Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Notices 52741

date of this addition or options that may 30 minutes for a salmon permit; 20 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE be exercised under those contracts. hours for an exempted fishing permit; 5 International Trade Administration Sheryl D. Kennerly, hours for an exempted fishing permit progress report; and 10 hours for an Director, Information Management. [A–122–845, A–122–847] exempted fishing permit final report. [FR Doc. 03–22675 Filed 9–4–03; 8:45 am] Notice of Final Determinations of Sales BILLING CODE 6353–01–P Needs and Uses: This collection of information is used to monitor and at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring manage participation in groundfish Wheat from Canada COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS fisheries by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region and AGENCY: Import Administration, Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting consists of the following permits: International Trade Administration, Federal fisheries permit, Federal Department of Commerce. AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights. processor permit, High seas power ACTION: Notice of Final Determinations DATE AND TIME: Friday, September 12, troller salmon permit, and exempted of Antidumping Duty Investigations. 2003, 9:30 a.m. fishing permit. The permit affords PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil identification of participants, harvest SUMMARY: On May 8, 2003, the Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room gear types, descriptions of vessels or Department of Commerce published the 540, Washington, DC 20425. shoreside facilities, and expected preliminary determinations in the STATUS: activity levels. Identification of the antidumping duty investigations of durum wheat and hard red spring wheat Agenda participants and expected activity levels from Canada. We gave interested parties is needed to measure the consequences I. Approval of Agenda. an opportunity to comment on the of management controls, and is an II. Approval of Minutes of July 18, 2003 preliminary determinations. Based upon Meeting. effective tool in the enforcement of the results of verification and our III. Announcements. other fishery regulations. analysis of the comments received, we IV. Staff Director’s Report. Affected Public: Business or other for- have made certain changes to the V. State Advisory Committee Interim profit organizations, individuals or margin calculations presented in the Appointment for Illinois. households. final determinations of these VI. FY–2005 Budget Estimate to OMB. investigations. We continue to find that VII. ‘‘Not in My Backyard: Executive Frequency: On occasion, triennial, durum wheat and hard red spring wheat Order 12898 and Title VI as Tools and variable. from Canada were sold in the United for Achieving Environmental Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. States below normal value during the Justice’’ Report. OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, period of investigation. The final 11 a.m. Presentation on Native (202) 395-3897. weighted-average dumping margins are Americans and the South Dakota listed below in the section entitled Criminal Justice System. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Les Liquidation.’’ Jin, Press and Communications (202) calling or writing Diana Hynek, EFFECTIVE DATE: 376–7700. Departmental Paperwork Clearance September 5, 2003. Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Debra A. Carr, Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Santoboni or Cole Kyle, Import Deputy General Counsel. Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, Administration, International Trade [FR Doc. 03–22812 Filed 9–3–03; 3:26 pm] DC 20230 (or via the Internet at Administration, U.S. Department of BILLING CODE 6335–01–M [email protected]). Commerce, 14th and Constitution Written comments and Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4194 or (202) 482– recommendations for the proposed 1503, respectively. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE information collection should be sent SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submission for OMB Review; within 30 days of publication of this Comment Request notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Background Officer, e-mail address On May 8, 2003, the Department of The Department of Commerce has l David [email protected] or fax to Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) submitted to the Office of Management (202) 395-7285. and Budget (OMB) for clearance the published in the Federal Register the following proposal for collection of Dated: August 28, 2003. preliminary determinations in its information under the provisions of the Gwellnar Banks, investigations of durum wheat and hard Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Management Analyst, Office of the Chief red spring wheat from Canada (Notice of Chapter 35). Information Officer. Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Durum Agency: National Oceanic and [FR Doc. 03–22573 Filed 9–4–03; 8:45 am] Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Title: Alaska Region Permit Family of From Canada, 68 FR 24707 (May 8, Forms. 2003) (‘‘Preliminary Determinations’’)). Form Number(s): None. Since the Preliminary Determinations, OMB Approval Number: 0648-0206. the following events have occurred: Type of Request: Regular submission. In May and June 2003, we conducted Burden Hours: 483. verifications of the sales and cost of Number of Respondents: 889. production (‘‘COP’’) questionnaire Average Hours Per Response: 21 responses submitted by the Canadian minutes for a vessel or processor permit; Wheat Board (‘‘CWB’’) and Canadian

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:38 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM 05SEN1 52742 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Notices

hard red spring (‘‘HRS’’) wheat farmers Scope Comments the Department’s questionnaire, and two at the CWB’s headquarters, at the offices We have received several requests for other producers (i.e., cost respondents Meyers Norris Penny LLP and at certain exclusions from and clarifications of the 10 and 27) did not respond based on farm locations. We issued verification scope of these investigations. On April extenuating circumstances discussed reports in July 2003. We received case 24, 2003, Montana Flour & Grains and below. Therefore, as described in detail 1 briefs from the petitioners and the Kamut International requested that the below, because these producers have CWB on July 30, 2003. We received Department exclude Khorasan wheat not provided the necessary information rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and from the scope of these investigations. on the record to calculate the simple- the CWB on August 5, 2003. The Government of Canada (‘‘GOC’’) average COP within their respective stratum, the use of facts otherwise Scope of Investigations made the same request on July 31, 2003. On June 27, 2003, the Organic Trade available is warranted. For purposes of these investigations, Association requested that the Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides the products covered are (1) durum Department exclude organically that, if an interested party or any other wheat and (2) hard red spring wheat. produced wheat from the scope of these person (A) withholds information that investigations. On July 29, 2003, Cargill, has been requested by the administering 1. Durum Wheat Incorporated (‘‘Cargill’’) requested that authority; (B) fails to provide such the Department clarify the scope of information by the deadlines for the Imports covered by this investigation submission of the information or in the are all varieties of durum wheat from these investigations and specifically exclude from the scope Canadian form and manner requested, subject to Canada. This includes, but is not subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 limited to, a variety commonly referred Eastern Soft Red Winter Wheat and Canadian Eastern Hard Red Winter of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a to as Canada Western Amber Durum. proceeding under this title; or (D) The merchandise subject to this Wheat. On July 30, 2003, the petitioners submitted comments on all but the provides such information but the investigation is currently classifiable information cannot be verified as under the following Harmonized Tariff Cargill submission and also raised an additional issue concerning Canadian provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Schedule of the United States Department shall, subject to section (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 1001.10.00.10, feed wheat. We have considered these requests and the comments from 782(d) of the Act, use the facts 1001.10.00.91, 1001.10.00.92, otherwise available in reaching the 1001.10.00.95, 1001.10.00.96, and interested parties. We have determined that organically grown wheat is covered applicable determination under this 1001.10.00.99. Although the HTSUS 3 by the scope of these investigations and title. Section 776(b) of the Act further subheadings are provided for provides that adverse inferences may be convenience and customs purposes, our that the scope of the hard red spring investigation should be clarified by used when a party has failed to written description of the scope of this cooperate by not acting to the best of its proceeding is dispositive. adding the following language to the scope: ‘‘This investigation does not ability to comply with a request for 2. Hard Red Spring Wheat cover imports of wheat that enter under information. the subheadings 1001.90.10.00 and With respect to cost respondent 2, this Imports covered by this investigation 1001.90.20.96 that are not classifiable as producer chose not to respond to the are all varieties of hard red spring wheat hard red spring wheat.’’ For a complete Department’s questionnaire. As a result, from Canada. This includes, but is not discussion of these scope issues, see the use of facts available is appropriate limited to, varieties commonly referred August 28, 2003, Scope Exclusion and pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the to as Canada Western Red Spring, Clarification Requests: Khorasan Wheat, Act. In accordance with section 776(b) Canada Western Extra Strong, and Organic Wheat, Canadian Eastern Soft of the Act, if the Department finds that Canada Prairie Spring Red. The Red Winter Wheat, Canadian Eastern ‘‘an interested party failed to cooperate merchandise subject to this Hard Red Winter Wheat, and Canadian investigation is currently classifiable specific farmer. A list or code key identifying the Feed Wheat memorandum, which is on name associated with each cost respondent number under the following HTSUS file in the Central Records Unit, Room subheadings: 1001.90.10.00, can be found in the Cost of Production and B–099 of the Department (‘‘CRU’’). Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary 1001.90.20.05, 1001.90.20.11, Determination dated May 1, 2003 at Attachment 1, 1001.90.20.12, 1001.90.20.13, Period of Investigation which is on file in the CRU. 1001.90.20.14, 1001.90.20.16, The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 3 Where the Department determines that a 1001.90.20.19, 1001.90.20.21, response to a request for information does not July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 1001.90.20.22, 1001.90.20.23, provides that the Department will so inform the 1001.90.20.24, 1001.90.20.26, Use of Facts Available party submitting the response and will, to the 1001.90.20.29, 1001.90.20.35, and As explained in the Preliminary extent practicable, provide that party the 1001.90.20.96. This investigation does Determinations, we based the COP in opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the not cover imports of wheat that enter part on the use of facts otherwise applicable time limits, the Department may, subject under the subheadings 1001.90.10.00 available, in accordance with section to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of and 1001.90.20.96 that are not 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as the original and subsequent responses, as classifiable as hard red spring wheat. amended effective January 1, 1995 (‘‘the appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department ‘‘shall not decline to consider Although the HTSUS subheadings are Act’’), by the Uruguay Round information that is submitted by an interested party provided for convenience and customs Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). and is necessary to the determination but does not purposes, our written description of the Of the twenty-seven producers meet all the applicable requirements established by scope of this proceeding is dispositive. selected, one producer (i.e., cost the administering authority’’ if the information is 2 timely, can be verified, and is not so incomplete respondent 2) chose not to respond to that it cannot be used, and if the interested party 1 The petitioners are the North Dakota Wheat acted to the best of its ability in providing the Commission (‘‘NDWC’’) (hard red spring wheat), the 2 Due to the proprietary nature of the name of information. Where all of these conditions are met, Durum Growers Trade Action Committee (durum each producer, we have assigned a number to each the statute requires the Department to use the wheat), and the U.S. Durum Growers Association farmer (‘‘cost respondent’’) that will be used information, if it can do so without undue (durum wheat). throughout this notice when referring to that difficulties.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:38 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM 05SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Notices 52743

by not acting to the best of its ability to available for the HRS wheat preliminary Verifications comply with a request for information,’’ determination pursuant to sections an adverse inference may be used in 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. As As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the determining the facts otherwise neutral facts available, we have relied Act, we verified the information available. In the instant case, cost on the cost data submitted by the other submitted by the CWB and selected respondent 2 did not cooperate to the cost respondents within the same farmers during May and June 2003. We best of its ability by failing to provide stratum. Therefore, we have not used standard verification procedures, any of the information requested in the included an amount for these cost including examination of relevant section D cost questionnaire with no respondents in the simple average accounting and production records, as rationale for why it could not provide calculation within their respective well as original source documents such information when other producers stratums. provided by the CWB and certain could. Therefore, as adverse facts individual cost respondents (i.e., Fair Value Comparisons available for the final determination on farmers). HRS wheat for this cost respondent, we We calculated export price and have continued to use the higher of the normal value based on the same Analysis of Comments Received methodology used in the Preliminary COP from the petition for the same All issues raised in the petitioners’ province and soil type or the highest Determinations with the following and the CWB’s case briefs are addressed reported cost of other cost respondents exceptions: in the Decision Memorandum which is within the same stratum. Based on our • We based our calculations on the hereby adopted by this notice. Attached comparison of the amounts, we found CWB’s updated and verified sales data. that the reported cost of one of the other We used the revised sales data to this notice as an appendix is a list of cost respondents within the same submitted by the CWB on June 20, 2003, the issues which the petitioners and the stratum was higher. As a result, we used and the revisions stated in the CWB’s CWB have raised and to which we have the other respondent’s COP within the July 9, 2003, submission. responded in the Decision same stratum as the surrogate cost for • We revised the level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) Memorandum. Parties can find a cost respondent 2. classification to include only producer complete discussion of all issues raised Both cost respondents 10 and 27 did direct sales in LOTH/U2. in these investigations and the not respond to the Department’s cost • We corrected a clerical error in the corresponding recommendations in this questionnaire based on extenuating calculation of the LOT adjustment. public memorandum which is on file in circumstances. With respect to cost • We revised the cost of production the Department’s CRU. In addition, a respondent 10, the CWB explained that calculation for HRS wheat to include complete version of the Decision this farmer had deliveries of HRS wheat certain changes noted in the August 28, Memorandum can be accessed directly to the CWB during the POI, but did not 2003 Cost of Production and on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ produce HRS wheat during the 2001 Constructed Value Adjustments for the summary/list.htm. The paper copy and growing season. However, cost Final Determinations Canadian Wheat electronic version of the Decision respondent 10 did have an affiliated Board Cost Respondents Memorandum Memorandum are identical in content. party that produced HRS wheat during (‘‘Final Determination Cost Calculation the cost reporting period. Therefore, as Memorandum’’) Continuation of Suspension of a surrogate, cost respondent 10 reported For a complete discussion of these Liquidation its affiliate’s COP for the cost reporting changes, see the August 28, 2003, Issues In accordance with section 733(d)(2) period. We note that this affiliate was and Decision Memorandum for the of the Act, we are directing the U.S. not considered a cost respondent in the Final Determinations of the Bureau of Customs and Border sample selection and, as such, we Antidumping Duty Investigations of Protection (‘‘BCBP’’) to continue to determined it would not be appropriate Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red to include the affiliate’s COP in our Spring Wheat from Canada (‘‘Decision suspend liquidation of all imports of overall calculation of COP. Memorandum’’), Durum Wheat Final subject merchandise from Canada that Similar to cost respondent 10, cost Determination Calculation are entered, or withdrawn from respondent 27 did not provide cost data Memorandum for the Canadian Wheat warehouse, for consumption on or after for the 2001 growing season because the Board, Hard Red Spring Wheat Final May 8, 2003, the date of publication of information was not available. Determination Calculation the Preliminary Determinations in the Specifically, cost respondent 27 sold its Memorandum for the Canadian Wheat Federal Register. The BCBP shall farming operations and ceased farming. Board, and the Final Determination Cost continue to require a cash deposit or the Because neither cost respondent 10 nor Calculation Memorandum. posting of a bond equal to the weighted- 27 had information available that would average amount by which the NV enable them to respond to the Currency Conversions exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart Department’s cost questionnaire and in We made currency conversions in below. These suspension-of-liquidation the case of cost respondent 10 they accordance with section 773A of the Act instructions will remain in effect until attempted to provide some cost in the same manner as in the further notice. The weighted-average information, we applied neutral facts preliminary determinations. dumping margins are as follows:

DURUM WHEAT

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Percentage

Canadian Wheat Board ...... 8.26 All Others ...... 8.26

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:38 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM 05SEN1 52744 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Notices

HARD RED SPRING WHEAT

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Percentage

Canadian Wheat Board ...... 8.87 All Others ...... 8.87

ITC Notification Comment 11: Seed Costs Comment 45: Production Quantity In accordance with section 735(d) of Comment 12: Imputed Labor Costs Comment 46: Offset to Fertilizer Costs the Act, we have notified the Comment 13: Personal Expenses Comment 14: Overhead Allocation Basis Farmer 9 International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) Comment 15: Financial Statement Comment 47: Depreciation Expense of our determinations. As our final Depreciation determinations are affirmative, the ITC Comment 16: Affiliated Party Farmer 11 will, within 45 days, determine whether Transactions Received Methodology Comment 48: Fixed Assets these imports are materially injuring, or Comment 17: Costs of Services Provided Comment 49: Land Use Costs threaten material injury to, the U.S. to Outside Parties Farmer 12 industry. If the ITC determines that Comment 18: Land Use material injury, or threat of material Comment 19: Crop Insurance Proceeds Comment 50: Seed Cleaning Costs injury, does not exist, the proceeding Comment 20: Straw By-Product Offset Comment 51: Production Quantity will be terminated and all securities Comment 21: G&A and Interest Expense Comment 52: Custom Work Costs posted will be refunded or canceled. If Denominators Comment 53: Interest Charge on a Trade the ITC determines that such injury Comment 22: Value of Bookkeeping Payable Account does exist, the Department will issue Services antidumping duty orders. Farmer 14 This notice also serves as a reminder Farmer Specific Issues Comment 54: Overstatement of Other to parties subject to administrative Farmer 1 Crop Costs protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their Comment 23: Production Quantities Comment 55: Understatement of responsibility concerning the Comment 24: Well Expenses Fertilizer Costs disposition of proprietary information Comment 25: Over-Excluded Livestock Comment 56: Overhead Adjustment disclosed under APO in accordance Costs Comment 57: Interest Expense with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely Comment 58: G&A Expense notification of return or destruction of Farmer 3 Farmer 15 APO materials, or conversion to judicial Comment 26: Imputed Seed Costs protective order, is hereby requested. Comment 27: Actual Labor Costs Comment 59: Tax Return Errors Failure to comply with the regulations Comment 28: Chemical Costs Comment 60: Omitted Expenses and the terms of an APO is a Comment 29: Revenue from Green Comment 61: Livestock Costs sanctionable violation. Barley Farmer 16 These determinations are issued and Comment 30: Country Elevator Charges published in accordance with ections Comment 62: Input Values for Seed, 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Farmer 4 Fertilizer, and Chemicals Comment 63: Cost Allocation Basis Dated: August 28, 2003. Comment 31: Imputed Interest Expense Comment 32: Short-Term Interest James J. Jochum, Farmer 17 Income Assistant Secretary for Import Comment 33: Overhead Expenses Comment 64: Omitted Actual Labor Cost Administration. Allocation Between Crops Farmer 19 APPENDIX Comment 34: Custom Work Costs Comment 35: Land Use Cost Comment 65: Imputed Seed Costs List of Comments in the Issues and Comment 36: Machinery Repair Comment 66: Depreciation Should be Decision MemorandumSales Issues Expenses Included in Fixed Overhead Comment 1: Particular Market Situation Comment 67: Revised Cash Ticket Comment 2: Inclusion of Certain Farmer 5 Analysis is Correctly Reported Product Characteristics in Model Match Comment 37: Depreciation Expense of Comment 68: Crop Insurance Profit Criteria the Omitted Asset Factor and Recoveries Should be Comment 3: Date of Sale Comment 38: Labor Cost for Non-Crop Recalculated Comment 4: Exclusion of Channel 6 Activity Farmer 21 Sales from LOTH 1 Comment 5: Treatment of Sales Made Farmer 6 Comment 69: Fertilizer and Chemical Above Normal Value Comment 39: Trucking Expense Costs Comment 6: Clerical Error in the Comment 70: Capitalization of Costs Calculation of the LOT Adjustment Farmer 7 Comment 71: Costs Not Associated With Comment 40: Unsupported Corrections the Farmers’ Livestock Operations Common Cost Issues to Normal Records Farmer 22 Comment 7: Farmer Estimates and Comment 41: Reallocate Fertilizer Costs Representations Comment 42: Interest Expense Offset Comment 72: Overhead Allocations, Comment 8: Representative COPs Comment 43: Capitalization of Costs New Factual Information Comment 9: Eliminate Outliers in Calculating the Average COP Farmer 8 Farmer 23 Comment 10: Collapsing Comment 44: Imputed Seed Comment 73: G&A Expenses

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:38 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM 05SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Notices 52745

Comment 74: Production Quantities request for a new shipper review, in buyer or the importer of record has yet accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of submitted a response to the importer Farmer 26 the Act and section 351.214(b),(c) of the supplemental questionnaire. On July 23, Comment 75: Exclusion of the 2000 Department’s regulations, from 2003, the Department issued a third Seed from the 2001 Production Quantity Zhoushan Huading under the supplemental questionnaire to Comment 76: Improper Allocation of the antidumping duty order on freshwater Zhoushan Huading. On August 6, 2003, Cost of Chemicals crawfish tail meat from the People’s Zhoushan Huading submitted its [FR Doc. 03–22661 Filed 9–4–03; 8:45 am] Republic of China. On October 18, 2002, response to the third supplemental BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S the Department sought clarification in questionnaire. regard to the identification of Zhoushan On April 14, 2003, the Department Huading’s reported buyer for the extended the due date for the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE shipment of crawfish tail meat under preliminary results of this new shipper review, since the reported buyer review by 120 days until August 28, International Trade Administration identified on Zhoushan Huading’s 2003. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail A-570–848 commercial invoice and bill of lading Meat from the People’s Republic of was different from the importer of China: Notice of Extension of Time Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the record identified on the Customs entry Limit of Preliminary Results of New People’s Republic of China: summary submitted with the request. Shipper Review, 68 FR 18946 (April 14, Preliminary Notice of Intent to Rescind On October 23, 2002, Zhoushan 2003). New Shipper Administrative Review Huading explained that its shipment of Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order crawfish tail meat was sold initially to AGENCY: Import Administration, The product covered by this order is International Trade Administration, the reported buyer, and the reported buyer then took title of the shipment of freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its Department of Commerce. forms (whether washed or with fat on, SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce crawfish tail meat from Zhoushan Huading and transferred ownership of whether purged or unpurged), grades, (the Department) is conducting a new and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or shipper review of the antidumping duty the shipment of crawfish tail meat and the associated bill of lading to the chilled; and regardless of how it is order on freshwater crawfish tail meat packed, preserved, or prepared. from the People’s Republic of China importer of record. The Department determined that the Excluded from the scope of the order are (PRC) in response to a request from live crawfish and other whole crawfish, Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd. request met the requirements stipulated in section 351.214 of the regulations. On whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. (‘‘Zhoushan Huading’’). The period of Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of review (POR) is September 1, 2001, November 7, 2002, the Department published its initiation of this new any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater through August 31, 2002. We have crawfish tail meat is currently preliminarily determined that the new shipper review for the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002. See classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff shipper review of Zhoushan Huading Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the Schedule of the United States (HTS) should be rescinded because the sale People’s Republic of China: Initiation of under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and was not bona fide. Much of the New Shipper Antidumping 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTS information upon which we relied to Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 67822 numbers for prepared foodstuffs, analyze the bona fides is business (November 7, 2002). indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and proprietary, therefore our full analysis is On January 6, 2003, the Department other, as introduced by the U.S. set forth in the Memorandum to Barbara received Zhoushan Huading’s section A, Customs Service in 2000, and HTS E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant C and D questionnaire responses. On items 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00, Secretary for Import Administration, March 6, 2003, the Department issued which are reserved for fish and Group III: Freshwater Crawfish Tail its first supplemental questionnaire to crustaceans in general. The HTS Meat from the People’s Republic of Zhoushan Huading. On March 31, 2003, subheadings are provided for China: Analysis of Zhoushan Huading’s Zhoushan Huading submitted its convenience and Customs purposes New Shipper Transaction, dated August response to the first supplemental only. The written description of the 28, 2003 (Zhoushan Huading Memo), questionnaire. On April 2, 2003, the scope of this order is dispositive. which is on file in the Central Records Department issued an importer Preliminary Intent to Rescind Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce questionnaire to the reported buyer. On Building. Interested parties are invited May 19, 2003, the Department received Concurrent with this notice, we are to comment on this preliminary a response to the importer questionnaire issuing our memorandum detailing our rescission determination. from the importer of record. On May 6, analysis of the bona fides of Zhoushan EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 2003. 2003, the Department issued its second Huading’s U.S. sale and our preliminary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: supplemental questionnaire to decision to rescind based on the totality Douglas Kirby or Thomas Gilgunn, Zhoushan Huading. On May 20, 2003, of the circumstances of the sale. Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Zhoushan Huading submitted its Although much of the information Import Administration, International response to the second supplemental relied upon by the Department to Trade Administration, U.S. Department questionnaire. On May 28, 2003, the analyze the issues is business of Commerce, 14th Street and Department issued supplemental proprietary, the Department based its Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, questionnaires to both the reported determination that the new shipper sale DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3782 or buyer and the importer of record. On made by Zhoushan Huading was not (202) 482–4236, respectively. June 9, 2003, the reported buyer and the bona fide on the following: 1) the price SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: importer of record requested a one week and quantity for Zhoushan Huading’s extension to respond to the sale of crawfish tail meat were atypical Background supplemental questionnaires. The vis-a-vis other exports from the PRC of On September 30, 2002, the Department extended the deadline to the subject merchandise into the United Department received a properly filed June 16, 2003. Neither the reported States during the period of review, 2)

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:38 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM 05SEN1