[Federal Register: January 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 102-111]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ja07-32]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-863]
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the fourth
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the
People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is
December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We preliminarily determine
that four companies have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best
of their ability to comply with our requests for information and, as a
result, should be assigned a rate based on adverse facts available. We
have also preliminarily determined that a fifth respondent made sales
to the United
[[Page 103]]
States of the subject merchandise at prices below normal value.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument(s).
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or Helen Kramer, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
7924 or (202) 482-0405, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 1, 2005, the Department published an Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review, 70 FR 72109 (December
1, 2005). On December 29, 2005, Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. (Jinfu) and
Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. (Shino-Food), requested, in accordance
with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an
administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made during the
POR. Also on December 29, 2005, Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd. (Eulia),
Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (Chengdu Waiyuan), and Kunshan
Xin'an Trade Co., Ltd. (Kunshan Xin'an) requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of each respective company's entries
during the POR.
On December 30, 2005, the American Honey Producers Association and
the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners), requested, in
accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.213(b), an administrative review of
entries of subject merchandise made during the POR by 25 Chinese
producers/exporters.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The request included: Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. (Inner
Mongolia); Kunshan Foreign Trading Company (Kunshan); Zhejiang
Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. aka
Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Group
Corp.; High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import &
Export Corp. (High Hope); Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp.; Henan Native Produce
Import & Export Corp. (Henan); Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
Native Produce and Animal By-Products; Shanghai Xiuwei International
Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Xiuwei); Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dubao); Wuhan Bee Healthy Company, Ltd.; Jinfu
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Shinomiel International Trade
Corporation (Shanghai Shinomiel); Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group)
Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Eurasia Bee's
Products Co., Ltd. (Eurasia); Foodworld International Club, Ltd.
(Foodworld); Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. (Inner
Mongolia Youth); Apiarist Co.; Kunshan Xin'an Trade Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade co.,
Ltd.; Wuhu Qinshi Tangye; Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co.,
Ltd.; and Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also on December 30, 2005, Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co.,
Ltd. (Anhui Honghui) and Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd.
(Jiangsu), requested, in accordance with section 19 C.F.R. Sec.
351.213(b), an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise
made during the POR.
On February 1, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative
review of 27 Chinese companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 2, 2006, Anhui
Native Produce Import and Export Corporation submitted a no-shipments
letter to the Department requesting that the administrative review as
to the company be rescinded. On February 13, 2006, petitioners withdrew
their review request for Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. On February 23,
2006, petitioners filed a letter withdrawing their review request for
Eurasia, Foodworld, Henan, High Hope, Inner Mongolia, Inner Mongolia
Youth, Kunshan, Shanghai Shinomiel, Shanghai Xiuwei, Dubao, Wuhu Qinshi
Tangye, and Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. On February 27,
2006, Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Eswell) submitted a no-
shipments letter to the Department requesting rescission of its
administrative review.
On February 28, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to nine PRC producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise covered by this administrative review. On March 6, 2006,
the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Apiarist Co.
On March 7, 2006, Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products
Import & Export Group Corp. (Zhejiang) and its affiliates, including
Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., Ltd., submitted a no-shipments
letter to the Department requesting rescission of its administrative
review.\2\ On March 9, 2006, both Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an
withdrew their requests for administrative review, stating that neither
company intended to participate in the proceeding. On March 10, 2006,
Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu and Shino-Food submitted their respective
quantity and value responses to the Department's questionnaire. On
March 13, 2006, Jinfu submitted a no-shipments letter to the Department
requesting rescission of its administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On March 9, 2006, Zhejiang submitted a letter clarifying
that it intended to include a request for rescission for both itself
and its affiliates, including Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co.,
Ltd., in its March 7, 2006, letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 20, 2006, Shino-Food submitted its section A response, and
the exhibits for its section A response on March 23, 2006. The exhibits
were submitted one day past the deadline for submission. See the
Department's March 22, 2006, Memorandum to the File.
On March 31, 2006, petitioners met with the Department to discuss
issues in the present administrative review and to notify the
Department that they had not been served with copies of Shino-Food's
section A response. See the Department April 3, 2006, Memorandum to the
File. On April 3, 2006, the Department submitted a Memorandum to the
File in which it explained that only three respondents (Anhui Honghui,
Jiangsu, and Shino-Food) are participating in this administrative
review (i.e., have not submitted no-shipment letters or letters
indicating they did not intend to participate in the administrative
review). See the Department's April 3, 2006, Memorandum to the File.
Accordingly, the Department explained that it would not engage in a
respondent selection process. On April 4, 2006, both Anhui Honghui and
Jiangsu submitted their responses to section A of the Department's
questionnaire. On April 7, 2006, petitioners withdrew their review
request for Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp., Apiarist Co.,
Eswell, Zhejiang, and Jinfu.
On April 17, 2006, the Department sent a memorandum to the
Department's Office of Policy requesting a list of surrogate countries
to be used in this proceeding, and received a memorandum containing the
Office of Policy's potential surrogate countries on April 20, 2006.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Department notes that a separate memorandum from the
Office of Policy was sent on April 24, 2006, to Office 7 Program
Manager Abdelali Elouaradia to account for the different period of
review for Eulia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2006, the Department issued supplemental sections A,
C, and D questionnaires to Shino-Food. On April 27, 2006, petitioners
submitted comments on Shino-Food's, March 20, 2006, section A, and
April 3, 2006, sections C, and D questionnaire responses. On May 1,
2006, Anhui Honghui and Jiangsu submitted their respective responses to
sections C and D
[[Page 104]]
of the Department's supplemental questionnaires.
On May 4, 2006, Shino-Food submitted its response to the
Department's April 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On June 17,
2006, Shino-Food submitted its response to the Department's June 9,
2006, supplemental questionnaire. On June 26, 2006, Anhui Honghui
submitted its response to the Department's June 8, 2006, supplemental
questionnaire. On June 27, 2006, Jiangsu submitted a withdrawal letter
to the Department in which it explained that it would no longer
participate in the administrative review. On July 27, 2006, Anhui
Honghui submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value
the factors of production in this proceeding. On June 30 and July 30,
2006, Shino-Food submitted letters to the Department stating that due
to the unavailability of its general manger, it would not be able to
participate in verification during any of the times proposed by the
Department. See ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and the PRC-Wide
Rate'' section below for a complete discussion of Shino-Food.
On August 10, 2006, petitioners submitted comments premised on the
Department's verification of Anhui Honghui, which did not occur. On the
same date, Anhui Honghui submitted its sales reconciliation. On August
16, 2006, the Department published an extension of the time limits to
complete these preliminary results. See Honey from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71
FR 47170 (August 16, 2006).
On September 8, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental
questionnaire to Anhui Honghui, to which Anhui Honghui responded on
September 29, 2006. On November 13, 2006, the Department again extended
the time limits for the preliminary results. In the same publication
the Department also aligned the POR of the current new shipper reviews
with this administrative review. See Honey from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews,
71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006). On November 30, 2006, the Department
submitted a surrogate country selection memorandum to the file. See the
Department's November 30, 2006, Memorandum to the File. On December 4,
2006, the Department put on the record of the present administrative
review certain factors of production contained on the record of the
current new shipper reviews of honey from the PRC. See the Department's
December 4, 2006, Memorandum to the File.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The products covered by this order 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 subject to 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 order is
dispositive.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
As explained above, Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp.,
Eswell, Zhejiang, and Jinfu (collectively, ``the four companies'') all
submitted no-shipment letters to the Department in which they requested
rescission from this administrative review. To determine whether the
four companies made shipments during the POR, the Department examined
PRC honey shipment data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). Based on the information obtained from CBP, we found
no entries of subject merchandise during the POR manufactured or
exported by the four companies to the United States. Therefore,
pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.213(d)(3), the Department is
preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to the four
companies.
Additionally, as explained above, on February 23, 2006, pursuant to
19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.213(d)(1), petitioners withdrew their review
requests for the following 13 companies: Eurasia, Foodworld, Henan,
High Hope, Inner Mongolia\4\, Inner Mongolia Youth, Kunshan, Shanghai
Shinomiel, Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xiuwei, Dubao,
Wuhun Qinshi Tangye, and Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. In
addition, on April 7, 2006, also pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec.
351.213(d)(1), petitioners withdrew their review request for Apiarist
Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Department notes that while petitioners requested a
review for Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and
Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp., and Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products separately,
both names refer to the same company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because petitioners submitted their requests for withdrawal of
review within the 90-day deadline mandated by 19 C.F.R. Sec.
351.213(d)(1), and no other party requested a review for these
companies, the Department is preliminarily rescinding this
administrative review with respect to the 14 companies listed above.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to its export
activities. In this review Anhui Honghui submitted information in
support of its claim for a company-specific rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991)
(Sparklers), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-7 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). The
Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control
over export activities.
Anhui Honghui provided complete separate-rate information in its
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly,
we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether this
exporter is independent from government control.
For the reasons discussed below in the section titled ``The Use of
Facts Otherwise Available and PRC-wide Rate,'' we have preliminarily
determined that Jiangsu, Shino-Food, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan
Xin'an do not qualify for a separate rate and are instead part of the
PRC-wide entity.
[[Page 105]]
Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. As discussed below, our analysis shows that
the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure
absence of government control for Anhui Honghui based on each of these
factors.
Anhui Honghui has placed on the record a number of documents to
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Company Law of
the People's Republic of China'' (December 29, 1993) (Company Law), the
``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China'' (May 12, 1994)
(Foreign Trade Law), the revised Foreign Trade Law (April 6, 2004), and
``Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China
Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations'' (June 3, 1988)
(Legal Corporations Regulations). See Exhibit 3 of Anhui Honghui's
April 4, 2006, submission (section A response). Anhui Honghui also
submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 4 of its section A
response. The Feidong County Industrial and Commercial Administration
Bureau issued this license. Anhui Honghui explains that its business
license defines the scope of the company's business activities and
ensures the company has sufficient capital to continue its business
operations. Anhui Honghui affirms that its business operations are
limited to the scope of the license, although the license can be
amended if the company wishes to expand the scope of its operations,
and that the license may be revoked if the company has insufficient
capital, or engages in activities outside the scope of its business.
Further, Anhui Honghui states that the license must be renewed or
reviewed annually, and to obtain a renewal, it must apply for a renewal
and provide a copy of its most recent financial statements to the
issuing authority.
We note that Anhui Honghui states that it is governed by the
Company Law, which it claims governs the establishment of limited
liability companies and provides that such a company shall operate
independently and be responsible for its own profits and losses. Anhui
Honghui has placed on the record the Foreign Trade Law and stated that
this law allows it full autonomy from the central authority in
governing its business operations. We have reviewed Article 11 of
Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law, which states, ``foreign trade
dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in their business operation and be
responsible for their own profits and losses in accordance with the
law.'' As in prior cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws and found that
they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Pure Magnesium
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper
Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) and Preliminary Results of
New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), as affirmed in
Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001).
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de
jure control over the export activities of Anhui Honghui.
Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its
export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject
to, the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the respondent
has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;
(3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587. Therefore, the Department
has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of
government control, which would preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates.
Anhui Honghui has asserted the following: (1) it is a privately
owned company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting
of export prices; (3) its general manager has the authority to bind
sales contracts; (4) the company's executive director appoints the
company's management and it does not have to notify government
authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions
on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its executive director
decides how profits will be used. We have examined the documentation
provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated
among exporters of PRC honey.
Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence
of government control, both in law and in fact, over Anhui Honghui's
export activities, we preliminarily determine that Anhui Honghui has
met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and the PRC-Wide Rate
Anhui Honghui, Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan
Xin'an were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's
questionnaires. As explained above, we received complete questionnaire
responses only from Anhui Honghui and we have calculated a separate
rate for this company. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of
subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters
that have their own calculated rate.
Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an are
appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity because they
failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate. Because the
PRC-wide entity did not provide requested information necessary to the
instant proceeding, it is necessary that we review the PRC-wide entity.
In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, (the Act), mandates that the Department use the facts
available if necessary information is not available on the record of an
antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act
provides that if an interested party or any other person: (A) withholds
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B)
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information
but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of
the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act,
use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination under this title. Where the Department determines that a
response to a request for information does not comply with the request,
section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly
inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party
with an
[[Page 106]]
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) of the
Act additionally states that if the party submits further information
that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority may,
subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the
Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does
not meet all the applicable requirements established by the
administering authority if: (1) the information is submitted by the
deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be
verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve
as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its
ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements
established by the administering authority with respect to the
information; and (5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
The Department finds that the PRC-wide entity (including Shino-
Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an) did not respond to
our request for information and that necessary information either was
not provided, or the information provided cannot be verified and is not
sufficiently complete to enable the Department to use it for these
preliminary results. Therefore, we find it necessary, under section
776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for
the preliminary results of this review for the PRC-wide entity.
As stated above in the ``Background'' section, on December 29,
2005, Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an requested an administrative
review. On December 30, 2005, petitioners requested a review with
respect to these two companies. On March 9, 2006, both Chengdu Waiyuan
and Kunshan Xin'an withdrew their requests for administrative review,
stating that neither company intended to participate in this
administrative review. In their February 23, 2006, and April 7, 2006,
withdrawal of review request letters, petitioners did not withdraw
their request for review with respect to either Chengdu Waiyuan or
Kunshan Xin'an.\5\ Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an failed to respond
to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. The Department has no
information on the record for Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an with
which to calculate a dumping margin or determine if either is eligible
for a separate rate in this proceeding; therefore, we find that Chengdu
Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an have significantly impeded the proceeding,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Because
Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an did not respond to the Department's
questionnaires, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In both their February 23, 2006, and April 7, 2006,
withdrawal of review request letters, petitioners stated that they
wanted the administrative review to continue with respect to both
Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above in the ``Background'' section, Shino-Food and
Jiangsu responded to the Department's initial antidumping
questionnaire, with Shino-Food responding to two subsequent
supplemental questionnaires. With regard to Shino-Food, as stated above
in the ``Background'' section, Shino-Food submitted letters to the
Department in which it stated that it would not participate in
verification, thereby failing to accommodate the Department's repeated
attempts to schedule verification. On June 23, 2006, the Department
contacted Shino-Food, and proposed a five-day verification of Shino-
Food at any time between July 10 and July 21, 2006. See the
Department's June 29, 2006, Memorandum to the File. Shino-Food informed
the Department that Shino-Food's general manager was experiencing
health problems and would not be able to accommodate the Department's
proposed verification dates. Shino-Food also informed the Department
that its sales manager would be in Europe during the proposed
verification dates and, thus, would not be able to assist the
Department with verification. On June 27, 2006, the Department proposed
verification of Shino-Food during August 14 - 18, 2006, after the
return of Shino Food's sales manager from his trip. On June 28, 2006,
Shino-Food stated it nevertheless would not able to participate in
verification during that week, because the general manager insisted
that he must be present for verification and that no one else could
participate in his absence. See the Department's June 29, 2006,
Memorandum to the File.
On June 30, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Shino-Food
reviewing the telephone conversations that took place between the
Department and the company. In this letter, the Department described
its attempts to schedule verification of Shino-Food and Shino-Food's
rejections of our requests. We provided an additional opportunity for
Shino-Food to accept the proposed verification dates of August 14 - 18,
2006, and warned the company that the Department would rely on adverse
information in conducting its dumping analysis if Shino-Food continued
to refuse to allow verification. On June 30, 2006, Shino-Food submitted
a letter reiterating that due to the unavailability of its general
manger, it would not be able to participate in verification during the
Department's proposed August dates.
On July 19, 2006, the Department transferred reconciliation
information collected from the verification of Shino-Food during the
antidumping duty new shipper review to the record of the present
administrative review. See the Department's July 19, 2006, Memorandum
to the File.
On July 20, 2006, Shino-Food submitted a letter to the Department
stating that due to the unavailability of its management personnel, it
would not be able to participate in verification during the production
season of the current POR. On July 24, 2006, the Department submitted a
memorandum to the file in which we clarified that the Department did
not request verification during the production season of Shino-Food.
The Department then made a third attempt to schedule verification with
Shino-Food for September 18 - 22, 2006, which the company also refused.
See the Department's July 24, 2006, Memorandum to the File.
Due to Shino-Food's refusal to schedule verification of its
submitted information by the Department, as explained above, we
preliminarily find that Shino-Food has failed to cooperate to the best
of its ability and has significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the
Department preliminarily finds that the application of facts available
is appropriate for these preliminary results.
With regard to Jiangsu, on June 27, 2006, the Department received a
letter from Jiangsu stating that it was withdrawing its participation
in this review. Due to Jiangsu's failure to participate in these
proceedings and in verification, we preliminarily find that Jiangsu has
significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the Department preliminarily
finds that the application of facts available is appropriate for these
preliminary results.
Application of Adverse Inference
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that
[[Page 107]]
a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session,
Vol. 1 (1994) at 870. In determining whether a respondent has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a
determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct. See
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1379-1384 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). Furthermore, ''. . . affirmative evidence of bad faith on
the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make
an adverse inference.'' Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties:
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient
attention to its statutory duties. See Pacific Giant Inc. v. United
States, 223 F. Supp 2d 1336, 1342-43 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the
Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted
information, and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of
accurate dumping margins. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and
Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide
entity (including Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan
Xin'an) failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with requests for information. As discussed above, the PRC-wide
entity informed the Department that it would not participate in this
review, or otherwise did not provide the requested information, despite
repeated requests that it do so. This information was in the sole
possession of the respondents, and could not be obtained otherwise.
Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this
proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse
to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies
that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this
review.
Selection of AFA Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final determination
in the investigation; (3) any previous review or determination; or (4)
any information placed on the record. In reviews, it is the
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest rate determined
for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g.,
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China;
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68
FR 19504, 19508 (April 21, 2003).
The U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's
practice in this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899
F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United
States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a LTFV investigation); see also Kompass Food
Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683-684 (2000) (upholding a
51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from
a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339,
1347-1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a
previous administrative review).
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The
Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' SAA at 870. See also Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69
FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate
balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced
current information showing the margin to be less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899
F.2d at 1190.
Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its practice, the
Department has preliminarily assigned the rate of 212.39 percent, the
highest rate determined in any segment of the proceeding to the PRC-
wide entity (including Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and
Kunshan Xin'an) as AFA. See Honey from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006) (AR3 Final Results).
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable,
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the
Department's disposal. The SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to
determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at
870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. With respect to Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu
Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an, we are applying the highest rate from any
previous segment of this administrative proceeding as adverse facts
available, which is a rate calculated for Anhui Honghui in the AR3
Final Results. However, unlike other types of information, such as
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for
calculated dumping margins. The only source for calculated margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated
dumping margin from the current or a prior segment of the proceeding,
it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that
time period. See, e.g., Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
36551, 36552 (July 11, 1996), affirmed without change in Grain-Oriented
Electrical Steel from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative
[[Page 108]]
Review, 62 FR 2655, 2656 (January 17, 1997). With respect to the
relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a
margin continues to have relevance.
Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh
Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information
available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting
in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a
margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not
use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these
unusual circumstances are present here. Accordingly, we determine that
the highest rate from any previous segment of this administrative
proceeding (i.e., the calculated rate of 212.39 percent) is in
accordance with the requirement of section 776(c) that secondary
information be corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value). The
information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and
production data of a respondent in a prior review, as well as on the
most appropriate surrogate value information available to the
Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in that review, as
well as information gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the
calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested
parties in the proceeding. See AR3 Final Results. Moreover, as there is
no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this
rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available for Shino-
Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an, we determine that
this rate has probative value.
Affiliation
Anhui Honghui claims that it is affiliated with Honghui Group (USA)
Corp., (Honghui USA) within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act.
Section 771(33) of the Act states that affiliated persons include: (A)
members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the
whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants; (B)
any officer or director of an organization and such organization; (C)
partners; (D) employer and employee; (E) any person directly or
indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any
organization and such organization; (F) two or more persons directly or
indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with,
any person; (G) any person who controls any other person and such other
person. For purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. To
find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at
least one of the criteria listed above is applicable to the
respondents.
In the present case, Anhui Honghui reports in Exhibit 7 of its
section A response that the same person controls and owns both Anhui
Honghui and Honghui USA. Additionally, in the new shipper review of
honey from the PRC, we found that Anhui Honghui was affiliated with
Honghui USA and that the use of CEP sales was appropriate. See Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews: Honey
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 69350, 69353 (November 29,
2004), affirmed without change in Honey From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews,
70 FR 9271 (February 25, 2005) and AR3 Final Results. For purposes of
this review, there is no information on the record that would cause the
Department to reconsider its affiliation finding. Therefore, pursuant
to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act, we preliminarily find that
Anhui Honghui and Honghui USA are affiliated.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether the respondent's sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal
value, we compared their U.S. prices to normal values, as described in
the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
U.S. Price
Because we have preliminarily determined that Anhui Honghui and
Honghui USA are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of the
Act, we have classified all Honghui U.S. sales as constructed export
price (CEP) transactions.
Constructed Export Price
For Anhui Honghui we calculated CEP in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, because certain sales were made on behalf of the
PRC-based company by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. We
based CEP on packed, delivered or ex-warehouse prices to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these
expenses included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling charges, international freight, marine insurance, U.S.
brokerage and handling, U.S. warehouse fees, U.S. import (customs)
duties, U.S. inland freight expenses from the port to warehouse and
from the port to the customer, and added (where applicable) freight
revenue.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in
the United States, including direct selling expenses, credit expenses,
and indirect selling expenses (inventory carrying costs). We also made
an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act.
As explained above, because Anhui Honghui and Honghui USA are
affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, we are
continuing to analyze Honghui USA's sales to the first unaffiliated
customer.
Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or
marine insurance, were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in
renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values (see
``Factors of Production'' section below for further discussion). For
those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid
for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense.
Normal Value
Non-Market-Economy Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a NME country. Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003),
[[Page 109]]
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-
2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR
70488 (December 18, 2003). None of the parties to these reviews have
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (NV)
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market-economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic
development, as identified in the ``Memorandum from the Office of
Policy to Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Office 7'' dated April
20, 2006. In addition, based on publicly available information placed
on the record (e.g., world production data), India is a significant
producer of honey. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate
country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it
meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See
``Memorandum to the File: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated
November 30, 2006.
Factors of Production
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D)
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used factors
of production reported by the producer or exporter for materials,
energy, labor, and packing, except as indicated. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available
Indian values.
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our
practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139
(December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 6; and Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China Final Results of
First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of
China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used publicly available
import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (Indian Import
Statistics) for December 2004 through November 2005 to value inputs
sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate
values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest port of export to the factory. See, Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we
used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by
PRC suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from
the input supplier to the site at which the input was used.
In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs,
in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from
both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all
export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our
surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February
12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
see also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800,
66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final results
at Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16,
2004). For a complete discussion of the import data that we excluded
from our calculation of surrogate values, see ``Memorandum to the File:
Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Honey from the People's Republic of China,'' dated December 21, 2006
(Factor Valuation Memo). This memorandum is on file in the Central
Records Unit of the Department, located in room B099.
Where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the
surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as
published in the International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian
rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19
C.F.R. Sec. 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate
corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily
exchanges rates posted on the Import Administration website (http://ia.ita.doc.gov
). See Factor Valuation Memo.
We valued the factors of production as follows:
To value raw honey, we took a weighted average of the raw honey
prices for each month from December 2002 through June 2003, based on
the percentage of each type of honey produced and sold, as derived from
EDA Rural Systems Pvt Ltd. website, http://www.litchihoney.com (EDA
data), and as placed by the Department on the record of this
administrative review on December 4, 2006. We inflated the value for
raw honey using the POR average WPI rate.
The respondents in this review submitted news articles to be used
as potential sources for the surrogate value data for raw honey,
including an article entitled ``Monograph on Traditional Sciences and
Technologies of India Honey Industry'' from the website http://www.mandafamily.com/indhonindresources.htm
dated December 2, 2005, an
article entitled ``Honey Prices Nosedive As Supply Exceeds Demand''
from http://www.financialexpress.com dated July 11, 2006, and an
article entitled ``Honey, the Sure Way To Make Money'' from the website
http://www.thehindu.com, dated September 11, 2005.
In addition, the Department conducted extensive research on
potential raw honey surrogate values for this administrative review.
The Department found the sources submitted by respondents and its own
research not to be as reliable as EDA data because of the lack of
information detailing how the conclusions stated in the sources were
determined, researched, and collected. The EDA data are supported with
information detailing how its figures are determined, researched, and
collected. Additionally,
[[Page 110]]
the EDA data provide multiple price points over the course of an
extended period of time, whereas alternative data report very few or
just a single weighted average price for a year or succession of years.
Moreover, the use of EDA data is also consistent with the Department's
recent decision in the third administrative review of this order. See
AR3 Final Results, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. Therefore, because we find EDA data to be the best available
data on the record, we have not used any of these alternate sources
proposed by respondents in the preliminary results. For a complete
discussion of the Department's analysis of honey, see pages 3-5 of the
Factor Valuation Memo.
To value coal, the Department derived the weighted-average of the
import volume and value from the Indian Import Statistics, the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) for HS 27011920
and as placed by the Department on the record of this administrative
review on December 4, 2006. In calculating the surrogate values, the
Department eliminated the data of the countries, identified as being
non-market economy countries (i.e., the PRC, and Vietnam), and those
deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry specific subsidies
that may benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e. Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand), as identified above in the ``Valuation of
Factors'' section of Factor Valuation Memo, from the dataset. See
Factor Valuation Memo at pages 2 and 7.
To value water, we calculated the average price of water rates
within and outside of industrial zones from various regions as reported
by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, http://midcindia.org
, dated June 1, 2003, and as placed by the Department on
the record of this administrative review on December 4, 2006. We
inflated the value for water using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor
Valuation Memo.
We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India
reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for Energy
Prices & Taxes, Third Quarter 2003, as submitted by Anhui Honghui in
its July 27, 2006 surrogate values submission. We inflated the value
for electricity using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation
Memo.
While Anhui Honghui also identified diesel fuel as an input
consumed in the production of the subject merchandise, the Department
considers this material as overhead rather than direct material inputs.
The Department therefore has excluded diesel fuel from the normal value
calculation.
To value paint, we used Indian Import Statistics, contemporaneous
with the POR. In calculating the surrogate values, the Department
eliminated the data of the countries, identified as being non-market
economy countries (i.e., the PRC, and Vietnam), and those deemed to
maintain broadly available, non-industry specific subsidies that may
benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South
Korea, and Thailand), as identified above in the ``Valuation of
Factors'' section of Factor Valuation Memo, from the dataset. See
Factor Valuation Memo at pages 2 and 7. The Department calculated a POR
contemporaneous paint surrogate value by deriving the weighted-average
of the import volume and value from the Indian Import Statistics, as
identified by the designated Indian Trade Classification, based on HS
3208 and HS 3209. After deriving the weight average of each HS category
of paint, the Department calculated the simple average of the two
categories. See Factor Valuation Memo at pages 2 and 5.
To value drums, we relied upon a price quote from an Indian steel
drum manufacturer from September 2000, which was used in the AR3 Final
Results, and as placed by the Department on the record of this
administrative review on December 4, 2006. We inflated the value for
drums using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we relied upon publicly available information in
the 2004-2005 annual report of Mahabaleshwar Honey Production
Cooperative Society Ltd. (MHPC), a producer of the subject merchandise
in India, and placed by the Department on the record of this
administrative review on December 4, 2006. Anhui Honghui maintains in
its July 27, 2006, surrogate values submission that Department should
rely on information available in an alternate Indian producer's
financial statements, that of Apis India Natural Products Ltd. (Apis),
2003 2004. However, we preliminarily find that MHPC data are more
appropriate than Apis data because the Apis data are not as reliable or
detailed as that of MHPC. In addition, MHPC materials include a
complete annual report, auditor's report, and complete profit and loss
business statements that segregate MHPC's honey and fruit canning
businesses. We note that MHPC is a honey processing business and its
financial statements include details on the costs and revenues related
to its honey processing business. Therefore, for these preliminary
results we are calculating SG&A based on the MHPC data as consistent
with the AR3 Final Results. For a further discussion of this issue, see
Factor Valuation Memo.
Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar
levels of per capita gross domestic product, 19 C.F.R. Sec.
351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate.
Therefore, to value the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based
wage rate published by Import Administration on its website, http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov.
See Factor Valuation Memo.
To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight
cost based on publicly available data from http://www.infreight.com, an Indian
inland freight logistics resource website, and submitted by Anhui
Honghui in its July 27, 2006, surrogate value submission. The
Department valued international freight, where necessary, based on
publicly available price quotes from a Danish international shipping
and logistics provider, Maersk Line (formerly Maersk Sealand), a
division of the A.P. Moller - Maersk Group, at http://www.maerskline.com.
See Factor Valuation Memo.
We valued marine insurance, where necessary, based on publicly
available price quotes from a marine insurance provider at http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html
, and as placed by the Department
on the record of this administrative review on December 4, 2006. We
valued international freight expenses, where necessary, using
contemporaneous freight quotes that the Department obtained from Maersk
Line, also as placed by the Department on the record of this
administrative review on December 4, 2006. See Factor Valuation Memo.
To value brokerage and handling, we used a simple average of the
publicly summarized versions of the average value for brokerage and
handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in Essar Steel
Ltd.'s (Essar Steel) February 28, 2005, submission in the third
antidumping duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, Section C Response, (February 28, 2005), and the
March 9, 2004, submission from Pidilite Industries Ltd. (Pidilite) in
the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India, Section C Response, (March 9, 2004), which have been placed on
the record of this review. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 20.
Since both the reported rate in Essar Steel and the
[[Page 111]]
Pidilite rate are not contemporaneous, we adjusted these rates for
inflation using the POR wholesale WPI for India to be current with the
POR of this administrative review. See Factor Valuation Memo.
In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
publicly available information to value the factors of production until
20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty
margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anhui Honghui Foodstuffs (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui).. 248.96[per
cnt]
PRC-Wide Rate (including Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu 212.39[per
Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an)............................... cnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin, see the analysis memorandum for Anhui Honghui for the
preliminary results of the fourth administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, dated December 21, 2006.
Public Versions of this memorandum are on file in the CRU.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to
CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review.
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for honey from the PRC on a per-unit basis.
Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the
difference between normal value and export price or constructed export
price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise
sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment
amount. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results
of review, we will direct CBP to levy importer-specific assessment
rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the
weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the
POR.
Cash Deposits
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results for shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Anhui
Honghui we will establish a per-unit cash deposit rate which will be
equivalent to the company-specific cash deposit established in this
review; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a
separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be
the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) for all other
PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be
entitled to a separate rate (including Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu
Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an), the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-
wide rate of 212.39 percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC supplier of that exporter.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
Schedule for Final Results of Review
The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.
351.310(c). Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must
submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14\th\ Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a
public hearing should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) to the extent
practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the
hearing.
Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.309(c)(ii). As part of
the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after
the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party may
make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that
party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should
confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48
hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final
results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date
of publication of this notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.402(f) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods.
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.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 20, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-22496 Filed 12-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S