Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 44, March 9, 2009, Pages 9951-10164 Page: 10,005
vii, 10164, iii p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 44/Monday, March 9, 2009/Notices
arrangements, and packing. Therefore,
the Thai packers provided many more
selling functions for Canadian sales than
they provided for CEP sales, thus
making the Canadian LOT more
advanced than the CEP LOT.
The Rubicon Group provided
evidence on the record of this review
supporting its contention that the
selling activities that the Thai packers
performed for Canadian customers were
much more extensive than those
performed for U.S. sales to its affiliate
Rubicon Resources. While sales to
Canada consumed a great deal of the
Thai packers' time and resources, the
interaction between the Thai packers
and Rubicon Resources appeared to be
perfunctory, consuming very little of the
Thai packers' time and resources. See
pages 11 through 20 of the Rubicon
Group's October 29, 2008, response to
the Department's supplemental Sections
A, B, and C questionnaire.
The record of this review also
contains information concerning Wales
& Co. Universe Ltd.'s (Wales')5 activities
with respect to sales made by the Thai
packers to Rubicon Resources.
According to Wales, it had limited
communications with Rubicon
Resources on behalf of the Thai packers
because the Thai packers did not
communicate directly with Rubicon
Resources regarding U.S. sales made
during the POR. As stated above, the
Thai packers regularly communicated
with unaffiliated customers to provide
market analysis, negotiate sales
opportunities, promote products,
schedule in-person meetings, and
develop new packaging designs. The
Thai packers engaged in this level of
service because it was necessary in
order to compete for sales to unaffiliated
customers. However, because the Thai
packers created Rubicon Resources for
the purpose of marketing and
distributing their seafood products in
the United States, and Rubicon
Resources is required to purchase
shrimp from the Thai packers, the Thai
packers did not need to compete for
business with Rubicon Resources as
they did with unaffiliated customers.
Accordingly, the Thai packers did not
need to perform the same high level of
service (e.g., market analysis, sales
forecasting, or packaging design) for
Rubicon Resources that they provided to
unaffiliated customers, including
Canadian customers, because Rubicon
Resources performed these services for
U.S. customers itself, using its sales and
5 Wales and Co. Universe Ltd. is a member of theRubicon Group.
marketing staff based in the United
States.
Finally, the Rubicon Group provided
documentation on the record of this
review confirming the limited selling
activities with respect to the Thai
packers' sales to Rubicon Resources
(i.e., invoices and documentation
associated with the shipment of the
merchandise to Rubicon Resources) as
well as documentation concerning
Rubicon Resources' sales to Canada
(e.g., a sample report Rubicon Resources
prepared to help a customer identify
sales trends and make informed
judgments on future purchases).
Based on the above analysis, we
considered the CEP LOT to be different
from the Canadian LOT and to be at a
less advanced stage of distribution than
the Canadian LOT. Accordingly, we
could not match CEP sales to sales at the
same LOT for Canadian sales, nor could
we determine a LOT adjustment based
on the Rubicon Group's Canadian sales
because there was only one LOT in
Canada. Therefore, it is not possible to
determine if there was a pattern of
consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and
Canadian sales at the LOT of the export
transaction. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act. Furthermore, we have no other
information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a LOT
adjustment. Consequently, because the
data available did not form an
appropriate basis for making a LOT
adjustment but the Canadian LOT was
at a more advanced stage of distribution
than the CEP LOT, we made a CEP offset
to NV in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset
was calculated as the lesser of: (1) the
indirect selling expenses incurred on
the third-country sales, or (2) the
indirect selling expenses deducted from
the starting price in calculating CEP.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
We found that Pakfood had made
sales below the cost of production (COP)
in the 2004-2006 administrative review,
the most recently completed segment of
this proceeding as of the date of the
initiation of the 2007-2008
administrative review, and such sales
were disregarded. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand:
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 10669
(March 9, 2007); unchanged in Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand: Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 52065
(September 12, 2007). Thus, inaccordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act, there are reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that Pakfood made
sales in the home market at prices below
the cost of producing the merchandise
in the current review period.
We found that the Rubicon Group had
made sales below the COP in the LTFV
investigation, the most recently
completed segment of this proceeding as
of the date of the initiation of the 2007-
2008 administrative review, and such
sales were disregarded. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of
Final Determination, and Negative
Preliminary Critical Circumstances
Determination: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand, 69 FR 47100, 47107 (Aug. 4,
2004); unchanged in the Thai Shrimp
LTFV Investigation Final. Thus, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act, there are reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that the Rubicon
Group made sales in the third-country
market at prices below the cost of
producing the merchandise in the
current review period.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated the
respondents' COPs based on the sum of
their costs of materials and conversion
for the foreign like product, plus
amounts for G&A expenses and interest
expenses (see "Test of Comparison
Market Sales Prices" section below for
treatment of comparison market selling
expenses).
The Department relied on the COP
data submitted by Pakfood and the
Rubicon Group for the cost reporting
period in their most recent
supplemental section D questionnaire
responses for the COP calculations,
except for the following instances where
the information was not appropriately
quantified or valued:
Pakfood
We did not make any adjustments to
Pakfood's reported COP data.
The Rubicon Group
For CFF and CSF, we offset the total
reported G&A expenses by the value of
packaging scrap sold during the cost
reporting period. In addition, for CFF,
CSF and PTN, we adjusted the
respective financial expense rate
calculations to correct a minor
calculation error and to reduce the
applied interest income offset amount
by the interest income earned from non-
current assets. See Memorandum to
Neal Halper, Director, Office of
Accounting from Angela Strom, "Cost ofProduction and Constructed Value
10005
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 44, March 9, 2009, Pages 9951-10164, periodical, March 9, 2009; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc132906/m1/62/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.