[Federal Register: December 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 76766-76771]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de05-50]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-357-812]
Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in
Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping order on honey from Argentina. The review covers six
firms. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2003, through November
30, 2004.
We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have
been made below the normal value (NV) in the case of Asociacion de
Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA). For Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco), we
preliminary find a zero margin. In addition, we have preliminarily
determined to rescind the review with respect to Nutrin S.A. (Nutrin),
Radix S.A. (Radix), Compania Europea Americana S.A. (CEASA), and
HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax) because they had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during the period of review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export
price (EP) and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings
are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the
issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of
authorities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Strom for ACA, Brian Sheba for
Seylinco, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2704, (202) 482-0145, or
(202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on honey from Argentina. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1,
2004, the Department published its opportunity to request a review. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR
69889. On December 30, 2004, the petitioners\1\ requested an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from
Argentina in response to the Department's notice of opportunity to
request a review. Petitioners requested that the Department review
entries of subject merchandise made by 24 Argentine producers/
exporters. In addition, the Department received individual requests for
review from four Argentine exporters, three of which were included as
part of petitioners' request for review.\2\ The Department initiated
the review for all 24 companies included in petitioners' request for
review plus El Mana S.A. (El Mana), a Argentine exporter of honey. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 4818 (January 31,
2005), corrected in Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 7143
(February 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are American Honey Producers Association and
the Sioux Honey Association.
\2\ The one Argentine exporter not included in petitioners'
request for review was El Mana S.A. (El Mana).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 22, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request for review
with respect to fifteen of the 24 exporters that comprised petitioners'
request for administrative review. On March 3, 2005, El Mana, an
exporter not included in petitioners' request for review, submitted a
withdrawal of its request for administrative review. On March 24, 2005,
petitioners and Nexco S.A. (Nexco) submitted a withdrawal of request
for administrative review for Nexco. On March 31, 2005, petitioners
submitted a withdrawal request for a further two companies. On April
15, 2005, the Department rescinded its administrative review for El
Mana and eighteen of the 24 companies in petitioners' December 30,
2004, request for review. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 19927
(April 15, 2005).
The following exporters submitted letters claiming no shipments of
the subject merchandise during the POR: Nutrin on March 9, 2005; Radix
on March 14, 2005; CEASA on March 14,
[[Page 76767]]
2005; and HoneyMax on March 16, 2005. For further discussion, see the
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
On February 23, 2005, the Department issued Sections A, B, and C of
the antidumping questionnaire to all exporters subject to the
review.\3\ We received responses on March 29 and April 22, 2005, for
ACA and on March 24 and April 8, 2005, for Seylinco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests
a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires for ACA on May
17, 2005, and on May 18, 2005, for Seylinco. We received responses to
these supplemental questionnaires from ACA on May 31, 2005, and from
Seylinco on June 1, 2005. On July 8, 2005, petitioners filed comments
on ACA's questionnaire responses and on July 13, 2005, ACA filed a
response to petitioners' comments. On August 2, 2005, the Department
issued a second supplemental questionnaire to ACA. On August 19, 2005,
ACA filed its response to the Department's second supplemental
questionnaire. On August 25, 2005, the Department determined a
``particular market situation'' existed in Argentina during the POR.
See the discussion of ``Selection of Comparison Market'' under ``Normal
Value'' below. On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a third
supplemental questionnaire to ACA, which ACA timely responded to on
November 28, 2005.
On July 1, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for
issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review to
December 20, 2005. See Honey from Argentina; Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 70 FR 38102 (July 1,
2005).
Scope of the Review
The merchandise covered by this order is honey from Argentina. The
products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more
than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey
containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored
honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey
whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether
packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise covered by this order is currently classifiable
under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the Department's written description of the merchandise under this
order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax informed the
Department that they did not have shipments of subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR. We have confirmed with CBP that these
exporters did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with
the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review
with respect to Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax. See e.g., Frozen
Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 51008,
51009 (October 5, 2001) and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube
from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998).
Intent Not To Revoke In Part
Section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations requires, inter
alia, that a company requesting revocation submit the following: (1) a
certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not
less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not
sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the
company sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of
the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and
(3) an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is
subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than
fair value. In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order
in part, the Department must ascertain that the party sold merchandise
at not less than normal value (i.e., zero or de minimis margins) for a
period of at least three consecutive years. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
See, e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke
in Part, 66 FR 15832 (March 21, 2001).
On December 27, 2004, ACA submitted a request for revocation of the
antidumping duty order with the requisite certifications set forth in
19 CFR 351.222(e). ACA based its request on the absence of dumping for
three consecutive review periods, that is, the first, second and
current administrative reviews. The Department found zero dumping
margins in both the first and second administrative reviews. See Honey
from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005) and Honey from Argentina: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 30283 (May 27,
2004).
In the current administrative review, we have preliminarily
determined a weighted-average margin of 2.95 percent for ACA. The
margin calculated during the current review period constitutes one of
the three consecutive reviews cited by ACA to support its request for
revocation. Consequently, we preliminarily find that ACA is not
eligible for revocation of the order under section 351.222(b) of the
Department's regulations and preliminarily determine not to revoke the
order with respect to ACA. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(d)(1) we have examined ACA's shipments over the past three PORs
and have preliminarily determined that ACA has not shipped in
commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of
the request for revocation. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director,
through Robert James, Program Manager, from Angela Strom, Case Analyst:
``Request by Asociation of Coopertivas Argentinas (ACA) for Revocation
in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Honey from
Argentina,'' dated December 20, 2005.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Tariff Act), we verified sales information provided by ACA, using
standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant
sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in
the public and proprietary versions of our verification reports, which
are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the main
Department building. See ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated
December 13, 2005.
Product Comparison
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered
all sales of
[[Page 76768]]
honey covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Review'' section
of this notice, supra, which were sold in the respective third-country
markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose
of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the
United States. We matched products based on the physical
characteristics reported by ACA and Seylinco. Where there were no sales
of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like
product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions
listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to
constructed value (CV), as appropriate.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is
that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is
based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general
and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level
of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer
after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act.
In this review, both ACA and Seylinco claimed only EP sales.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the
difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act.
ACA reported two LOTs in the third-country market corresponding to
differing channels of distribution: 1) sales to packers and 2) sales to
importers. Differing channels of distribution, alone, do not qualify as
separate LOTs when selling functions performed for each customer class
are sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). We found that the
selling functions ACA provided to its reported channels of distribution
in the third-country and U.S. markets were virtually the same, varying
only by the degree to which testing and warranty services were
provided. We do not find the varying degree of testing and warranty
services alone sufficient to determine the existence of different
marketing stages. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 50611 and accompanying Decision Memo
at Comment 18 (October 4, 2001); Honey from Argentina: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 621 (January
6, 2004). Thus, we have determined that there is only one LOT for ACA's
sales to all markets. See ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20,
2005.
Seylinco reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country
sales. Seylinco claimed that its selling activities in both markets are
identical, although we note Seylinco sold to two general classes of
customers in both the U.S. and its comparison market. For Seylinco, we
preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same
LOT, and we therefore have no need to make an LOT adjustment. See
Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.
Transactions Investigated
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the
Department normally will use date of invoice, as recorded in the
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date
of invoice if it better reflects the date on which material terms of
sale are established. For ACA, the Department, consistent with its
practice, used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both
its third-country and U.S. markets since shipment occurred prior to
invoice date. See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada,
68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Decision Memo at
Comment 3. For Seylinco, the Department used the invoice date as the
date of sale for both its comparison and U.S. market sales.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United
States. . . .,'' as adjusted under section 772(c). Section 772(b) of
the Tariff Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the
producer or exporter. . . .,'' as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d). ACA and Seylinco have classified their U.S. sales as EP because
all of their sales were made before the date of importation directly to
unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these
preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications.
Normal Value
1. Selection of Comparison Market
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act, to
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is
greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compare each company's aggregate volume of home market sales
of the foreign like product to its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of
subject merchandise. Because Seylinco did not have home market sales,
we preliminarily find that Seylinco's home market did not provide a
viable basis for calculating NV. ACA, however, did have home market
sales in excess of five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales.
Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the
Department may determine that home market sales are inappropriate as a
basis for determining NV if a particular market situation would not
permit a proper comparison with EP or CEP. During the first and second
reviews of this order, the Department found a particular market
situation rendered the Argentine market inappropriate for the
calculation of NV because of, among other reasons, the export-oriented
nature of the Argentine honey industry.\4\ In the first supplemental
questionnaire dated May 17, 2005, the Department asked ACA to provide
further information in order to
[[Page 76769]]
evaluate the market situation in Argentina with respect to honey, and
on May 31, 2005, ACA responded to the Department's request. ACA states
that the circumstances in this review are the same as in the first two
reviews and that the Department should find a ``particular market
situation'' in Argentina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Anti-
Dumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 621 (January 6, 2004);
Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004); Honey from
Argentina: Preliminary Results of Anti-Dumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 77195 (December 27, 2004); and Honey From Argentina:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 19926
(April 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 2005, the Department determined that a particular
market situation does, in fact, exist with respect to ACA's sales of
honey in Argentina, rendering the Argentine market inappropriate for
purposes of determining NV. See Decision Memorandum ``Analysis of
Particular Market Place Situation'' from Angela Strom through Robert
James to Richard Weible, dated August 25, 2005.
When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the
basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that
sales to a third-country market may be utilized if (i) the prices in
such market are representative; (ii) the aggregate quantity of the
foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-
country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the
subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and (iii) the
Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the
third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price.
ACA reported France as its largest third-country market during the POR,
in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales
is five percent or more of sales to the United States). Seylinco
reported Germany as its largest third-country market during the POR, in
terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales is
five percent or more of sales to the United States). See, e.g., Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Determination To Revoke the Order in Part, and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic
Salmon From Chile, 67 FR 51186, 51186 (August 7, 2002) (selecting the
largest third-country market as the basis for NV). The Department
preliminarily determines that the prices in France and Germany are
representative and no particular market situation exists that would
prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, for ACA, NV is based on
sales to France and for Seylinco NV is based on sales to Germany.
In summary, therefore, NV for all companies is based on third-
country market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the
prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption
in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade,
and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the EP. We calculated
NV as noted in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section of this
notice.
2. Cost of Production
The Department disregarded certain sales made by ACA to its
comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the subject
merchandise during the investigation. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 50611
(October 4, 2001) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov 21, 2001)
(Final Determination). However, because we did not find sales below
cost in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding and
because petitioners made no allegation of sales below cost in the
context of this review, the Department determined there were not
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ACA made sales in the
comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise
in this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. As a
result, on May 17, 2005, we informed ACA that ACA would not be required
to submit cost information.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
ACA
We based NV on the third-country market prices to unaffiliated
purchasers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act,
we made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. In
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act, we made
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling
expenses, where appropriate. We note that for certain claimed direct
expenses in the third-country market, the Department has re-classified
them as indirect for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis
Memorandum.
As in previous segments of this proceeding, ACA originally reported
warranty expenses on a customer-specific basis. ACA allocated warranty
claims corresponding to POR sales to total tons of honey sold to a
particular customer during the POR. In response to our first request
for information, ACA also submitted transaction-specific warranty
expenses. See Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated May 31, 2005.
In response to our most recent request for information, ACA reported
its historical experience for warranties by market. See Supplemental
Questionnaire Response dated November 28, 2005.
Notwithstanding ACA's reporting of warranty expenses both on a
customer-specific and transaction-specific basis, the Department finds
that these allocation methodologies fail to reflect the nature and
terms of warranty costs as incurred by ACA, i.e., at the time of sale,
warranty claims for specific customers or transactions cannot be known
or quantified and the terms for such claims did not vary from customer
to customer. Indeed, in the less than fair value investigation
involving honey from Argentina, the Department recalculated ACA's
warranty expense over total sales to the market in question. See Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey
from Argentina, 66 FR 24108 (May 11, 2001), unchanged in Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Honey from
Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001). In the second administrative
review, the Department accepted ACA's reported warranty expenses on a
customer-specific basis. See ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated
November 26, 2004,and ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20,
2004. However, based upon our review of the facts in this case, this is
not the appropriate methodology.
If the warranty terms offered by a respondent at the time of sale
vary significantly from customer to customer, a customer-specific
allocation of warranty expenses may be appropriate. However, as in this
case, if the warranty terms offered by the respondent at the time of
sale are not significantly different from customer to customer, an
allocation of warranty expenses over total sales or sales to the market
in question is more reflective of the nature of the expense and the
respondent's expectation that its pricing behavior will allow it to
recoup these costs over time. Furthermore, because warranty expenses
are not incurred until after a warranty claim has been received from a
customer, can vary greatly from year to year, and can occur months or
years after the relevant date of sale, the Department often bases
warranty expenses on historical data rather than the expenses incurred
during a single POR. (See, e.g., Large Newspaper Printing Presses and
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 11557
(February 26, 2001) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.)
[[Page 76770]]
Based on the foregoing considerations, we have re-calculated ACA's
reported warranty expenses. In order to capture warranty expenses
reflective of ACA's historical experience for the market in question,
we used warranty expenditures incurred in that market in the three most
recently completed fiscal years\5\ and allocated those expenses over
ACA's total sales to that market for the same three-year period. The
resulting ratio which we applied to the gross unit price for these
Preliminary Results represents a three year historical average of ACA's
warranty expenses with respect to the market in question. In addition,
we revised certain warranty expenses for the reasons outlined in the
accompanying Analysis Memorandum. See ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated
December 20, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The three most recent fiscal years were chosen as the
calculated time period because this is in accord with the
Department's standard questionnaire. Furthermore, the three-year
average is not inconsistent with ACA's historical warranty claims
for the market in question. See Supplemental Questionnaire Response
dated November 28, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seylinco
We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers.
We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. Where
appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. See Seylinco's
Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.
Currency Conversion
The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
France, 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003). However, the Federal
Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine
peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily
exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service.
Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We
used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion
dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2003,
through November 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Average
Manufacturer / Exporter Margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas..................... 2.95
Seylinco S.A.............................................. 0.00
All Others................................................ 30.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty
days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or
written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and
comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these
proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement
of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of
authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case
briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such
argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the
issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments
or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results.
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment
rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the
POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those
duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that
particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion
of the review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act:
(1) the cash deposit rates for all companies reviewed will be the
rates established in the final results of review;
(2) for any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate published in the most recent period;
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and
(4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate from the investigation
(30.24 percent). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001),
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 2001), and Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10,
2001).
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
[[Page 76771]]
Dated: December 20, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-7981 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S