 142,284 41,591 46,691 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. INVENTORIES OF FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP As discussed earlier, only two foreign producers reported U.S. inventories, accounting for less than 0.5 percent of subject imports. U.S. IMPORTERS’ OUTSTANDING ORDERS The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the importation of frozen warmwater shrimp from subject and nonsubject countries after March 31, 2013. Table VII‐8 presents reported arranged imports by 25 importers. Table VII-8 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Arranged imports after March 31, 2013 Source April-June 2013 July- September 2013 October- December 2013 January- March 2014 April 2013- March 2014 Quantity (1,000 pounds) China 4,893,818 5,480,207 5,615,000 5,600,000 21,589,025 Ecuador 10,133,390 4,641,560 3,106,000 3,106,000 20,986,950 India 12,640,691 19,242,255 4,133,830 4,236,750 40,253,526 Malaysia 1,402,808 0 0 0 1,402,808 Vietnam 8,849,108 19,029,138 3,232,792 2,245,165 33,356,203 Subtotal, (subject) 37,919,815 48,393,160 16,087,622 15,187,915 117,588,512 Table continued on next page. VII‐10 Table VII-8--Continued Frozen warmwater shrimp: Arranged imports after March 31, 2013 Source April-June 2013 July- September 2013 October- December 2013 January- March 2014 April 2013- March 2014 Indonesia 17,141,406 20,641,212 1,303,753 506,175 39,592,546 Thailand 16,135,955 16,339,081 1,809,336 480,165 34,764,537 All other sources 6,155,905 2,347,179 1,252,099 1,490,499 11,245,682 Subtotal, (nonsubject) 39,433,266 39,327,472 4,365,188 2,476,839 85,602,765 Total U.S. Imports 77,353,081 87,720,632 20,452,810 17,664,754 203,191,277 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD‐COUNTRY MARKETS According to the World Bank’s Global Antidumping Database, which covers most countries through 2012, there are no other antidumping or countervailing orders concerning shrimp. INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury “by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including non‐subject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’” 7 Thailand, Indonesia, and Mexico are the largest nonsubject sources of U.S. frozen shrimp imports. While imports of warmwater shrimp from Thailand and Indonesia are farmed, imports from Mexico are available as farmed and wild‐caught, with the wild‐caught subject to the same seasonal supply surge as U.S. production. Other nonsubject sources, primarily for farmed shrimp, include Bangladesh, Honduras, and Peru. THE INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA Table VII‐9 presents data provided by producers/exporters with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Indonesia. Seventeen firms, all of which reported exports to 7 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007‐1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103‐316, Vol. I at 851‐52; see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). VII‐11 the United States, provided usable data. Exports to the United States reported by firms in Indonesia were equivalent to 85.9 percent of subject U.S. imports from Indonesia in 2012. THE INDUSTRY IN THAILAND Table VII‐10 presents data provided by producers/exporters with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Thailand. Twenty‐nine firms, 28 of which reported exports to the United States, provided usable data. Exports to the United States reported by firms in Thailand were equivalent to 82.7 percent of subject U.S. imports from Thailand in 2012. Table VII-9 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Data for producers in Indonesia, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 Actual experience Projections Calendar year January-March Calendar year Items 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Capacity 332,860 336,274 318,333 78,799 79,697 322,341 325,257 Production 151,603 189,054 190,045 50,110 45,636 176,841 190,310 End-of-period inventories 15,823 23,710 21,729 25,603 21,226 18,071 15,141 Shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to: United States 92,837 123,243 135,415 33,825 31,869 126,439 132,625 All other markets 54,491 49,295 47,697 12,330 12,496 51,401 57,822 Total exports 147,328 172,538 183,112 46,155 44,365 177,840 190,447 Total shipments 153,548 178,817 187,244 47,624 44,866 180,502 193,244 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 45.5 56.2 59.7 63.6 57.3 54.9 58.5 Inventories/production 10.4 12.5 11.4 12.8 11.6 10.2 8.0 Inventories/total shipments 10.3 13.3 11.6 13.4 11.8 10.0 7.8 Share of total shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to: United States 60.5 68.9 72.3 71.0 71.0 70.0 68.6 All other markets 35.5 27.6 25.5 25.9 27.9 28.5 29.9 Total exports 95.9 96.5 97.8 96.9 98.9 98.5 98.6 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII‐12 Table VII-10 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Data for producers in Thailand, 2010-2012, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013, and projected 2013-14 Actual experience Projections Calendar year January-March Calendar year Items 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Capacity 1,006,024 1,056,237 1,049,041 307,367 309,743 936,950 952,450 Production 679,274 644,849 550,183 113,194 71,347 374,848 420,774 End-of-period inventories 124,704 129,616 134,049 139,512 117,884 107,930 94,942 Shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 15,166 8,637 16,241 6,071 2,968 10,747 10,088 Home market 38,180 30,592 30,440 8,918 7,238 27,717 30,966 Exports to: United States 348,879 315,721 226,095 40,789 29,328 168,186 182,515 All other markets 292,521 284,887 272,674 54,628 44,776 187,644 209,762 Total exports 641,400 600,608 498,769 95,417 74,104 355,830 392,277 Total shipments 694,746 639,837 545,450 110,406 84,310 394,294 433,331 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 67.5 61.1 52.4 36.8 23.0 40.0 44.2 Inventories/production 18.4 20.1 24.4 30.8 41.3 28.8 22.6 Inventories/total shipments 17.9 20.3 24.6 31.6 35.0 27.4 21.9 Share of total shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 2.2 1.3 3.0 5.5 3.5 2.7 2.3 Home market 5.5 4.8 5.6 8.1 8.6 7.0 7.1 Exports to: United States 50.2 49.3 41.5 36.9 34.8 42.7 42.1 All other markets 42.1 44.5 50.0 49.5 53.1 47.6 48.4 Total exports 92.3 93.9 91.4 86.4 87.9 90.2 90.5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. A‐1 APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES A‐3 The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its website, www.usitc.gov. In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order, Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current proceeding. Citation Title Link 78 FR 33342 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐04/pdf/2013‐13237.pdf 78 FR 33344 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐04/pdf/2013‐13205.pdf 78 FR 33345 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Malaysia: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐04/pdf/2013‐13229.pdf 78 FR 33346 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From China: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐04/pdf/2013‐13231.pdf 78 FR 33347 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐04/pdf/2013‐13235.pdf 78 FR 33349 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Indonesia: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐04/pdf/2013‐13234.pdf 78 FR 33350 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐04/pdf/2013‐13202.pdf 78 FR 35643 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty Investigations http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐06‐13/pdf/2013‐14010.pdf Table continued on next page. A‐4 Citation Title Link 78 FR 50379 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐20166.pdf 78 FR 50381 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐20168.pdf 78 FR 50383 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Indonesia: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐20164.pdf 78 FR 50385 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐20167.pdf 78 FR 50387 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐20172.pdf 78 FR 50389 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐20169.pdf 78 FR 50391 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐20170.pdf 78 FR 54912 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia and Thailand: Termination of Investigations http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐ 2013‐09‐06/pdf/2013‐21725.pdf B‐1 APPENDIX B HEARING WITNESSES B‐3 CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s hearing: Subject: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-491-497 (Final) Date and Time: August 13, 2013 - 9:30 a.m. Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. STATE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES: The Honorable Jay Dardenne, Lieutenant Governor, State of Louisiana The Honorable Sean Tindell, State Senator, State of Mississippi The Honorable Jeffrey S. Guice, State Representative, State of Mississippi The Honorable Joseph A. Harrison, State Representative, State of Louisiana EMBASSY WITNESS: Royal Thai Embassy Washington, D.C. Perapat Uthaisri, Minister-Counsellor (Commerical) OPENING REMARKS: Petitioner (Elizabeth J. Drake, Stewart and Stewart) Respondents (Warren E. Connelly, Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP) In Support of the Imposition of the Countervailing Duty Orders: Stewart and Stewart Washington, D.C. on behalf of and Leake and Anderson, LLP New Orleans, LA on behalf of B‐4 Coalition of Shrimp Industries (“COGSI”) C. David Veal, Executive Director, COGSI Carson Kimbrough, President, Carson & Co., Inc. Alan Gibson, President and Owner, Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc. E. Richard Gollott, Sr., Vice President, Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. Lance Authement, Vice President, Hi Seas of Dulac Inc. Chef John D. Folse, Chef John Folse & Company and Chef John Folse & Company Manufacturing, Chair Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board Terence P. Stewart ) Elizabeth J. Drake ) Philip A. Butler ) – OF COUNSEL Jennifer M. Smith ) Jessica Jie Wang ) Edward T. Hayes ) In Opposition to the Imposition of the Countervailing Duty Orders: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Chicken of the Sea Frozen Foods Eastern Fish Company, Inc. Mazzetta Company, LLC Ore-Cal Corporation Sea Port Products Corporation Seafood Exchange of Florida Stavis Seafoods, Inc. Guy Pizzuti, Category Manager – Seafood, Publix Super Markets, Inc. Deen Kaplan, Counsel for Publix Super Markets, Inc., Hogan Lovells LLP Darby Sorber, General Merchandise Manager for Food and Sundries, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Northeast Region Dino Ortolan, Frozen Food Buyer, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Northeast Region Jeff Stern, Vice President of Purchasing, Central Seaway Company, Inc. Eric Buckner, Senior Director of Category Management –Seafood, Sysco Corporation Warren E. Connelly ) ) – OF COUNSEL Jarrod M. Goldfeder ) B‐5 In Opposition to the Imposition of the Countervailing Duty Orders (coutinued): SNR Denton US LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Seafood Exporters Association of India (“SEAI”) James Dougan, Senior Economist, Economic Consulting Services LLC Cara Groden, Research Assistant Economic Consulting Services LLC Mark P. Lunn ) – OF COUNSEL Trade Pacific PLLC Washington, D.C. on behalf of Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (“Guolian”) Jonathan M. Freed ) – OF COUNSEL White & Case LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of The Royal Thai Government Walter J. Spak ) – OF COUNSEL Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Vietnamese Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (“VASEP”) Matthew R. Nicely ) – OF COUNSEL REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: Petitioner (Elizabeth J. Drake, Stewart and Stewart) Respondents (Mark Lunn, SNR Denton US LLP) C-1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA Table C-1 (Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars, Unit values, Unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Period changes January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2010-12 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,249,308 1,295,294 *** *** (1) *** 3.7 *** (1) Producers' share (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 10.5 *** *** (1) *** 0.9 *** (1) Importers' share (2) : China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 3.2 *** *** (1) *** -1.1 *** (1) Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 12.4 *** *** (1) *** 1.0 *** (1) India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 8.1 *** *** (1) *** 2.9 *** (1) Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 4.9 *** *** (1) *** 0.7 *** (1) Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 7.1 *** *** (1) *** -1.0 *** (1) Subtotal, (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 35.7 *** *** (1) *** 2.5 *** (1) Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 11.3 *** *** (1) *** 1.2 *** (1) Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 29.0 *** *** (1) *** -4.3 *** (1) All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 13.5 *** *** (1) *** -0.3 *** (1) Subtotal, (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.2 53.8 *** *** (1) *** -3.4 *** (1) Total Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.4 89.5 *** *** (1) *** -0.9 *** (1) U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,716,358 5,671,919 *** *** (1) *** 20.3 *** (1) Producers' share (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 12.4 *** *** (1) *** 0.8 *** (1) Importers' share (2) : China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 2.8 *** *** (1) *** -0.9 *** (1) Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 9.5 *** *** (1) *** 0.7 *** (1) India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 9.3 *** *** (1) *** 2.8 *** (1) Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 3.7 *** *** (1) *** 0.5 *** (1) Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 8.9 *** *** (1) *** -1.9 *** (1) Subtotal, (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 34.3 *** *** (1) *** 1.1 *** (1) Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 12.1 *** *** (1) *** 1.8 *** (1) Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 29.2 *** *** (1) *** -2.2 *** (1) All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 12.0 *** *** (1) *** -1.5 *** (1) Subtotal, (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.2 53.3 *** *** (1) *** -1.9 *** (1) Total Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.5 87.6 *** *** (1) *** -0.8 *** (1) U.S. imports from: China: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,591 42,032 30,537 4,812 3,311 -44.1 -23.0 -27.3 -31.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174,857 159,147 105,754 18,964 10,896 -39.5 -9.0 -33.5 -42.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.20 $3.79 $3.46 $3.94 $3.29 8.1 18.2 -8.5 -16.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** -31.8 *** (1) Ecuador: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,620 160,422 176,688 41,827 38,278 24.8 13.3 10.1 -8.5 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418,571 540,443 568,268 137,126 133,885 35.8 29.1 5.1 -2.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.96 $3.37 $3.22 $3.28 $3.50 8.8 14.0 -4.5 6.7 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 4,290 10,008 3,749 4,549 3,691 -12.6 133.3 -62.5 -18.9 India: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,444 104,960 143,163 22,393 38,076 118.8 60.4 36.4 70.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308,832 529,412 577,239 101,512 157,218 86.9 71.4 9.0 54.9 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.72 $5.04 $4.03 $4.53 $4.13 -14.6 6.9 -20.1 -8.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 5,602 11,950 13,910 9,906 11,318 148.3 113.3 16.4 14.3 Malaysia: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,721 63,415 50,882 13,327 12,221 -3.5 20.3 -19.8 -8.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,999 212,566 173,098 48,192 39,717 12.4 38.0 -18.6 -17.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.92 $3.35 $3.40 $3.62 $3.25 16.5 14.8 1.5 -10.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 944 2,960 1,396 1,993 613 47.9 213.6 -52.8 -69.2 Vietnam: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,834 91,503 83,534 16,903 15,882 -17.2 -9.3 -8.7 -6.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511,515 504,949 436,745 98,746 79,709 -14.6 -1.3 -13.5 -19.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.07 $5.52 $5.23 $5.84 $5.02 3.1 8.8 -5.3 -14.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** 4.0 *** (1) Subtotal, (subject) Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415,210 462,331 484,803 99,263 107,767 16.8 11.3 4.9 8.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,567,773 1,946,517 1,861,103 404,540 421,425 18.7 24.2 -4.4 4.2 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.78 $4.21 $3.84 $4.08 $3.91 1.7 11.5 -8.8 -4.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 31,202 44,930 48,002 37,427 39,137 53.8 44.0 6.8 4.6 Indonesia: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126,661 146,747 157,702 41,578 37,350 24.5 15.9 7.5 -10.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485,466 686,296 660,349 184,404 163,873 36.0 41.4 -3.8 -11.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.83 $4.68 $4.19 $4.44 $4.39 9.2 22.0 -10.5 -1.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 8,273 13,404 13,883 14,973 11,801 67.8 62.0 3.6 -21.2 Thailand: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414,954 375,072 273,541 61,975 47,640 -34.1 -9.6 -27.1 -23.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,480,787 1,655,821 1,152,011 278,931 201,294 -22.2 11.8 -30.4 -27.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.57 $4.41 $4.21 $4.50 $4.23 18.0 23.7 -4.6 -6.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 35,601 49,125 33,798 38,599 25,252 -5.1 38.0 -31.2 -34.6 All Other Sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172,475 174,570 165,568 42,961 32,327 -4.0 1.2 -5.2 -24.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638,578 681,566 627,468 171,528 148,175 -1.7 6.7 -7.9 -13.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.70 $3.90 $3.79 $3.99 $4.58 2.4 5.5 -2.9 14.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 2,015 1,526 1,799 1,599 1,691 -10.7 -24.3 17.9 5.8 Subtotal, (nonsubject): Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714,090 696,389 596,811 146,514 117,318 -16.4 -2.5 -14.3 -19.9 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,604,831 3,023,683 2,439,829 634,863 513,342 -6.3 16.1 -19.3 -19.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.65 $4.34 $4.09 $4.33 $4.38 12.1 19.0 -5.8 1.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 45,889 64,055 49,480 55,171 38,744 7.8 39.6 -22.8 -29.8 All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,129,300 1,158,720 1,081,615 245,777 225,085 -4.2 2.6 -6.7 -8.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,172,604 4,970,199 4,300,932 1,039,403 934,767 3.1 19.1 -13.5 -10.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.69 $4.29 $3.98 $4.23 $4.15 7.6 16.1 -7.3 -1.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 77,091 108,985 97,482 92,598 77,881 26.5 41.4 -10.6 -15.9 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 January-March C-3 Table C-1--Continued (Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars, Unit values, Unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Period changes January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2010-12 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . 571,040 598,385 617,340 151,477 152,487 8.1 4.8 3.2 0.7 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145,175 165,957 164,063 20,189 15,437 13.0 14.3 -1.1 -23.5 Capacity utilization (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 27.7 26.6 13.3 10.1 1.2 2.3 -1.2 -3.2 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,317 168,710 158,586 28,219 30,942 0.2 6.6 -6.0 9.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561,157 616,996 588,976 114,077 119,787 5.0 10.0 -4.5 5.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.54 $3.66 $3.71 $4.04 $3.87 4.8 3.2 1.6 -4.2 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 32,103 31,207 42,192 22,345 25,651 31.4 -2.8 35.2 14.8 Inventories/total shipments (2) . . . . . . . 20.2 18.4 26.5 19.7 20.7 6.3 -1.8 8.1 0.9 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,980 2,055 2,050 1,649 1,583 3.5 3.8 -0.2 -4.0 Hours worked (1,000 hours) . . . . . . . . . 3,827 3,939 4,202 891 1,197 9.8 2.9 6.7 34.4 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,449 47,889 50,605 10,176 11,709 16.5 10.2 5.7 15.1 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11.31 $12.11 $11.98 $11.25 $9.70 5.9 7.0 -1.0 -13.8 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . . . . . . 37.3 41.6 38.3 21.0 11.9 2.9 11.6 -7.8 -43.4 Unit labor costs (per pound) . . . . . . . . . $0.30 $0.29 $0.31 $0.50 $0.76 3.1 -3.6 6.9 50.5 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156,098 169,282 158,225 28,463 30,807 1.4 8.4 -6.5 8.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576,391 628,472 603,802 117,721 124,143 4.8 9.0 -3.9 5.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.69 $3.71 $3.82 $4.14 $4.03 3.5 0.5 3.0 -2.7 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . 530,817 578,381 564,122 106,113 112,759 6.3 9.0 -2.5 6.3 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,574 50,091 39,680 11,608 11,384 -12.9 9.9 -20.8 -1.9 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,546 44,733 60,930 11,030 12,614 50.3 10.3 36.2 14.4 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . 5,028 5,358 -21,250 578 -1,230 (3) 6.6 (3) (3) Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,006 10,294 13,996 3,217 1,675 39.9 2.9 36.0 -47.9 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.40 $3.42 $3.57 $3.73 $3.66 5.0 0.6 4.4 -1.9 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.26 $0.26 $0.39 $0.39 $0.41 50.0 0.0 50.0 5.1 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . $0.03 $0.03 -$0.13 $0.02 -$0.04 (3) 0.0 (3) (3) COGS/sales (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.1 92.0 93.4 90.1 90.8 1.3 -0.1 1.4 0.7 Operating income or (loss)/sales (2) . . 0.9 0.9 -3.5 0.5 -1.0 -4.4 0.0 -4.4 -1.5 (1) Data for wild catch landings from the Gulf region for March 2013 are not available; therefore, apparent U.S. consumption and market share data for interim 2013 are not presented. (3) Undefined. Note.--Import data are based on official Commerce statistics. U.S. industry data presented on page C-4 are based on questionnaire responses from U.S. processors. Apparent U.S. consumption totals presented on page C-3 are based on U.S. industry data provided by NMFS, Granvill Treece, Texas A&M, and official Commerce import statistics. C-4 Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. (2) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Frozen warmwater shrimp: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 January-March D‐1 APPENDIX D U.S. FISHERMEN DATA D‐3 Table D-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen, position on petition, location, quantity of harvest in 2012, and share of reported harvest * * * * * * * Table D-2 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen’s shipments, by type, 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar Year January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 U.S Shipments (pounds) 9,448,712 10,863,455 9,738,446 1,115,689 686,019 U.S Shipments (dollars) 34,298,355 41,326,127 36,718,207 4,822,577 2,835,899 U.S Shipments (per pound) $3.63 $3.80 $3.77 $4.32 $4.13 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table D-3 Frozen warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen’s quantity harvested and employment-related data 2010-12, January-March 2012, and January-March 2013 Calendar Year January-March Item 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 Warmwater shrimp harvested (pounds) 9,214,744 10,620,214 9,564,250 1,079,015 644,208 Production and related workers (PRWs) 22,079 20,599 21,344 4,253 2,366 Hours worked by PRWs (thousands) 251,536 238,366 211,166 35,364 22,940 Wage paid to PRWs (dollars) 8,116,998 9,937,056 8,713,666 1,270,325 618,443 Days boat at sea 19,108 19,081 18,201 3,404 2,434 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E-1 APPENDIX E ALLEGED EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. PROCESSORS E-3 The Commission requested that U.S. processors describe any actual or anticipated negative effects since January 1, 2010 on their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Unless specifically noted, the processors did not distinguish between China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam in their comments. The responses of those processors that provided useable financial results data are as follows: Actual Negative Effects Bama ***. Bayou Shrimp ***. Biloxi Freezing ***. Bluewater Shrimp ***. Bon Secour ***. Cape Canaveral ***. Carson ***. CF Gollott ***. David Chauvin ***. Dominick’s ***. DoRan ***. Dubberly’s ***. Fisherman’s Reef ***. Fulton Seafood ***. Golden Gulf ***. Gulf Crown ***. Gulf Fish ***. Gulf Island ***. Gulf Pride ***. Hi Seas ***. Indian Ridge ***. Int. Oceanic Ent. ***. JBS Packing ***. Lafitte ***. Lighthouse ***. Livingston’s ***. Ocean Harvest ***. Pamlico ***. Paul Piazza ***. Penguin ***. Philly Seafood ***. RA Lesso ***. Seabrook ***. Sea Gold ***. E-4 Sea Pearl ***. Tampa Bay ***. Texas Gulf ***. Tidelands ***. Tommy’s Seafood ***. Vincent Piazza ***. Wood’s Fisheries ***. Anticipated Negative Effects Bama ***. Bayou Shrimp ***. Biloxi Freezing ***. Bluewater Shrimp ***. Bon Secour ***. Cape Canaveral ***. Carson ***. CF Gollott ***. David Chauvin ***. Dominick’s ***. DoRan ***. Dubberly’s ***. Fisherman’s Reef ***. Fulton Seafood ***. Golden Gulf ***. Gulf Crown ***. Gulf Fish ***. Gulf Island ***. Gulf Pride ***. Hi Seas ***. Indian Ridge ***. Int. Oceanic Ent. ***. JBS Packing ***. Lafitte ***. Lighthouse ***. Livingston’s ***. Ocean Harvest ***. Pamlico ***. Paul Piazza ***. Penguin ***. Philly Seafood ***. RA Lesso ***. Seabrook ***. Sea Gold ***. E-5 Sea Pearl ***. Tampa Bay ***. Texas Gulf ***. Tidelands ***. Tommy’s Seafood ***. Vincent Piazza ***. Wood’s Fisheries ***. F-1 APPENDIX F ALLEGED EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. FISHERMEN F-3 The Commission requested that U.S. fishermen describe any actual or anticipated negative effects since January 1, 2010, on their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Unless specifically noted, fishermen did not distinguish between China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam in their comments. A summary/tabulation of the responses of those fishermen questionnaire responses that provided useable financial results data is presented below. Actual and Anticipated Negative Effects One hundred two U.S. fishermen questionnaire responses reported experiencing actual negative effects, while 23 fishermen questionnaire responses reported experiencing no actual negative effects. With respect to those fishermen questionnaire responses reporting actual negative effects, the impact was classified as follows: cancellations, postponement, or rejection of expansion project (36); denial or rejection of investment proposal (24), reduction in the size of capital investments (38); rejection of bank loans (29); lowering of credit rating (14); and “other” (55).1 One hundred thirty one U.S. fishermen questionnaire responses reported anticipated negative effects, while 2 reported that they anticipated no negative effects. 1 The total number of fishermen questionnaire responses reporting usable financial information, 133, is greater than the total number reporting the extent of actual negative effects, 125. This difference generally reflects the fact that not all of the fishermen questionnaires which reported usable financial results responded to the above‐referenced question regarding actual negative effects. G-1 APPENDIX G U.S. PROCESSORS: SELECTED COMPANY‐SPECIFIC FINANCIAL INFORMATION G-2 Table G-1 Frozen warmwater shrimp: Results of processors’ operations, by firms, calendar years 2010-2012, January- March 2012, January-March 2013 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling === 35643Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Notices 4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/ rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf. 5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. 1 The Department of Commerce preliminarily determined that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador and Indonesia are not being and are not likely to be subsidized by the Government of Ecuador or the Government of Indonesia. 2 For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as ‘‘certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. ‘‘The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. ‘‘The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild- caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). ‘‘Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘prepared meals,’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. ‘‘Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘battered shrimp.’ ‘‘‘Battered shrimp’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from- frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘dusting’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. ‘‘The products included in the scope of these investigations are currently classified under the Continued Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States; (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders; (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded; (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers. Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2959’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS 5. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 7, 2013. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–14003 Filed 6–12–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–491–497 (Final)] Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–491–497 (Final) under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of subsidized imports from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam of frozen warmwater shrimp, provided for in subheadings 0306.17.00, 1605.21.10 and 1605.29.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are preliminarily found to be subsidized by the Governments of China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam and that are alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Ecuador and Indonesia.1 2 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:58 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM 13JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 35644 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Notices following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive.’’ 3 The Department of Commerce preliminarily determined that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador and Indonesia are not being and are not likely to be subsidized by the Government of Ecuador or the Government of Indonesia. For further information concerning the conduct of the final phase of these investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam of frozen warmwater shrimp.3 These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on December 28, 2012, by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries, Biloxi, MS. Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to these investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on July 31, 2013, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission’s rules. Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on August 13, 2013, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before August 6, 2013. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on August 9, 2013, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is August 7, 2013. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is August 20, 2013. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before August 20, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before September 16, 2013, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. Please be aware that the Commission’s rules with respect to electronic filing have been amended. The amendments took effect on November 7, 2011. See 76 Fed. Reg. 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly revised Commission’s Handbook on E- Filing, available on the Commission’s Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:58 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM 13JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 35645Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Notices Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 7, 2013. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–14010 Filed 6–12–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–792] Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination Affirming a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirm the initial determination issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, (‘‘section 337’’) in the above identified investigation. The investigation is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Commission instituted this investigation on July 28, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Cypress Semiconductor Corporation of San Jose, California (‘‘Cypress’’). 76 FR 45295 (July 28, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain static random access memories and products containing the same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,534,805; 6,651,134; 6,262,937 and 7,142,477. The notice of investigation named the following entities as respondents: GSI Technology, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (‘‘GSI’’); Alcatel-Lucent of Paris, France (‘‘Alcatel-Lucent’’); Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. of Murray Hill, New Jersey (‘‘Alcatel-Lucent USA’’); Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Stockholm, Sweden (‘‘Ericsson LM’’); Ericsson, Inc. of Plano, Texas (‘‘Ericsson’’); Motorola Solutions, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois (‘‘Motorola’’); Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (‘‘MMI’’); Arrow Electronics, Inc. of Melville, New York (‘‘Arrow’’); Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. of Melville, New York (‘‘Nu Horizons’’); Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (‘‘Cisco’’); Hewlett Packard Company/Tipping Point of Palo Alto, California (‘‘HP’’); Avnet, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona (‘‘Avnet’’); Nokia Siemens Networks US, LLC of Irving, Texas (‘‘Nokia US’’); Nokia Siemens Networks B.V. of Zoetermeer, Netherlands (‘‘Nokia’’); and Tellabs of Naperville, Illinois (‘‘Tellabs’’). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to this investigation. The following respondents were terminated from the investigation based on settlement agreements, consent orders, or withdrawal of allegations from the complaint: Alcatel-Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent USA, Ericsson, Arrow, Nu Horizons, Nokia US, and Nokia. The following respondents were terminated from the investigation based upon grant of summary determination of no violation of section 337: MMI, HP, Motorola, Tellabs, and Ericsson LM. The following respondents remain in the investigation: GSI, Cisco, and Avnet (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). On October 25, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID (‘‘ID’’), finding no violation of section 337 by the Respondents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over the Respondents. The ALJ also found that the importation requirement of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been satisfied. The ALJ, however, found that the accused products do not infringe the asserted patent claims. The ALJ also found that Cypress failed to establish the existence of a domestic industry that practices the asserted patents under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) for failure to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The ALJ did not consider the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents. On November 7, 2012, Cypress filed a petition for review of the ID. That same day, Respondents filed a contingent petition for review. On November 15, 2012, the parties filed responses to the petition and contingent petition for review. On December 21, 2012, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety and remanded the investigation to the ALJ to make findings on invalidity and unenforceability, issues litigated by the parties but not addressed in the final ID. On February 25, 2013, the ALJ issued his Remand ID (‘‘RID’’), finding that the asserted patents are enforceable and not invalid. On March 11, 2013, Respondents filed a petition for review of the RID, challenging the ALJ’s findings that the asserted patents are enforceable and not invalid. On March 19, 2013, Cypress filed a response to the petition for review. On April 26, 2013, the Commission determined to review the RID in part, i.e., with respect to invalidity. See 78 FR 25767 (May 2, 2013). The Commission declined Respondents’ request to take judicial notice of the on-going reexamination proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the ’805 patent and admit filings in that case into evidence in this investigation. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and RID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ’s finding of no violation of section 337 with the modifications set forth in the Commission opinion issued herewith. Specifically, with respect to the ’805 patent, the Commission affirms the following findings: (1) Cypress failed to prove that the accused products infringe the asserted claims; (2) Cypress failed to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; and (3) Respondents failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that U.S. Patent No. 6,677,649 to Osada et al. or U.S. Patent No. 6,445,041 to Ishida et al. anticipate the asserted claims. The Commission reverses the ALJ’s finding that the publication by Ishida, entitled ‘‘Novel 6T–SRAM Cell Technology Designed with Rectangular Patterns VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:58 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM 13JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling 2 === 50110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Notices placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual. • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington); and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. Additional Requestors and Disposition Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 35101, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685–3849, email plape@uw.edu, by September 16, 2013. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington); and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe may proceed. The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington; Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington); Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington); and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe that this notice has been published. Dated: July 10, 2013. David Tarler, Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. 2013–19988 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–50–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. Nos. 701–TA–491–497 (Final)] Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam; Commission Determination To Deny a Request To Hold a Portion of a Hearing In Camera AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission has determined to deny a request to conduct a portion of its hearing in the above captioned investigations scheduled for August 13, 2013 in camera. See Commission Rules 207.24(d), 201.13(m) and 201.36(b)(4) (19 CFR 207.24(d), 201.13(m) and 201.36(b)(4)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin L. Turner, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–3103. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–3105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Commission believes that respondent Seafood Exporters Association of India has not justified the need for resorting to the extraordinary measure of an in camera hearing. The Commission reaffirms its belief that whenever possible its business should be conducted in public. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be best served by a hearing that is entirely open to the public. Authority: This notice is provided pursuant to Commission Rule 201.35(b) (19 CFR 201.35(b)). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 12, 2013. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–19888 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE–13–020] Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade Commission. TIME AND DATE: August 23, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. PLACE : Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000. STATUS : Open to the public. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agendas for future meetings: none. 2. Minutes. 3. Ratification List. 4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731–TA–929–931 (Second Review) (Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on or before September 12, 2013. 5. Outstanding action jackets: none. In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Issued: August 14, 2013. By order of the Commission. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2013–20108 Filed 8–14–13; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-916 (GLS/ DEP) was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on August 5, 2013. This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Riccelli Enterprises, Inc. and Riccelli Enterprises, LLC pursuant to Clean Water Act sections 301 and 309, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1319, to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to restore and monitor the impacted areas and to pay a civil penalty. The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Charles E. Roberts, Assistant United States Attorney, 100 South Clinton Street, Syracuse, New York 13260–0039 and refer to United States v. Riccelli VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 15, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Final - Ecuador === 50389Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33347 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http: //iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Aquaculture and Seafood Processing Plans Serving as Basis for Providing Countervailable Subsidies Comment 2: Specificity of Sectoral Plans with Respect to Policy Lending and the Provision of Land Comment 3: Interest Rate Support Program under the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) Comment 4: Vietinbank Export Lending Program Comment 5: Loan Benchmarks Comment 6: Land Benchmarks Comment 7: Whether Minh Phu Group Benefitted from Import Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials Comment 8: The Application of Section 771B of the Act (the Agricultural Processing Provision) to Subsidies to Fresh Shrimp Farmers Comment 9: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to the Respondent Processors: Use of a Simple or Weighted Average Comment 10: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors: Proper Sales Denominator Comment 11: Two Percent de minimis Standard Comment 12: Income Tax Preference Under Chapter V of Decree 24 [FR Doc. 2013–20172 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–331–803] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Ecuador. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Morris and Austin Redington, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1779 and (202) 482–1664, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers seven government programs. The respondents in this investigation are the Government of Ecuador (the GOE), and two companies—Promarisco S.A. (Promarisco) and Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A. (Songa). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, 2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50390 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 4 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador (C–331–803)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. brine-frozen shrimp. 4 We have addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine-Frozen Shrimp,’’ which is hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation This investigation covers certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. See Appendix I for a complete description of the scope of this investigation. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and the electronic versions of this memorandum are identical in content. Use of Facts Otherwise Available, Including Adverse Inferences For purposes of this final determination, we have relied on facts available and in certain instances have applied an adverse inference (AFA) in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), with regard to: (1) Provision of Commercial Concessions for Less Than Adequate Remuneration; (2) GOE Forgiveness of Land-Use Fees; (3) Preferential Loans from the National Finance Corporation and the National Development Bank; and, (4) Export Restraints on Raw and Unprocessed Shrimp. A full discussion of our decision to rely on facts available and AFA is presented in the Decision Memorandum under the section ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.’’ Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have calculated a rate for each company respondent. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an average rate as described in the Final Calculation Memoranda. See Memoranda to the File, ‘‘Final Determination Calculation Memorandum for Promarisco S.A.’’ and ‘‘Final Determination Calculation Memorandum for Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A.’’ (Final Calculation Memoranda), which are hereby adopted by this notice. We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate Promarisco ............................ 13.51 Songa ................................... 10.13 All Others .............................. 11.68 In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we are directing United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all imports of the subject merchandise from Ecuador that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. We will issue a countervailing duty order if the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination and we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 12, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50391Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33346 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum A. General Issues Comment 1 The Application of Section 771B of the Act (the Agricultural Processing Provision) to Subsidies to Fresh Shrimp Farmers Comment 2 The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors; Use of a Simple or Weighted Average Comment 3 The Deferral of New Subsidy Allegations to Administrative Reviews Comment 4 The Determination Not To Investigate Value-Added Tax (VAT) Exemptions B. Company Specific Issues Comment 5 Promarisco’s Cross-Ownership, Sales Value, and Purchases of Fresh Shrimp Comment 6 Clerical Error in Calculation of Songa’s Preliminary Subsidy Rate C. Preferential, Exempted, and Forgiveness of Land-Use Fees for Shrimp Farmers Comment 7 Whether the GOE’s Inter-Tidal Land Concessions Program Is Specific Comment 8 The Appropriate Measure of Revenue Forgone Due to the GOE’s Inter- Tidal Land Concessions Program Comment 9 Benchmark for Measuring the Benefit Conferred by the GOE Comment 10 Alleged GOE Forgiveness of Land-Use Fees Comment 11 Songa’s Minor Corrections Comment 12 Promarisco’s Unreported Land Concessions D. Preferential Loans From the National Finance Corporation (CFN) and the National Development Bank (BNF) Comment 13 Whether To Apply AFA To Loan Discovered at Verification E. Export Restraints on Raw, Unprocessed Shrimp Comment 14 Whether the GOE Imposed Export Restraints on Raw and Unprocessed Shrimp [FR Doc. 2013–20169 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–989] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Eric Greynolds, Office 8, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room CC116, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202– 482–1109 or 202–482–6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner). 1 This investigation covers 29 government programs. The mandatory respondent in this investigation is Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products, Co., Ltd. (Guolian), Zhanjiang Guolian Feed Co., Ltd. (Guolian Feed), Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Fry Technology Co., Ltd. (Guolian Fry), Zhanjiang Guotong Aquatic Co., Ltd. (Guotong) (collectively, the Guolian Companies). Period of Investigation The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, 2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Preliminary - Ecuador === 33347Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3 See 19 CFR 351.309. 4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an all others rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products, Co., Ltd. (Guolian), Zhanjiang Guolian Feed Co., Ltd. (Guolian Feed), Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Fry Tech- nology Co., Ltd. (Guolian Fry), Zhanjiang Guotong Aquatic Co., Ltd. (Guotong) (collec- tively, the Guolian Companies) ......... 5.76 All Others ................ 5.76 In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of public announcement of this determination. 2 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttals briefs.3 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing request, see the Preliminary Determination Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (IQF) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Calculation of the All Others Rate 8. Disclosure and Public Comment 9. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13231 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–331–803] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) preliminarily determines that countervailable VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Preliminary Decision Memorandum’’). 2 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)–(d), 19 CFR 351.310(c). 4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. The period of investigation is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Joshua Morris or Austin Redington, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1779 and (202) 482–1664, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. We calculated de minimis CVD rates for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we have disregarded these rates and preliminarily determine that no countervailable subsides are being provided to the production or exportation of the subject merchandise in Ecuador. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an average rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The ‘‘all others’’ rate is also de minimis. Consequently, consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we similarly have disregarded this rate. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Promarisco S.A. .................... * 0.39 Sociedad Nacional de Gala- pagos C.A. ........................ * 0.70 All Others .............................. * 0.56 De minimis. Because we have preliminarily determined that the CVD rates in this investigation are de minimis, we will not direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of announcement of its public announcement. 2 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing.3 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between 4 and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33349Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration regarding ‘‘Negative Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Republic of Indonesia,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)–(d), 19 CFR 351.310(c). 1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Analysis of Programs 6. Disclosure and Public Comment 7. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13235 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–560–825] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Indonesia: Negative Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Indonesia. The period of investigation is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao, or Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3586, (202) 482– 1396, or (202) 482–0176, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. We have calculated de minimis CVD rates for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we have disregarded these rates and preliminarily determined that no countervailable subsides are being provided to the production or exportation of the subject merchandise in Indonesia. The ‘‘all others’’ rate is also de minimis. Consequently, consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we similarly have disregarded this rate. Negative Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be the following: Company Subsidy rate (percent) PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari .... PT. Central Proteinaprima Tbk .................................... * 0.81 PT. First Marine Seafoods ... PT. Khom Foods .................. * 1.22 All Others .............................. * 0.99 * De minimis. Because we have preliminarily determined that the CVD rates in this investigation are de minimis, we will not direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of the subject merchandise. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.2 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing.3 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,1 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Final - India === 50385Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33344 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. 4 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador (C–331–803)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). 6. Government Provision of Goods and Services Used to Promote the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR 7. Government Provision of Land to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR 8. Government Provision of Shrimp Breeding Stock and Fry for LTAR 9. Tax Incentives from the Capital Investment Coordinating Board 10. Government Provision of Grants to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector 11. Government Provision of Grants for the Lampung Shrimp Pond Project 12. Export Credit Insurance 13. Export Credit Guarantees 14. Export Ban on Raw Shrimp 15. Government Provision of Assistance through the Aquaculture Intensification (INBUDKAN) Program 16. Government Provision of Assistance through the Fish Culture Intensification (FCIP) Program 17. Government Provision of Assistance through the Revitalisation of Aquaculture Development (RPPB) Program 18. Government Provision of Clean Water Facilities to the Indonesian Fishery Sector for LTAR 19. Government Provision of Fishing Boats for LTAR 20. Government Provision of Cold Storage Facilities for LTAR 21. Government Provision of Shrimp Breeding Stock and Seed for LTAR 22. Government Loans to Coastal Community Businesses under the Project of Coastal Community Empowerment/ Loans for the Economic Development of Coastal Communities (PEMP) Program 23. Government Provision of Land to Brackish-Water Aquaculture Farms for LTAR V. Analysis of Comments General Issues Comment 1: The Application of Section 771B of the Act (the Agricultural Processing Provision) to Subsidies to Fresh Shrimp Farmers Comment 2: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors; Use of a Simple or Weighted Average Comment 3: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors: Proper Sales Denominator Cross-Ownership Comment 4: CPP and the Plasma Farmers Comment 5: CPP and CWS Comment 6: Windu Mantap and its Cross- Owned Companies Debt Forgiveness Comment 7: CPP’s 2001 Restructuring Agreement Comment 8: CPP’s Repayment Terms Comment 9: Forgiven Loans to CPP’s Plasma Farmers Comment 10: CPP’s Investment Commitments for the Shrimp Pond Revitalization Project Comment 11: The Indonesia Ex-Im Bank’s Waiver for CPP Export Financing Comment 12: CPP’s Export Financing Income Tax Reduction Comment 13: The Article 31E Income Tax Reduction Program VAT Exemptions for Strategic Goods Comment 14: VAT Exemptions are Countervailable in their Entirety Comment 15: Time Value of Money Benefits from VAT Exemptions Import Duty Exemptions for Bonded Zones Comment 16: Import Duty Exemptions for Equipment Imported into Bonded Zones Comment 17: Import Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones VAT Exemptions for Bonded Zones Comment 18: VAT Exemptions for Equipment and Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones Land Comment 19: First Marine’s Land Lease at the Jakarta Fishery Port Comment 20: Land Provided to CPP and CWS by KIM Creditworthiness Comment 21: The Department’s Preliminary Determination Regarding CPP’s Uncreditworthiness During 2011 Comment 22: Petitioner’s Other Uncreditworthiness Allegations Voluntary Respondents Comment 23: The Department’s Denial of Bumi Menara’s Voluntary Respondent Request Miscellaneous Comment 24: CPP’s Minor Corrections VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2013–20164 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–854] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from India. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Shane Subler, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 and (202) 482–0189, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers 42 government programs. In addition to the Government of India, the company respondents in this investigation are Devi Fisheries Limited (Devi Fisheries), and Devi Seafoods Ltd. (Devi Seafoods). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is April 1, 2011, through March 30, 2012. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, 2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India’’ (Decision Memorandum). 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp.4 We have VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50386 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 5 See Decision Memorandum, at 9 and 19. addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine-Frozen Shrimp,’’ which is hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation This investigation covers certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. See Appendix I for a complete description of the scope of this investigation. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via IA ACCESS. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), we have calculated a rate for each company respondent. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the ‘‘all others’’ rate by weight averaging the rates of Devi Fisheries and Devi Seafoods, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, we have calculated a simple average of Devi Fisheries’ and Devi Seafoods’ rates. Since both Devi Fisheries and Devi Seafoods received countervailable export subsidies and the ‘‘all others’’ rate is an average based on the individually investigated respondents, the ‘‘all others’’ rate includes export subsidies. We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate Devi Fisheries Limited 10.54 percent (ad va- lorem). Devi Seafoods Ltd. .... 11.14 percent (ad va- lorem). All Others ................... 10.84 percent (ad va- lorem). As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from India that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2013, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of the subject merchandise from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. However, as discussed in the Decision Memorandum, we are adjusting the cash deposit rates to account for program-wide changes described under 19 CFR 351.526.5 Therefore, we are directing CBP to require a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated below. Company Cash deposit rate Devi Fisheries Limited 6.16 percent (ad va- lorem). Devi Seafoods Ltd. .... 5.54 percent (ad va- lorem). All Others ................... 5.85 percent (ad va- lorem). If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty (CVD) order under section 706(a) of the Act, and we will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. Moreover, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to release any bond or other security and refund any cash deposits that were collected for shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse on or after June 4, 2013, the date that we instructed CBP to suspend liquidation following the Preliminary Determination. The interest provisions of section 778 of the Act do not apply. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 12, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50387Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 6 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 In the Preliminary Determination, we inadvertently referred to Minh Qui as ‘‘Minh Qui Seafoods Co. Ltd.’’ rather than its proper name, ‘‘Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.’’ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33342 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). This notice corrects that incorrect reference. 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Continued aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,6 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ ’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1 Whether the Department Should Investigate Petitioner’s Timely Filed New Subsidy Allegation Comment 2 Whether the Department Should Apply Adverse Facts Available to the DEPS Program Comment 3 Whether the Department Should Include the Benefits Found for the DEPS Program in the Final Cash Deposit Rates Comment 4 Whether the Department Used the Incorrect Rate for Exports of Prepared Shrimp in Its Calculation of the Benefit Received by Devi Seafoods from the Duty Drawback Program Comment 5 Whether the Department Should Correct the Calculation of the Benefit Received by Devi Seafoods under the Chapter 1B Program Comment 6 Whether the Department used an Incorrect Benchmark in the Calculation of Pre-Shipment Benefit on Export Financing Denominated in INR Comment 7 Whether the Department Erred in the Calculation of the Post-Shipment INR Benefits by using the Incorrect Number of Days for Several Post-Shipment INR Loans Comment 8 The Determination Not to Investigate VAT Exemptions Comment 9 Whether the Department Improperly Omitted Sales by Satya from the Denominator when Calculating the Benefit Received [FR Doc. 2013–20167 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–552–815] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Romani or Dustin Ross, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0198 and (202) 482–0747, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 In addition to the Government of Vietnam, the respondents in this investigation are Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. (Minh Qui) 2 and Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (Nha Trang). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’’ (Decision Memorandum). 3 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Preliminary - India === 33344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 13 and 23. 3 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Calculation of the All Others Rate 8. ITC Notification 9. Disclosure and Public Comment 10. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13237 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–854] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Thomas Schauer or Shane Subler, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 and (202) 482–0189, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we calculated an average rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Devi Fisheries Limited .......... 10.41 Devi Seafoods Ltd ................ 11.32 All Others .............................. 10.87 In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries. As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we are preliminarily adjusting the cash deposit rates to account for program-wide changes described under 19 CFR 351.526. 2 Therefore, we are directing CBP to require a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated below. Company Cash deposit rate (percent) Devi Fisheries Limited .......... 6.10 Devi Seafoods Ltd ................ 5.72 All Others .............................. 5.91 Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of announcement of its public announcement. 3 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs. For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33345Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Malaysia,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Analysis of Programs 6. Calculation of the All Others Rate 7. ITC Notification 8. Disclosure and Public Comment 9. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13205 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–557–814] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Malaysia: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Malaysia. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristen Johnson and Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4793 and (202) 482–4161, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. For this preliminary determination, we have relied on facts available for Kian Huat Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd. (Kian Huat), the mandatory respondent, because the company did not act to the best of its ability and respond to the Department’s requests for information. Further, we have drawn an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available to calculate the ad valorem rate for Kian Huat.2 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Department’s analysis of program usage by Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Asia Aquaculture), a voluntary respondent, is also contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an all others rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Asia Aquaculture) .................. 10.80 Kian Huat Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd. (Kian Huat) ..................... 62.74 All Others .................................... 62.74 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Final - Indonesia === 50383Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia: Negative Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33349 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination), and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia (C–560–825)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). Countervailable 1. Pioneer Status 2. Provision of Grants under the Economic Transformation Program (ETP)— Replicating Integrated Aquaculture Model (IZAQs) 3. Reinvestment Allowance B. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable 1. Human Resource Development Fund C. Programs Determined To Not Exist 1. Provision of Leases and Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) under the ETP—IZAQs 2. Provision of Infrastructure Under Entry Point Project #6 D. Program Determined To Be Terminated 1. 100% Allowance on Capital Expenditure for Approved Agricultural Projects E. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 1. Investment Tax Allowance 2. Infrastructure Allowance 3. Accelerated Capital Allowance 4. Tax Incentives for Approved Food Production Activities 5. Double Deduction for the Promotion of Exports 6. Export Credit Refinancing Program 7. Supplier Credit Facility 8. Buyer Credit Facility 9. Double Deductions for Export Credit Insurance Premiums 10. Tax Exemptions for Exporters in Free Trade Zones 11. Duty Exemptions for Exporters in Free Trade Zones 12. Provision of Seed and Fry for LTAR 13. Loans Under the Fund for Food Program 14. Loans Under the Agriculture Entrepreneurs Scheme for Graduates Comment 1: Whether the Pioneer Status Program is Specific as an Export Subsidy Comment 2: Whether the Pioneer Status Program is Specific Because It Is Limited to a Particular Industry or Enterprise Comment 3: Whether 19 CFR 351.526 Applies with Regard to Asia Aquaculture Companies’ Use of the Pioneer Status Program Comment 4: Manner in Which the Department Should Calculate the Benefit Under the Pioneer Status Program Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA with Respect to Asia Aquaculture’s Use of the Reinvestment Allowance Comment 6: Treatment of Subsidy Programs Discovered at Verification Comment 7: Rely on Government of Malaysia’s Response for Kian Huat Comment 8: Calculation of Rate Based Upon Adverse Inferences Comment 9: Appropriate Rate to Apply as AFA [FR Doc. 2013–20168 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–560–825] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Republic of Indonesia: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia). DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao, or Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3586, (202) 482– 1396, or (202) 482–0176, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers 28 government programs. In addition to the Government of Indonesia (GOI), the respondents in this investigation are (1) PT. Central Proteinaprima and PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari, along with their affiliated companies; and (2) PT. First Marine Seafoods and its cross-owned affiliate, PT. Khom Foods. Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013,2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Negative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Republic of Indonesia’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp. 3 We have addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine-Frozen Shrimp’’ (Scope Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. See Appendix I for a complete description of the scope of this investigation. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50384 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 4 See Preliminary Determination, 78 FR 33349. 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Decision and Scope Memoranda are public documents and are on file electronically via IA ACCESS. IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, complete versions of the Decision and Scope Memoranda can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and the electronic versions of these memoranda are identical in content. Company Subsidy rate (percent) PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari, PT. Central Proteinaprima Tbk. 0.23 (de minimis) PT. First Marine Sea- foods, PT. Khom Foods. 0.27 (de minimis) All Others ......................... 0.25 (de minimis) For this final determination, we have calculated de minimis total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually investigated producers/ exporters of the subject merchandise . The all others rate is also de minimis. Therefore, we determine that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and/or exporters in Indonesia with respect to frozen shrimp. Because we have reached a final negative determination, consistent with section 705(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we are terminating this investigation. In the Preliminary Determination, the total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually examined respondents were de minimis and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation. 4 Because the rates for the respondents remain de minimis, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission of our determination. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 12, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Subsidy Valuation Information A. Period of Investigation B. Allocation Period C. Attribution of Subsidies D. Application of Section 771B of the Act E. Denominators F. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rate Benchmarks for Allocating Non- Recurring Subsidies IV. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable 1. Export Financing from the Indonesia Export-Import Bank 2. Article 31E Income Tax Reduction B. Programs Determined To Be Not Countervailable 1. Import Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones 2. VAT Exemptions for Raw Materials and Equipment Imported into Bonded Zones 3. VAT Exemptions for Purchases of Fish Feed C. Programs Determined To Have Been Not Used By Respondents or To Not Confer a Benefit During the POI 1. Import Duty Exemptions for Equipment Imported into Bonded Zones 2. Debt Forgiveness from the Government of Indonesia 3. Government Provision of Loans to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector 4. Government Loans to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector through Bank Rakyat Indonesia 5. Government Provision of Electricity to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50385Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33344 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. 4 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador (C–331–803)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). 6. Government Provision of Goods and Services Used to Promote the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR 7. Government Provision of Land to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR 8. Government Provision of Shrimp Breeding Stock and Fry for LTAR 9. Tax Incentives from the Capital Investment Coordinating Board 10. Government Provision of Grants to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector 11. Government Provision of Grants for the Lampung Shrimp Pond Project 12. Export Credit Insurance 13. Export Credit Guarantees 14. Export Ban on Raw Shrimp 15. Government Provision of Assistance through the Aquaculture Intensification (INBUDKAN) Program 16. Government Provision of Assistance through the Fish Culture Intensification (FCIP) Program 17. Government Provision of Assistance through the Revitalisation of Aquaculture Development (RPPB) Program 18. Government Provision of Clean Water Facilities to the Indonesian Fishery Sector for LTAR 19. Government Provision of Fishing Boats for LTAR 20. Government Provision of Cold Storage Facilities for LTAR 21. Government Provision of Shrimp Breeding Stock and Seed for LTAR 22. Government Loans to Coastal Community Businesses under the Project of Coastal Community Empowerment/ Loans for the Economic Development of Coastal Communities (PEMP) Program 23. Government Provision of Land to Brackish-Water Aquaculture Farms for LTAR V. Analysis of Comments General Issues Comment 1: The Application of Section 771B of the Act (the Agricultural Processing Provision) to Subsidies to Fresh Shrimp Farmers Comment 2: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors; Use of a Simple or Weighted Average Comment 3: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors: Proper Sales Denominator Cross-Ownership Comment 4: CPP and the Plasma Farmers Comment 5: CPP and CWS Comment 6: Windu Mantap and its Cross- Owned Companies Debt Forgiveness Comment 7: CPP’s 2001 Restructuring Agreement Comment 8: CPP’s Repayment Terms Comment 9: Forgiven Loans to CPP’s Plasma Farmers Comment 10: CPP’s Investment Commitments for the Shrimp Pond Revitalization Project Comment 11: The Indonesia Ex-Im Bank’s Waiver for CPP Export Financing Comment 12: CPP’s Export Financing Income Tax Reduction Comment 13: The Article 31E Income Tax Reduction Program VAT Exemptions for Strategic Goods Comment 14: VAT Exemptions are Countervailable in their Entirety Comment 15: Time Value of Money Benefits from VAT Exemptions Import Duty Exemptions for Bonded Zones Comment 16: Import Duty Exemptions for Equipment Imported into Bonded Zones Comment 17: Import Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones VAT Exemptions for Bonded Zones Comment 18: VAT Exemptions for Equipment and Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones Land Comment 19: First Marine’s Land Lease at the Jakarta Fishery Port Comment 20: Land Provided to CPP and CWS by KIM Creditworthiness Comment 21: The Department’s Preliminary Determination Regarding CPP’s Uncreditworthiness During 2011 Comment 22: Petitioner’s Other Uncreditworthiness Allegations Voluntary Respondents Comment 23: The Department’s Denial of Bumi Menara’s Voluntary Respondent Request Miscellaneous Comment 24: CPP’s Minor Corrections VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2013–20164 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–854] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from India. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Shane Subler, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 and (202) 482–0189, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers 42 government programs. In addition to the Government of India, the company respondents in this investigation are Devi Fisheries Limited (Devi Fisheries), and Devi Seafoods Ltd. (Devi Seafoods). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is April 1, 2011, through March 30, 2012. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, 2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India’’ (Decision Memorandum). 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp.4 We have VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Preliminary - Indonesia === 33349Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration regarding ‘‘Negative Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Republic of Indonesia,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)–(d), 19 CFR 351.310(c). 1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Analysis of Programs 6. Disclosure and Public Comment 7. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13235 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–560–825] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Indonesia: Negative Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Indonesia. The period of investigation is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao, or Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3586, (202) 482– 1396, or (202) 482–0176, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. We have calculated de minimis CVD rates for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we have disregarded these rates and preliminarily determined that no countervailable subsides are being provided to the production or exportation of the subject merchandise in Indonesia. The ‘‘all others’’ rate is also de minimis. Consequently, consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we similarly have disregarded this rate. Negative Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be the following: Company Subsidy rate (percent) PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari .... PT. Central Proteinaprima Tbk .................................... * 0.81 PT. First Marine Seafoods ... PT. Khom Foods .................. * 1.22 All Others .............................. * 0.99 * De minimis. Because we have preliminarily determined that the CVD rates in this investigation are de minimis, we will not direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of the subject merchandise. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.2 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing.3 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,1 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Voluntary Respondents 6. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 7. Analysis of Programs 8. ITC Notification 9. Disclosure and Public Comment 10. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13234 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–549–828] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Thailand. The period of investigation is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Myrna Lobo or Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371 and (202) 482–0486, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. We have also calculated an all-others rate. Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all- others rate by weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company’s exports of subject merchandise to the United States. However, the all-others rate may not include zero and de minimis rates or any rates based solely on the facts available. In this investigation, the only rate that is not de minimis or based entirely on facts available is the rate calculated for Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. (TUF/TUS). Consequently, the rate calculated for TUF/TUS is also assigned as the ‘‘all others’’ rate. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. .............. 2.09. Marine Gold Products Lim- ited .................................... *1.75 VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:28 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Preliminary - Malaysia === 33345Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Malaysia,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Analysis of Programs 6. Calculation of the All Others Rate 7. ITC Notification 8. Disclosure and Public Comment 9. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13205 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–557–814] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Malaysia: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Malaysia. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristen Johnson and Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4793 and (202) 482–4161, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. For this preliminary determination, we have relied on facts available for Kian Huat Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd. (Kian Huat), the mandatory respondent, because the company did not act to the best of its ability and respond to the Department’s requests for information. Further, we have drawn an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available to calculate the ad valorem rate for Kian Huat.2 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Department’s analysis of program usage by Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Asia Aquaculture), a voluntary respondent, is also contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an all others rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Asia Aquaculture) .................. 10.80 Kian Huat Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd. (Kian Huat) ..................... 62.74 All Others .................................... 62.74 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 3 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 4 See 19 CFR 351.309. 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from Malaysia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of public announcement of this determination. 3 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttals briefs.4 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing request, see the Preliminary Determination Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (IQF) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Calculation of the All Others Rate 8. Disclosure and Public Comment 9. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13229 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–989] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1009. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Final - Malaysia === 50381Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Malaysia: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33345 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. 4 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Malaysia (C–557–814)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). 5 See section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–557–814] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Malaysia. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett or Kristen Johnson, Office 8, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room CC116, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–4161 or 202–482–4793, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner). 1 This investigation covers 23 government programs. The mandatory respondent in this investigation is Kian Huat Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd. (Kian Huat). The Department has also calculated a countervailing duty (CVD) rate for the voluntary respondent, Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd., Star Feedmills (M) Sdn. Bhd., and Charoen Pokphand Foods (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., (collectively, the Asia Aquaculture Companies). Period of Investigation The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013,2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Malaysia’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp. 4 We have addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine-Frozen Shrimp’’ (Scope Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Decision and Scope Memoranda are public documents and are on file electronically via IA ACCESS. IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the CRU, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, complete versions of the Decision and Scope Memoranda can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and the electronic versions of these memoranda are identical in content. Use of Facts Otherwise Available, Including Adverse Inferences For purposes of this final determination, we continue to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to Kian Huat in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). A full discussion of our decision to rely on AFA is presented in the Decision Memorandum under the section ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.’’ Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we have calculated a rate for each company respondent. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an all others rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. If the rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under facts available, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate.5 Kian Huat’s rate was determined entirely under facts available with an adverse inference. The Asia Aquaculture Companies, the only entity that participated in the investigation, is a voluntary respondent. We exclude net subsidy rates calculated VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50382 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 6 See 19 CFR 351.204(d)(3); and Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27310 (May 19, 1997). 7 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. for voluntary respondents from the calculation of the all others rate.6 Thus, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(d)(3), we are applying as the all others rate the rate calculated for Kian Huat, the non-cooperative mandatory respondent. We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Producer/Exporter Net subsidy ad valorem rate (percent) Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Asia Aquaculture), Star Feedmills (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Star Feedmills), and Charoen Pokphand Foods (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (CPFM), (collectively, the Asia Aquaculture Companies) ................................................................. 10.80 Kian Huat Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd. (Kian Huat) .................................................................................................................................... 54.50 All Others ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 54.50 As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Malaysia that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2013, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order under section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 12, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,7 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (IQF) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II List of Subsidy Programs and Issues in the Decision Memorandum A. Programs Determined To Be VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50383Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia: Negative Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33349 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination), and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia (C–560–825)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). Countervailable 1. Pioneer Status 2. Provision of Grants under the Economic Transformation Program (ETP)— Replicating Integrated Aquaculture Model (IZAQs) 3. Reinvestment Allowance B. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable 1. Human Resource Development Fund C. Programs Determined To Not Exist 1. Provision of Leases and Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) under the ETP—IZAQs 2. Provision of Infrastructure Under Entry Point Project #6 D. Program Determined To Be Terminated 1. 100% Allowance on Capital Expenditure for Approved Agricultural Projects E. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 1. Investment Tax Allowance 2. Infrastructure Allowance 3. Accelerated Capital Allowance 4. Tax Incentives for Approved Food Production Activities 5. Double Deduction for the Promotion of Exports 6. Export Credit Refinancing Program 7. Supplier Credit Facility 8. Buyer Credit Facility 9. Double Deductions for Export Credit Insurance Premiums 10. Tax Exemptions for Exporters in Free Trade Zones 11. Duty Exemptions for Exporters in Free Trade Zones 12. Provision of Seed and Fry for LTAR 13. Loans Under the Fund for Food Program 14. Loans Under the Agriculture Entrepreneurs Scheme for Graduates Comment 1: Whether the Pioneer Status Program is Specific as an Export Subsidy Comment 2: Whether the Pioneer Status Program is Specific Because It Is Limited to a Particular Industry or Enterprise Comment 3: Whether 19 CFR 351.526 Applies with Regard to Asia Aquaculture Companies’ Use of the Pioneer Status Program Comment 4: Manner in Which the Department Should Calculate the Benefit Under the Pioneer Status Program Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA with Respect to Asia Aquaculture’s Use of the Reinvestment Allowance Comment 6: Treatment of Subsidy Programs Discovered at Verification Comment 7: Rely on Government of Malaysia’s Response for Kian Huat Comment 8: Calculation of Rate Based Upon Adverse Inferences Comment 9: Appropriate Rate to Apply as AFA [FR Doc. 2013–20168 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–560–825] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Republic of Indonesia: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia). DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao, or Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3586, (202) 482– 1396, or (202) 482–0176, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers 28 government programs. In addition to the Government of Indonesia (GOI), the respondents in this investigation are (1) PT. Central Proteinaprima and PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari, along with their affiliated companies; and (2) PT. First Marine Seafoods and its cross-owned affiliate, PT. Khom Foods. Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013,2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Negative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Republic of Indonesia’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp. 3 We have addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine-Frozen Shrimp’’ (Scope Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. See Appendix I for a complete description of the scope of this investigation. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Preliminary - Thailand === 33350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Voluntary Respondents 6. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 7. Analysis of Programs 8. ITC Notification 9. Disclosure and Public Comment 10. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13234 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–549–828] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Thailand. The period of investigation is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Myrna Lobo or Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371 and (202) 482–0486, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. We have also calculated an all-others rate. Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all- others rate by weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company’s exports of subject merchandise to the United States. However, the all-others rate may not include zero and de minimis rates or any rates based solely on the facts available. In this investigation, the only rate that is not de minimis or based entirely on facts available is the rate calculated for Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. (TUF/TUS). Consequently, the rate calculated for TUF/TUS is also assigned as the ‘‘all others’’ rate. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. .............. 2.09. Marine Gold Products Lim- ited .................................... *1.75 VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:28 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33351Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 2 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)–(d), 19 CFR 351.310(c). 4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 1 See Xanthan Gum from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 2252 (January 10, 2013) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 2 See ‘‘Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Xanthan Gum from the People’s Republic of China: Post-Preliminary Analysis and Calculation Memorandum for Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. (aka Inner Mongolia Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd.) and Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 4, 2013; see also ‘‘Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Xanthan Gum from the People’s Republic of China: Post-Preliminary Analysis and Calculation Memorandum for Deosen Biochemical Ltd.,’’ dated March 4, 2013. Company Subsidy rate (percent) All Others .............................. 2.09. * De minimis. In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from Thailand that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. We are not, however, ordering suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits, on entries by Marine Gold Products Limited because its countervailing duty rate is de minimis. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of announcement of its public announcement. 2 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing. 3 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Analysis of Programs 6. ITC Notification 7. Disclosure and Public Comment 8. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13202 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–985] Xanthan Gum From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. SUMMARY : On January 10, 2013, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and postponement of final determination in the antidumping (‘‘AD’’) investigation of xanthan gum from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 On March 4, 2013, the Department released its post- preliminary differential pricing analysis. 2 The Department invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination and post- preliminary analysis. Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes from the Preliminary Determination. The Department has determined that xanthan gum from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The final weighted-average dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Brandon Farlander or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482– 0167, respectively. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Final - Thailand === 50383Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia: Negative Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33349 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination), and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia (C–560–825)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). Countervailable 1. Pioneer Status 2. Provision of Grants under the Economic Transformation Program (ETP)— Replicating Integrated Aquaculture Model (IZAQs) 3. Reinvestment Allowance B. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable 1. Human Resource Development Fund C. Programs Determined To Not Exist 1. Provision of Leases and Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) under the ETP—IZAQs 2. Provision of Infrastructure Under Entry Point Project #6 D. Program Determined To Be Terminated 1. 100% Allowance on Capital Expenditure for Approved Agricultural Projects E. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 1. Investment Tax Allowance 2. Infrastructure Allowance 3. Accelerated Capital Allowance 4. Tax Incentives for Approved Food Production Activities 5. Double Deduction for the Promotion of Exports 6. Export Credit Refinancing Program 7. Supplier Credit Facility 8. Buyer Credit Facility 9. Double Deductions for Export Credit Insurance Premiums 10. Tax Exemptions for Exporters in Free Trade Zones 11. Duty Exemptions for Exporters in Free Trade Zones 12. Provision of Seed and Fry for LTAR 13. Loans Under the Fund for Food Program 14. Loans Under the Agriculture Entrepreneurs Scheme for Graduates Comment 1: Whether the Pioneer Status Program is Specific as an Export Subsidy Comment 2: Whether the Pioneer Status Program is Specific Because It Is Limited to a Particular Industry or Enterprise Comment 3: Whether 19 CFR 351.526 Applies with Regard to Asia Aquaculture Companies’ Use of the Pioneer Status Program Comment 4: Manner in Which the Department Should Calculate the Benefit Under the Pioneer Status Program Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA with Respect to Asia Aquaculture’s Use of the Reinvestment Allowance Comment 6: Treatment of Subsidy Programs Discovered at Verification Comment 7: Rely on Government of Malaysia’s Response for Kian Huat Comment 8: Calculation of Rate Based Upon Adverse Inferences Comment 9: Appropriate Rate to Apply as AFA [FR Doc. 2013–20168 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–560–825] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Republic of Indonesia: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia). DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao, or Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3586, (202) 482– 1396, or (202) 482–0176, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers 28 government programs. In addition to the Government of Indonesia (GOI), the respondents in this investigation are (1) PT. Central Proteinaprima and PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari, along with their affiliated companies; and (2) PT. First Marine Seafoods and its cross-owned affiliate, PT. Khom Foods. Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013,2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Negative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Republic of Indonesia’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp. 3 We have addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine-Frozen Shrimp’’ (Scope Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. See Appendix I for a complete description of the scope of this investigation. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50384 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 4 See Preliminary Determination, 78 FR 33349. 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Decision and Scope Memoranda are public documents and are on file electronically via IA ACCESS. IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, complete versions of the Decision and Scope Memoranda can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and the electronic versions of these memoranda are identical in content. Company Subsidy rate (percent) PT. Central Pertiwi Bahari, PT. Central Proteinaprima Tbk. 0.23 (de minimis) PT. First Marine Sea- foods, PT. Khom Foods. 0.27 (de minimis) All Others ......................... 0.25 (de minimis) For this final determination, we have calculated de minimis total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually investigated producers/ exporters of the subject merchandise . The all others rate is also de minimis. Therefore, we determine that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and/or exporters in Indonesia with respect to frozen shrimp. Because we have reached a final negative determination, consistent with section 705(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we are terminating this investigation. In the Preliminary Determination, the total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually examined respondents were de minimis and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation. 4 Because the rates for the respondents remain de minimis, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission of our determination. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 12, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Subsidy Valuation Information A. Period of Investigation B. Allocation Period C. Attribution of Subsidies D. Application of Section 771B of the Act E. Denominators F. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rate Benchmarks for Allocating Non- Recurring Subsidies IV. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable 1. Export Financing from the Indonesia Export-Import Bank 2. Article 31E Income Tax Reduction B. Programs Determined To Be Not Countervailable 1. Import Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones 2. VAT Exemptions for Raw Materials and Equipment Imported into Bonded Zones 3. VAT Exemptions for Purchases of Fish Feed C. Programs Determined To Have Been Not Used By Respondents or To Not Confer a Benefit During the POI 1. Import Duty Exemptions for Equipment Imported into Bonded Zones 2. Debt Forgiveness from the Government of Indonesia 3. Government Provision of Loans to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector 4. Government Loans to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector through Bank Rakyat Indonesia 5. Government Provision of Electricity to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50385Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33344 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. 4 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador (C–331–803)—Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). 6. Government Provision of Goods and Services Used to Promote the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR 7. Government Provision of Land to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector for LTAR 8. Government Provision of Shrimp Breeding Stock and Fry for LTAR 9. Tax Incentives from the Capital Investment Coordinating Board 10. Government Provision of Grants to the Indonesian Fishing and Aquaculture Sector 11. Government Provision of Grants for the Lampung Shrimp Pond Project 12. Export Credit Insurance 13. Export Credit Guarantees 14. Export Ban on Raw Shrimp 15. Government Provision of Assistance through the Aquaculture Intensification (INBUDKAN) Program 16. Government Provision of Assistance through the Fish Culture Intensification (FCIP) Program 17. Government Provision of Assistance through the Revitalisation of Aquaculture Development (RPPB) Program 18. Government Provision of Clean Water Facilities to the Indonesian Fishery Sector for LTAR 19. Government Provision of Fishing Boats for LTAR 20. Government Provision of Cold Storage Facilities for LTAR 21. Government Provision of Shrimp Breeding Stock and Seed for LTAR 22. Government Loans to Coastal Community Businesses under the Project of Coastal Community Empowerment/ Loans for the Economic Development of Coastal Communities (PEMP) Program 23. Government Provision of Land to Brackish-Water Aquaculture Farms for LTAR V. Analysis of Comments General Issues Comment 1: The Application of Section 771B of the Act (the Agricultural Processing Provision) to Subsidies to Fresh Shrimp Farmers Comment 2: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors; Use of a Simple or Weighted Average Comment 3: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors: Proper Sales Denominator Cross-Ownership Comment 4: CPP and the Plasma Farmers Comment 5: CPP and CWS Comment 6: Windu Mantap and its Cross- Owned Companies Debt Forgiveness Comment 7: CPP’s 2001 Restructuring Agreement Comment 8: CPP’s Repayment Terms Comment 9: Forgiven Loans to CPP’s Plasma Farmers Comment 10: CPP’s Investment Commitments for the Shrimp Pond Revitalization Project Comment 11: The Indonesia Ex-Im Bank’s Waiver for CPP Export Financing Comment 12: CPP’s Export Financing Income Tax Reduction Comment 13: The Article 31E Income Tax Reduction Program VAT Exemptions for Strategic Goods Comment 14: VAT Exemptions are Countervailable in their Entirety Comment 15: Time Value of Money Benefits from VAT Exemptions Import Duty Exemptions for Bonded Zones Comment 16: Import Duty Exemptions for Equipment Imported into Bonded Zones Comment 17: Import Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones VAT Exemptions for Bonded Zones Comment 18: VAT Exemptions for Equipment and Raw Materials Imported into Bonded Zones Land Comment 19: First Marine’s Land Lease at the Jakarta Fishery Port Comment 20: Land Provided to CPP and CWS by KIM Creditworthiness Comment 21: The Department’s Preliminary Determination Regarding CPP’s Uncreditworthiness During 2011 Comment 22: Petitioner’s Other Uncreditworthiness Allegations Voluntary Respondents Comment 23: The Department’s Denial of Bumi Menara’s Voluntary Respondent Request Miscellaneous Comment 24: CPP’s Minor Corrections VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2013–20164 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–854] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from India. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Shane Subler, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 and (202) 482–0189, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers 42 government programs. In addition to the Government of India, the company respondents in this investigation are Devi Fisheries Limited (Devi Fisheries), and Devi Seafoods Ltd. (Devi Seafoods). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is April 1, 2011, through March 30, 2012. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, 2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India’’ (Decision Memorandum). 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp.4 We have VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Preliminary - China === 33346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 3 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 4 See 19 CFR 351.309. 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from Malaysia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of public announcement of this determination. 3 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttals briefs.4 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing request, see the Preliminary Determination Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (IQF) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Calculation of the All Others Rate 8. Disclosure and Public Comment 9. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13229 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–989] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1009. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33347Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3 See 19 CFR 351.309. 4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an all others rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products, Co., Ltd. (Guolian), Zhanjiang Guolian Feed Co., Ltd. (Guolian Feed), Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Fry Tech- nology Co., Ltd. (Guolian Fry), Zhanjiang Guotong Aquatic Co., Ltd. (Guotong) (collec- tively, the Guolian Companies) ......... 5.76 All Others ................ 5.76 In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of public announcement of this determination. 2 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttals briefs.3 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing request, see the Preliminary Determination Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (IQF) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Subsidies Valuation 5. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Calculation of the All Others Rate 8. Disclosure and Public Comment 9. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13231 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–331–803] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) preliminarily determines that countervailable VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Preliminary - Vietnam, === 33342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. (‘‘TWS China’’),’’ dated concurrently with this memorandum (‘‘Final Results Analysis Memo’’), and Memorandum from the Department entitled ‘‘New Shipper Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this memorandum (‘‘Final Results Surrogate Value Memo’’). 12 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; see also Final Results Analysis Memo at 2–3. 13 See Final Results Analysis Memo at 2–3. 14 See id. 15 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). 16 See id. • Revised the indirect selling expense ratio to include additional indirect selling expenses not substantiated to be unrelated to the sale of subject merchandise. 12 • Eliminated the facts available plugs used to calculate ocean freight expense for Trelleborg Wheel Systems China’s raw materials purchased in market economies, and replaced them with the market-economy purchase prices inclusive of ocean freight, which were submitted by Trelleborg Wheel Systems China after the Preliminary Results. However, we note that due to a miscalculation in the prices submitted, the Department corrected these values for the final results.13 • Adjusted the domestic inland truck freight distances for market economy purchases, per information Trelleborg Wheel Systems China submitted after the Preliminary Results.14 Final Results Margin The Department finds that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists: Exporter Weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. ......... 0.0 Disclosure We intend to disclose to parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Assessment Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Where either the respondent’s weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer- specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases.15 Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by the company individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that the exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter’s case number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. 16 Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Trelleborg Wheel Systems China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by Trelleborg Wheel Systems China, the cash deposit rate will be 0.00 percent; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Trelleborg Wheel Systems China but not manufactured by Trelleborg Wheel Systems China, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 210.48 percent ; and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by Trelleborg Wheel Systems China, but exported by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of BPI disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues for Final Results Issue 1: Whether to Rescind the Review for non- Bona Fide sale Issue 2: Whether to change the surrogate country from Indonesia to Thailand Issue 3: Whether to revise the indirect selling expense ratio Issue 4: Whether to continue to deny scrap tire and steel wire offsets [FR Doc. 2013–13215 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–552–815] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The period of investigation is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Dustin Ross or Michael Romani, AD/CVD Operations, Import VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33343Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0747 and (202) 482–0198, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an average rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Minh Qui Seafoods Co. Ltd ........ 5.08 Nha Trang Seaproduct Company 7.05 All Others .................................... 6.07 In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from Vietnam that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of announcement of its public announcement. 2 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs. For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,3 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope Comments 2. Scope of the Investigation 3. Injury Test 4. Application of Countervailing Duty Law to Imports from the Vietnam 5. Subsidies Valuation VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Notices 1 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 13 and 23. 3 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Calculation of the All Others Rate 8. ITC Notification 9. Disclosure and Public Comment 10. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–13237 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–854] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final determination will be issued 75 days after the date that the Department makes this preliminary determination. DATES : Effective Date: June 4, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Thomas Schauer or Shane Subler, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 and (202) 482–0189, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty rate for each individually investigated producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we calculated an average rate as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Devi Fisheries Limited .......... 10.41 Devi Seafoods Ltd ................ 11.32 All Others .............................. 10.87 In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of frozen shrimp from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries. As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we are preliminarily adjusting the cash deposit rates to account for program-wide changes described under 19 CFR 351.526. 2 Therefore, we are directing CBP to require a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated below. Company Cash deposit rate (percent) Devi Fisheries Limited .......... 6.10 Devi Seafoods Ltd ................ 5.72 All Others .............................. 5.91 Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of announcement of its public announcement. 3 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs. For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 28, 2013. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,4 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:33 Jun 03, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination - Final === 64009Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Notices 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 Chairman Irving A. Williamson and Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff dissenting. 3 In its preliminary determinations, Commerce found that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador and Indonesia were not being and not likely to be subsidized by the Governments of Ecuador or Indonesia (78 FR 33342–33351, June 4, 2013). However, in its final determinations, Commerce found imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador were being subsidized, but that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand in addition to those from Indonesia were not being and not likely to be subsidized by the Governments of Indonesia and Thailand. Following final negative determinations by Commerce with respect to frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia and Thailand (78 FR 50379–50394, August 19, 2013), the Commission terminated investigation Nos. 701–TA–494 and 496 (78 FR 54912, September 6, 2013). 4 Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, all import injury investigations conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 have been tolled by 16 days. Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and F (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: October 22, 2013. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–25129 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–491–493, 495, and 497 (Final)] Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded by reason of imports from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam of frozen warmwater shrimp, provided for in subheadings 0306.17.00, 1605.21.10, and 1605.29.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be subsidized by the Governments of China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam. 2 Background The Commission instituted these investigations effective December 28, 2012, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries, Biloxi, MS. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from countries under investigation were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)).3 Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35643). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2013, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on October 21, 2013. 4 The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4429 (October 2013), entitled Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–491–493, 495, and 497 (Final). Dated: October 21, 2013. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–25112 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–897] Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Institution of Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337 AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 3, 2013, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Optical Devices, LLC of Peterborough, New Hampshire. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on September 20, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of certain optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,904,007 (‘‘the ‘007 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,196,979 (‘‘the ‘979 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,416,651 (‘‘the ‘651 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. RE40,927 (‘‘the ‘927 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. RE42,913 (‘‘the ‘913 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. RE43,681 (‘‘the ‘681 patent’’). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES : The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone no. (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– 2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–1802. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2013). Scope of investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Oct 24, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM 25OCN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Final - China === 50391Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33346 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum A. General Issues Comment 1 The Application of Section 771B of the Act (the Agricultural Processing Provision) to Subsidies to Fresh Shrimp Farmers Comment 2 The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors; Use of a Simple or Weighted Average Comment 3 The Deferral of New Subsidy Allegations to Administrative Reviews Comment 4 The Determination Not To Investigate Value-Added Tax (VAT) Exemptions B. Company Specific Issues Comment 5 Promarisco’s Cross-Ownership, Sales Value, and Purchases of Fresh Shrimp Comment 6 Clerical Error in Calculation of Songa’s Preliminary Subsidy Rate C. Preferential, Exempted, and Forgiveness of Land-Use Fees for Shrimp Farmers Comment 7 Whether the GOE’s Inter-Tidal Land Concessions Program Is Specific Comment 8 The Appropriate Measure of Revenue Forgone Due to the GOE’s Inter- Tidal Land Concessions Program Comment 9 Benchmark for Measuring the Benefit Conferred by the GOE Comment 10 Alleged GOE Forgiveness of Land-Use Fees Comment 11 Songa’s Minor Corrections Comment 12 Promarisco’s Unreported Land Concessions D. Preferential Loans From the National Finance Corporation (CFN) and the National Development Bank (BNF) Comment 13 Whether To Apply AFA To Loan Discovered at Verification E. Export Restraints on Raw, Unprocessed Shrimp Comment 14 Whether the GOE Imposed Export Restraints on Raw and Unprocessed Shrimp [FR Doc. 2013–20169 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–989] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Eric Greynolds, Office 8, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room CC116, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202– 482–1109 or 202–482–6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner). 1 This investigation covers 29 government programs. The mandatory respondent in this investigation is Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products, Co., Ltd. (Guolian), Zhanjiang Guolian Feed Co., Ltd. (Guolian Feed), Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Fry Technology Co., Ltd. (Guolian Fry), Zhanjiang Guotong Aquatic Co., Ltd. (Guotong) (collectively, the Guolian Companies). Period of Investigation The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, 2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50392 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 4 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China (C–570–989)— Request for Scope Clarification’’ (March 28, 2013). brine-frozen shrimp. 4 We have addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine—Frozen Shrimp’’ (Scope Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Decision and Scope Memoranda are public documents and are on file electronically via IA ACCESS. In addition, complete versions of the Decision and Scope Memoranda can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and the electronic versions of these memoranda are identical in content. Use of Facts Otherwise Available, Including Adverse Inferences For purposes of this final determination, we have relied on facts available and have applied an adverse inference in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) with regard to: (1) Additional grants received by the Guolian Companies not addressed by the Department in the Preliminary Determination; (2) three grants reported at verification; (3) central government grants in connection with the Zhanjiang Guolian’s Penaeus Vannamei Boone (aka White Shrimp) Processing Project; and (4) export buyers credits from China Export-Import Bank (China ExIm) Program. A full discussion of our decision to rely on AFA is presented in the Decision Memorandum under the section ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.’’ Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for the Goulian Companies. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all- others’’ rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Because we have calculated a rate for only the Goulian Companies, the rate for the Goulian Companies is the all others rate. We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Producer/exporter Net subsidy ad valorem rate (percent) Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products, Co., Ltd. (Guolian), Zhanjiang Guolian Feed Co., Ltd. (Guolian Feed), Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Fry Technology Co., Ltd. (Guolian Fry), Zhanjiang Guotong Aquatic Co., Ltd. (Guotong) (collectively, the Guolian Companies) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 18.16 All Others ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18.16 As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2013, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing CBP to continue suspending liquidation on all imports of subject merchandise from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates indicated in the chart above. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty (CVD) order under section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50393Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 12, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (IQF) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Subsidy Programs and Issues in the Decision Memorandum A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable 1. Preferential Lending to Shrimp Producers by the Central Government and Province of Guangdong 2. Central Government, Provincial, and Municipal Grants Under the Famous Brands Program 3. Value-Added (VAT) Exemptions on Imports of Shrimp Fry 4. VAT Refunds for Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs) on Purchases of Chinese-Made Equipment 5. VAT and Import Tariff Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries 6. Enterprise Income Tax Reduction for High and New Technology Enterprises 7. Tax Incentives for Enterprises Engaged in Aquaculture and Processing 8. Central Government Grants in Connection With the Zhanjiang Guolian’s Penaeus Vannamei Boone (aka White Shrimp) Processing Project 9. Additional Grants Received by the Guolian Companies Not Addressed by the Department in the Preliminary Determination B. Program Determined Not To Confer a Benefit During the POI 1. Grants Under the Guangdong Province Coastal Region Fishermen’s Job Transferring Bill Fishery Industry Development Project Fund C. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 1. Central Government Provision of Loan Guarantees at the Zhanjiang City Seafood Center 2. Export Sellers Credits from China Export- Import (Ex-Im) Bank 3. Guangdong Province Funds for Enterprise Outward Expansion 4. State Key Renovation Project Fund Program 5. Grants Under the Healthy Development of the Aquaculture Industry Program 6. Grants by the Central Government and the Zuzhou District Government in Connection with Construction of Fishery Industry Zones and Farms 7. Grants from the Huanhua City Government for Fry Breeding 8. Central Government Grants under the 2010 Aquatic Products Quality and Safety Supervision Program 9. Government Grants for Fishery Machinery and Equipment Purchases 10. Grants from Banfu County Government for Development of Breeding Stock 11. Two Free, Three Half Program 12. Export Oriented FIEs 13. Tax Refund for Profit Reinvestment in Export-Oriented Enterprises 14. Tax Incentives for FIEs in Special Economic Zones 15. VAT Refunds for Domestic Firms on Purchases of Chinese-Made Equipment 16. Central Government Provision of Rent for Less than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) and Waiver of Management Fees at the Zhanjiang City Seafood Center 17. Central Government Provision of Cold Storage Services at the Zhanjiang City Seafood Center for LTAR 18. Export Credit Insurance from Sinosure Comment 1: Application of the CVD Law to the PRC Comment 2: Simultaneous Application of CVD and Non-Market Economy Measures Comment 3: Proper ‘‘Cut-Off’’ Date to Apply in the Investigation Comment 4: Whether the Department’s Application of Section 771B of the Act Improperly Attributes Subsidy Benefits to Shrimp Suppliers Comment 5: Whether the ‘‘Substantially Dependent’’ Criterion under Section 771B(1) of the Act is Satisfied Comment 6: Whether the ‘‘Limited Value’’ Criterion Under Section 771B(2) of the Act is Satisfied Comment 7: Whether the Department Applied Section 771B of the Act in a Manner that Was Flawed Comment 8: Denominator Used in Calculating the Net Subsidy Rate for Programs in Which the Department Attributed Benefits to Unaffiliated Farmers under Section 771B of the Act Comment 9: Manner in Which the Department Conducted the 0.5 Percent Test When Attributing Benefits to Unaffiliated Farmers under Section 771B of the Act Comment 10: Whether the Guolian Companies Benefited from Subsidies Received in Connection with the Zhanjiang City Seafood Center Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Initiate Investigations of Petitioner’s Second Round of New Subsidy Allegations Comment 12: Calculation of Guolian’s Tax Exemption Benefit Using Tax Payments Made During the POI Comment 13: Whether the Department Made Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Determination That Should be Corrected for the Final Determination Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Countervail the Three Grants VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50394 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices Reported at Verification and Whether the Department’s Refusal to Collect Benefit Information Regarding the Grants is Contrary to Past Practice Comment 15: Treatment of Additional Grants Received by the Guolian Companies Not Addressed by the Department in the Preliminary Determination Comment 16: Whether to Apply AFA With Regard to the Export Buyer’s Credits from the China Ex-Im Bank Program Comment 17: Whether the Export Seller’s Credits from the China Ex-Im Bank Program is Countervailable Comment 18: Whether the GOC Provided Preferential Lending to the Aquaculture Industry Comment 19: Whether the Benchmark Used to Measure Benefits under the Preferential Lending to the Aquaculture Industry Program is Flawed Comment 20: Whether Tax Benefits under Article 28 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law for High or New Technology Enterprises is Not Countervailable Because It is Not Specific Comment 21: Whether the Grants under the GOC White Shrimp Processing Project are Specific [FR Doc. 2013–20170 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY : International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION : Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY : This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for a public meeting of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee). DATES : The meeting will be held on September 11, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST). ADDRESSES : The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Boll, Office of Service Industries, International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482–1135 or Email: richard.boll@trade.gov) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background: The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive, holistic national freight infrastructure and a national freight policy designed to support U.S. export and growth competitiveness, foster national economic competitiveness, and improve U.S. supply chain competitiveness in the domestic and global economy. For more information about the Committee visit: http://ita.doc.gov/td/sif/DSCT/ACSCC. Matters to Be Considered: Committee members are expected to continue to discuss the major competitiveness- related topics raised at the previous Committee meetings, including trade and competitiveness; freight movement and policy; information technology and data requirements; regulatory issues; and finance and infrastructure. The Committee’s subcommittees will report on the status of their work regarding these topics. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The Office of Service Industries will post the final detailed agenda on its Web site, http://ita.doc.gov/td/sif/DSCT/ACSCC, at least one week prior to the meeting. The meeting will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first- served basis. Space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482–1135 or richard.boll@trade.gov five (5) business days before the meeting. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Service Industries (OSI), 1401 Constitution Ave NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC, 20230, or email to supplychain@trade.gov. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on September 2, 2013. Comments received after September 2, 2013, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meeting. The minutes of the meeting will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting. Dated: August 13, 2013. David Long, Director, Office of Service Industries. [FR Doc. 2013–20043 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–BA53 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- Grouper Fishery off the South Atlantic States; Amendment 22; Correction AGENCY : National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION : Supplemental Notice of Intent (NOI); correction; extension of public comment period. SUMMARY : This document contains a correction to a supplemental NOI published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2013, regarding the implementation of management measures described in Amendment 22 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery in the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 22). The document contained an incorrect docket number in the ADDRESSES section. This document corrects that mistake. NMFS is extending until October 3, 2013, the period for public comment regarding the management measures described in Amendment 22. NMFS is extending the comment period to ensure there is adequate time to submit complete responses. DATES : This correction is effective August 19, 2013. Comments on the supplemental NOI to Amendment 22, published at 78 FR 46923, August 2, 2013, should be submitted on or before October 3, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Marie Eich, telephone: 727–209– 5968, email: AnneMarie.Eich@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : In FR Doc. 2013–18676, appearing on page 46924, in the Federal Register of August 2, 2013, in the first column, correct the first bullet under ADDRESSES section to read as follows: • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=NOAA–NMFS–2010– 0264, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Dated: August 14, 2013. James P. Burgess, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2013–20183 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – CVD – Final - Vietnam === 50387Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 6 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 In the Preliminary Determination, we inadvertently referred to Minh Qui as ‘‘Minh Qui Seafoods Co. Ltd.’’ rather than its proper name, ‘‘Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.’’ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33342 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). This notice corrects that incorrect reference. 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Continued aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,6 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ ’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1 Whether the Department Should Investigate Petitioner’s Timely Filed New Subsidy Allegation Comment 2 Whether the Department Should Apply Adverse Facts Available to the DEPS Program Comment 3 Whether the Department Should Include the Benefits Found for the DEPS Program in the Final Cash Deposit Rates Comment 4 Whether the Department Used the Incorrect Rate for Exports of Prepared Shrimp in Its Calculation of the Benefit Received by Devi Seafoods from the Duty Drawback Program Comment 5 Whether the Department Should Correct the Calculation of the Benefit Received by Devi Seafoods under the Chapter 1B Program Comment 6 Whether the Department used an Incorrect Benchmark in the Calculation of Pre-Shipment Benefit on Export Financing Denominated in INR Comment 7 Whether the Department Erred in the Calculation of the Post-Shipment INR Benefits by using the Incorrect Number of Days for Several Post-Shipment INR Loans Comment 8 The Determination Not to Investigate VAT Exemptions Comment 9 Whether the Department Improperly Omitted Sales by Satya from the Denominator when Calculating the Benefit Received [FR Doc. 2013–20167 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–552–815] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Romani or Dustin Ross, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0198 and (202) 482–0747, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 In addition to the Government of Vietnam, the respondents in this investigation are Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. (Minh Qui) 2 and Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (Nha Trang). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’’ (Decision Memorandum). 3 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50388 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. 4 See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (C–552– 815)—Request for Scope Clarification,’’ (March 28, 2013). Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include brine-frozen shrimp. 4 We have addressed this request and comments thereon in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Final Scope Memorandum Regarding Onboard Brine-Frozen Shrimp,’’ which is hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Investigation This investigation covers certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell- on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. See Appendix I for a complete description of the scope of this investigation. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via IA ACCESS. IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov and in the CRU, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we have calculated a rate for each company respondent. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the ‘‘all others’’ rate by weight averaging the rates of Minh Qui and Nha Trang, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, we have calculated a simple average of the rates calculated for Minh Qui and Nha Trang. Since both Minh Qui and Nha Trang received countervailable export subsidies and the ‘‘all others’’ rate is an average based on the individually investigated respondents, the ‘‘all others’’ rate includes export subsidies. We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. 7.88 (ad valo- rem) Nha Trang Seaproduct Company. 1.15 (ad valo- rem) All Others ......................... 4.52 (ad valo- rem) As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Vietnam that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2013, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Vietnam that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to collect estimated duties in the amounts shown above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order under section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. Moreover, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to release any bond or other security and refund any cash deposits that were collected for shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after June 4, 2013, the date that we instructed CBP to suspend liquidation following the Preliminary Determination. The interest provisions of section 778 of the Act do not apply. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 12, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50389Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 1 The members of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries are: Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc.; Bluewater Shrimp Company, Inc.; Carson & Co., Inc.; C.F. Gollott & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Dean Blanchard Seafood, Inc.; Dominick Seafood; Fisherman’s Reef Packing Plant; Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., Inc. (and Gollott’s Oil Dock & Ice House); Graham Fisheries, Inc.; Graham Shrimp, Inc.; Gulf Crown Seafood Co., Inc.; Gulf Fish Inc.; Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; Gulf Pride Enterprises, Inc.; Hi-Seas of Dulac, Inc.; Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; JBS Packing Co., Inc.; Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; M&M Shrimp (Biloxi Freezing and Processing); Ocean Springs Seafood Market, Inc.; Paul Piazza & Sons, Inc.; R.A. Lesso Brokerage Co., Inc.; Sea Pearl Seafood Co., Inc.; Smith and Sons Seafood; Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; Tommy’s Seafood; Vincent Piazza & Sons Seafood, Inc.; Wood’s Fisheries; Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, LLC; David Chauvin’s Seafood Company, LLC; and Rountree Enterprises, Inc. (dba Leonard & Sons Shrimp Co. and R&R Fisheries). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 78 FR 33347 (June 4, 2013) (Preliminary Determination). 3 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http: //iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form, regardless of size. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns; (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled; (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals; (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns; and (7) certain ‘‘battered shrimp’’ (see below). ‘‘Battered shrimp’’ is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products included in the scope of this investigation are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30 and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Aquaculture and Seafood Processing Plans Serving as Basis for Providing Countervailable Subsidies Comment 2: Specificity of Sectoral Plans with Respect to Policy Lending and the Provision of Land Comment 3: Interest Rate Support Program under the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) Comment 4: Vietinbank Export Lending Program Comment 5: Loan Benchmarks Comment 6: Land Benchmarks Comment 7: Whether Minh Phu Group Benefitted from Import Duty Exemptions for Raw Materials Comment 8: The Application of Section 771B of the Act (the Agricultural Processing Provision) to Subsidies to Fresh Shrimp Farmers Comment 9: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to the Respondent Processors: Use of a Simple or Weighted Average Comment 10: The Attribution of Fresh Shrimp Subsidies to Respondent Processors: Proper Sales Denominator Comment 11: Two Percent de minimis Standard Comment 12: Income Tax Preference Under Chapter V of Decree 24 [FR Doc. 2013–20172 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–331–803] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (frozen shrimp) from Ecuador. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Morris and Austin Redington, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1779 and (202) 482–1664, respectively. Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (Petitioner).1 This investigation covers seven government programs. The respondents in this investigation are the Government of Ecuador (the GOE), and two companies—Promarisco S.A. (Promarisco) and Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A. (Songa). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination on June 4, 2013, 2 are discussed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador’’ (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 3 Scope Comments On March 28, 2013, Petitioner asked the Department to clarify that the scope of this investigation does not include VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:51 Aug 16, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Termination – CVD – Indonesia and Thailand === 54912 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Notices 1 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. 2 United States International Trade Commission (USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov. 3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. 4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/ rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf. 5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,1 and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.2 The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS.3 Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Draeger Medical Systems, Inc. on August 29, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain thermal support devices for infants, infant incubators, infant warmers and components thereof. The complaint names as respondent Atom Medical International, Inc. of Japan. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond upon respondents’ alleged infringing products during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States; (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders; (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded; (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers. Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2976’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR § 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5 This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR §§ 201.10, 210.8(c)). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 30, 2013. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–21646 Filed 9–5–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–494 and 496 (Final)] Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Indonesia and Thailand; Termination of Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : On August 19, 2013, the Department of Commerce published notices in the Federal Register of negative final determinations of subsidies in connection with the subject investigations concerning Indonesia (78 FR 50379) and Thailand (78 FR 50383). Accordingly, pursuant to section 207.40(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.40(a)), the countervailing duty investigations concerning frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia and Thailand (investigation Nos. 701–TA– 494 and 496 (Final)) are terminated. DATES : Effective Date: August 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 Sep 05, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM 06SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 54913Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2013 / Notices Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Authority: These investigations are being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 201.10 of the Commission’s rules (19 CFR 201.10). By order of the Commission. Issued: September 3, 2013. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–21725 Filed 9–5–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application; Clinical Supplies Management, Inc. Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34 (a), this is notice that on July 22, 2013, Clinical Supplies Management, Inc., 342 42nd Street South, Fargo, North Dakota 58103, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Sufentanil (9740), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. The company plans to import the listed controlled substance with the sole purpose of packaging, labeling, and distributing to customers which are qualified clinical sites, conducting FDA- approved clinical trials. Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with D listed in schedule II, which falls under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act 21 U.S.C. 952 (a)(2)(B) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47. Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than October 7, 2013. This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR § 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1975, 40 FR 43745–46, all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substance in schedules I or II are, and will continue to be, required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are satisfied. Dated: August 29, 2013. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 2013–21735 Filed 9–5–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration; United States Pharmacopeial Convention By Notice dated May 22, 2013, and published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2013, 78 FR 32457, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland 20852, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Drug Schedule Cathinone (1235) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... I Methaqualone (2565) .................................................................................................................................................................................. I Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) ............................................................................................................................................................... I Marihuana (7360) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ I Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..................................................................................................................................................................... I 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (7395) .............................................................................................................................................. I 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (7400) .................................................................................................................................................... I Codeine-N-oxide (9053) .............................................................................................................................................................................. I Difenoxin (9168) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... I Heroin (9200) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... I Morphine-N-oxide (9307) ............................................................................................................................................................................. I Norlevorphanol (9634) ................................................................................................................................................................................. I Amphetamine (1100) ................................................................................................................................................................................... II Methamphetamine (1105) ........................................................................................................................................................................... II Phenmetrazine (1631) ................................................................................................................................................................................. II Methylphenidate (1724) ............................................................................................................................................................................... II Amobarbital (2125) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... II Pentobarbital (2270) .................................................................................................................................................................................... II Secobarbital (2315) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... II Glutethimide (2550) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... II Phencyclidine (7471) ................................................................................................................................................................................... II 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (8333) ................................................................................................................................................... II Phenylacetone (8501) ................................................................................................................................................................................. II Alphaprodine (9010) .................................................................................................................................................................................... II Anileridine (9020) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ II Cocaine (9041) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ II Codeine (9050) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ II Dihydrocodeine (9120) ................................................................................................................................................................................ II Oxycodone (9143) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... II Hydromorphone (9150) ............................................................................................................................................................................... II Diphenoxylate (9170) .................................................................................................................................................................................. II VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 Sep 05, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM 06SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES