Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Notices 621

local newspapers, including the Daily 

Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.

Dated: December 29, 2003. 

Bob Castaneda, 

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04–185 Filed 1–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Meeting

AGENCY: Notice of Resource Advisory 

Committee, Sundance, Wyoming, 

USDA, Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–

393) the Black Hills National Forests’

Crook County Resource Advisory 

Committee will meet Tuesday, January 

20th, in Sundance, Wyoming for a 

business meeting. The meeting is open 

to the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

business meeting on January 20, begins 

at 6:30 p.m., at the U.S. Forest Service, 

Bearlodge Ranger District office, 121 

South 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming. 

Agenda topics will include: Updates on 

previously funded projects and a review 

of proposals still needing action. A 

public forum will begin at 8:30 p.m. 

(m.t.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Kozel, Bearlodge District Ranger 

and Designated Federal Officer, at (307) 

283–1361.

Dated: December 17, 2003. 

Scott Tangenberg, 

Bearlodge District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 04–246 Filed 1–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812] 

Honey From Argentina: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 

antidumping duty administrative 

review. 

SUMMARY: On January 22, 2003, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register (68 FR 3009) a notice 

announcing the initiation of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

Argentina. The period of review (POR) 

is May 11, 2001, to November 30, 2002. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of honey from Argentina have been 

made below the normal value (NV) in 

the cases of Nexco S.A. and Seylinco 

S.A. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of 

administrative review, we will instruct 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties based on the 

difference between the export price (EP) 

or constructed export price (CEP) 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: January 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phyllis Hall for Nexco S.A. (Nexco), 

David Cordell for TransHoney S.A. 

(TransHoney), Brian Sheba for 

(HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax) and 

Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco)), Angela Strom 

for (Asociacion de Cooperativas 

Argentinas (ACA)) or Donna Kinsella, 

Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1398, 

(202) 482–0408, (202) 482–0145, (202) 

482–2704, (202) 482–0194, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 31, 2002, the American 

Honey Producers Association and the 

Sioux Honey Association (collectively 

‘‘petitioners’’) requested an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order (see Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Honey from 

Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 

2001)) on honey from Argentina in 

response to the Department’s notice of 

opportunity to request a review 

published in the Federal Register.

Petitioners requested the Department 

conduct an administrative review of 

entries of subject merchandise made by 

21 Argentine producers/exporters. In 

addition, the Department received 

requests for review from 9 Argentine 

exporters. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 68 FR 3009 (January 22, 2003). The 

Department initiated the review for all 

companies. 

On January 17, 2003, petitioners 

withdrew their requests for review of 14 

of the 21 companies. The Department 

subsequently rescinded the review with 

respect to these 14 companies. See 

Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 13895 

(March 21, 2003). 

On February 19, 2003, the Department 

issued sections A, B and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire to all 

exporters subject to review. We received 

responses on May 12 and May 15, 2003 

(ACA); March 14 and April 21, 2003 

(HoneyMax); March 14 and April 21, 

2003 (Nexco); March 21 and April 21, 

2003 (Seylinco); April 3, April 21 and 

May 15, 2003 (CEASA and 

TransHoney); April 21 and May 15, 

2003, (Radix). We received comments 

from petitioners on April 2 and May 21, 

2003 (ACA); May 9, 2003 (Nexco); April 

3 and May 12, 2003 (HoneyMax and 

Seylinco); April 15 and May 12, 2003 

(TransHoney); April 14 and May 14, 

2003 (CEASA); and April 10 and May 2, 

2003 (Radix). The Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires on June 3, 

2003 (ACA); and on May 23, 2003 

(HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco CEASA, 

Radix and TransHoney). We received 

responses on July 1 (ACA); June 12 

(HoneyMax); June 18 (Nexco); June 16 

(Seylinco); and June 23, 2003 

(TransHoney, CEASA and Radix). 

Petitioners commented on these 

responses on July 23 (ACA); July 16 

(HoneyMax); July 22 (Nexco); July 1 

(Seylinco); July 9 (Radix); and July 10, 

2003 (TransHoney and CEASA). The 

Department issued additional 

supplemental questionnaires on July 29 

(TransHoney, CEASA and Radix); July 

30 (ACA, HoneyMax and Seylinco); and 

August 1, 2003 (Nexco). We received 

responses to these additional 

supplemental questionnaires on August 

19 (ACA); August 11 (HoneyMax); 

August 20 (Nexco); August 11 

(Seylinco); and August 18 

(TransHoney).

On July 23, 2003, the Department 

extended the time limit for issuance of 

the preliminary results of the 

administrative review to December 8, 

2003. See Honey from Argentina; 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Administrative Review, 68 FR 

43491 (July 23, 2003). 

On May 12, 2003, the petitioners 

alleged that CEASA, TransHoney, 

HoneyMax, Nexco, and Seylinco made 

sales in the comparison market during 

the POR at less than the cost of 

production and requested that the 

622 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Notices 

Department initiate a sales below cost 

investigation with respect to these 

companies. On May 21, 2003, Nexco, 

Seylinco, HoneyMax, CEASA and 

TransHoney filed comments regarding 

petitioners’ cost allegations. On June 5, 

2003, petitioners submitted rebuttal 

comments. On July 2, 2003, the 

Department initiated a sales below cost 

investigation for CEASA and 

TransHoney. See Decision 

Memorandum of Petitioner’s Allegation 

of Sales Below the Cost of Production by 

Cia Europeo Americana, S.A., 

HoneyMax, S.A., Nexco, S.A., Seylinco, 

S.A. and TransHoney, S.A. from The 

Team to Barbara Tillman, dated July 2, 

2003, and the Decision Memorandum of 

Selection of Cost Respondents from The 

Team to Neal Halper, dated July 14, 

2003. On July 24, 2003, the Department 

issued Section D questionnaires to 

suppliers of ACA, TransHoney, CEASA, 

and Radix. 

On August 13, 2003, Radix and 

CEASA, submitted letters withdrawing 

their requests for review. On the same 

date, petitioners also submitted a letter 

withdrawing their request for review 

with respect to Radix and CEASA. The 

Department granted this request and 

subsequently rescinded the review with 

respect to these two companies. See 

Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 52386 

(September 3, 2003). 

The Department received responses to 

Section D of the antidumping 

questionnaire on September 12, 17, 23, 

and 29 (suppliers of ACA), and on 

September 26, 2003 (suppliers of 

TransHoney). We received comments 

from petitioners on the Cost Responses 

of ACA and TransHoney beekeepers and 

middlemen on October 3, 2003. We 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

ACA and TransHoney (suppliers and 

middlemen) on October 6, 2003. We 

received responses to these 

supplemental questionnaires on 

November 3 (TransHoney) and 

November 4, 6 and 7, 2003 (ACA). We 

received comments from petitioners on 

the supplemental cost responses of ACA 

and TransHoney beekeepers and 

middlemen on November 17, 2003. 

On August 28, 2003, the Department 

requested constructed value (CV) 

information from Seylinco and 

HoneyMax. Requests for reconsideration 

were filed by HoneyMax and Seylinco 

on September 4, 2003. The Department 

received comments from petitioners on 

September 16, 2003. On September 29, 

2003, the Department initiated a cost 

investigation for HoneyMax. See 

Decision Memorandum of Initiation of a 

Cost Investigation for HoneyMax S.A. 

(‘‘HoneyMax’’) and Rescission of 

Request for Constructed Value Pursuant 

to an August 28, 2003, Request from the 

Department, from the Team to Joseph 

Spetrini, dated September 29, 2003. On 

September 30, 2003, the Department 

issued section D questionnaires to 

HoneyMax suppliers. 

On November 26, 2003, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review to December 31, 2003. See Honey 

from Argentina; Extension of Time Limit 

for Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review, 68 FR (66399) 

(November 26, 2003). 

Scope of the Review 

The merchandise under review is 

honey from Argentina. For purposes of 

this review, 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 under review 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 CBP purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under this order is 

dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act (Act), we verified sales and 

cost information provided by the 

companies using standard verification 

procedures such as the examination of 

relevant sales and financial records. Our 

sales verification results are outlined in 

the public and proprietary versions of 

sales verification reports, which are on 

file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) 

of the Department in room B–099 of the 

main Commerce building. See 

Transhoney’s Sales Verification Report

dated October 22, 2003; Nexco’s Sales 

Verification Report dated October 30, 

2003; ACA’s Sales Verification Report

dated November 12, 2003; HoneyMax’s 

and Seylinco’s Sales Verification 

Reports dated November 7, 2003. The 

cost verification reports will be 

available on file in the CRU.

Product Comparison 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all sales of 

honey covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of Review’’ section of this 

notice, supra, which were sold in the 

third country market during the POR, to 

be the foreign like product for the 

purpose of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to honey sold in 

the United States. In making the product 

comparisons, we matched products 

based on the physical characteristics 

reported by ACA, HoneyMax, Nexco, 

Seylinco and TransHoney. 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 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 level of trade is that of the 

starting-price sales in the home market 

or, when NV is based on CV, that of 

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 Act. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different level of trade than CEP, 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 level of trade and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the 

export transaction, we make a level-oftrade adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales, if the NV level is more remote 

from the factory than the CEP level and 

there is no basis for determining 

whether the difference in the levels 

between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability, we adjust NV under 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEPoffset provision). See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 

1997). 

ACA reported two levels of trade in 

the U.S. and third country markets 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Notices 623

1See page 16 of the Decision Memorandum, 

which is available on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/canada/03–22661–

1.pdf or in the Import Administration’s Central 

Records Unit located at Room B–099, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania Avenue 

and 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

corresponding to differing channels of 

distribution: (1) Sales to packers and (2) 

sales to importers. The Department has 

determined that differing channels of 

distribution, alone, do not qualify as 

separate levels of trade (LOTs) when 

selling functions performed for each 

customer class are sufficiently similar. 

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 

warranty services were provided. We do 

not find the varying degree of warranty 

services sufficient to determine the 

existence of different marketing stages. 

Thus, we have determined there is only 

one level of trade for ACA’s sales to all 

markets. See ACA’s Analysis 

Memorandum dated December 30, 2003. 

HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco and 

TransHoney reported a single level of 

trade for all U.S. and third country 

sales. Each company claimed that its 

selling activities in both markets are 

identical. At verification, we found 

essentially the same services offered in 

both markets. Therefore for HoneyMax, 

Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney, we 

determine that all reported sales are 

made at the same level of trade, and we 

have no need to make a level of trade 

adjustment. See Analysis Memoranda 

for HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco and 

TransHoney dated December 30, 2003. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise made by ACA, HoneyMax, 

Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney to the 

United States were made at less than 

fair value, we compared the EP or CEP, 

to the NV, as described below. Pursuant 

to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we 

compared the EP or CEP of individual 

U.S. transactions to the monthly weightaveraged NV of the foreign like product 

where there were sales at prices above 

the cost of production (COP), as 

discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section below. 

Transactions Investigated 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that the Department 

will 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 and HoneyMax 

(U.S. sales), the Department used the 

reported shipment date as shipment 

occurred prior to invoice date. 

TransHoney reported either shipment 

date or invoice date, whichever 

occurred first. Nexco, Seylinco, and 

HoneyMax (third country sales) 

reported the invoice date as date of sale. 

However, for Nexco the Department 

used shipment date as date of sale 

where shipment date occurred prior to 

invoice date as it is the Department’s 

practice to use the date of shipment as 

the date of sale where date of shipment 

precedes 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 3.1

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

Section 772(a) of the 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 

subsection (c). Section 772(b) of the 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 subsections (c) and 

(d). For purposes of this administrative 

review, HoneyMax classified all of its 

U.S. sales as CEP because all of its U.S. 

sales were made through its whollyowned U.S. affiliate to non-affiliated 

purchasers in the United States. ACA, 

Nexco, Seylinco and TransHoney have 

classified their U.S. sales as EP because 

all sales were made to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the U.S. market. For 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we have accepted these classifications.

Normal Value 

1. Home Market Viability 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the 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. For HoneyMax, Nexco, 

Seylinco, and TransHoney, the aggregate 

volume of sales in the home market of 

the foreign like product was less than 

five percent of the aggregate volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

Therefore, we determined for these 

companies that sales in the home 

market did not provide a viable basis for 

calculating NV. 

Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) provides that 

Commerce may determine that home 

market sales are inappropriate as a basis 

for determining normal value if the 

particular market situation would not 

permit a proper comparison. On March 

4, 2003, ACA alleged that during the 

POR a particular market situation 

existed with respect to sales of honey in 

Argentina which renders these sales 

inappropriate for purposes of 

calculating NV. Petitioners responded 

on March 26, 2003, alleging that ACA 

failed to explain why their home market 

is not appropriate for determining 

normal value. On April 10, ACA 

responded deeming the following 

factors relevant in finding a particular 

market situation with respect to honey 

sold in the Argentine market: (1) The 

industry is export oriented; (2) home 

market sales are incidental and of 

inferior quality; (3) sales were at 

reduced prices; and (4) the marketing 

and distribution of domestic sales were 

perfunctory. On April 25, 2003, the 

Department determined that a particular 

market situation exists with respect to 

ACA’s sales of honey in Argentina 

which renders the Argentine market 

inappropriate for purposes of 

determining normal value. See Decision 

Memorandum of Analysis of Particular 

Market Place Situation from Angela 

Strom Through Donna Kinsella and 

Richard Weible to Barbara Tillman,

dated April 25, 2003. 

When sales in the home market are 

not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the 

Act provides that sales to a particular 

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 thirdcountry 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. HoneyMax, Nexco, 

624 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Notices 

2See Selection of Cost of Production Respondents 

Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from The Team

dated July 14, 2003.

TransHoney and Seylinco reported 

Germany as their largest third country 

market during the POR in terms of 

volume of sales (and with five percent 

or more of sales to the United States). 

ACA reported the United Kingdom as its 

largest third country market during the 

POR in terms of volume of sales (and 

with five percent or more of sales to the 

United States). See 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 (August 7, 2002), 

(selecting the largest third country 

market as the basis for normal value). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the prices in Germany 

and the United Kingdom are 

representative and no particular market 

situation exists that would prevent a 

proper comparison. As a result, for 

HoneyMax, Nexco, TransHoney, and 

Seylinco, normal value is based on sales 

to Germany. For ACA, normal value is 

based on sales to the United Kingdom. 

For all companies under review, 

therefore, NV is based on third country 

market sales to unaffiliated purchasers 

made in the usual 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 or 

CEP as appropriate. We calculated NV 

as noted in the ‘‘Price-to-CV 

Comparisons’’ and ‘‘Price-to-Price 

Comparisons’’ sections of this notice. 

2. Cost of Production 

Background 

Based on the information contained in 

a timely cost allegation filed by 

petitioners on May 12, 2003, the 

Department found reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that sales of the 

foreign like product by HoneyMax and 

TransHoney, in their respective 

comparison markets, were made at 

prices below the cost of production, 

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

See Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales 

Below Cost dated May 12, 2003. As a 

result, the Department initiated a sales 

below-cost investigation for TransHoney 

and Honeymax. See Decision 

Memorandum of Petitioner’s Allegation 

of Sales Below the Cost of Production by 

Cia Europeo Americana, S.A., 

HoneyMax, S.A., Nexco, S.A., Seylinco, 

S.A. and TransHoney, S.A. from the 

Team to Barbara Tillman, dated July 2, 

2003; and Decision Memorandum of 

Initiation of a Cost Investigation for 

HoneyMax, S.A. (‘‘HoneyMax’’); and 

Rescission of Request for Constructed 

Value, Pursuant to an August 28, 2003, 

Request from the Department; from the 

Team to Joseph Spetrini, dated 

September 29, 2003.

With respect to ACA, because the 

Department found in the investigation 

certain sales made to the comparison 

market at prices below the cost of 

producing the subject merchandise and 

excluded such sales from normal value, 

the Department determined that there 

are 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 Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 

FR 50611 (October 4, 2001); and section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. As a result, 

the Department initiated a sales below 

cost investigation with respect to ACA 

to determine whether ACA made sales 

to the comparison market during the 

POR at prices below the respective COP 

within the meaning of section 773(b) of 

the Act. 

A. Cost of Production Analysis 

As noted above, because the 

Department disregarded sales below 

cost in the investigation for ACA, which 

was the most recently completed 

segment of the proceeding, we 

automatically initiated a cost of 

production (COP) inquiry for this 

respondent. For both HoneyMax and 

TransHoney S.A., based on our analysis 

of allegations made by the petitioners 

after the initiation of the administrative 

review, we found that there were 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of honey in the comparison 

market were made at prices below their 

COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 

773(b) of the Act, we initiated companyspecific sales-below-cost investigations 

to determine whether sales of honey 

were made at prices below their COP. 

Further, as noted above in the case 

history, on March 14, 18, and 28, 2003, 

the aforementioned respondents stated 

in the section A questionnaire responses 

that they were exporters of the subject 

merchandise, not producers of subject 

merchandise, and included a list of their 

honey suppliers. Because each exporter 

reported that it had approximately 20 to 

300 beekeeper suppliers and 8 to 20 

intermediary suppliers, the Department 

developed a methodology to calculate a 

representative COP and CV for the 

merchandise under consideration. The 

Department’s cost respondent 

methodology resulted in selecting five 

beekeepers that supplied the largest 

quantity of honey to each exporter as 

reported in the exporters’ list of 

beekeeper suppliers.2 In addition, the 

Department selected one intermediary 

supplier that supplied that largest 

quantity of honey to each exporter. A 

simple average of the costs of 

production for each exporter was then 

calculated.

B. Calculation of COP 

As noted above, respondents were 

exporters of the subject merchandise, 

not producers of subject merchandise. 

Therefore, consistent with our practice 

regarding the cost of resales of subject 

merchandise, we requested COP data 

from selected beekeeper suppliers for 

each exporter. See Selection of Cost of 

Production Respondents Memorandum,

dated July 14, 2003. In accordance with 

section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we 

calculated a COP for each beekeeper 

supplier based on the sum of the cost of 

materials and fabrication for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for general 

and administrative (G&A) expenses, 

interest expenses and comparison 

market packing costs for each exporter’s 

selected beekeeper suppliers. We then 

added the associated selling expenses 

that each exporter incurred to calculate 

the final COP. 

As specified below, we determined 

that the Argentine economy experienced 

significant inflation during the POR. 

Therefore, in order to avoid the 

distortive effect of inflation in our 

comparison of costs and prices, we 

requested that the beekeeper suppliers 

submit the product-specific cost of 

production (COP) incurred during the 

cost reporting period which 

corresponded to a full honey growing 

and harvesting season. We then 

calculated an average COP for honey 

after indexing the reported monthly 

costs to an equivalent currency level as 

of November 2002 using the wholesale 

price index from the Argentine Instituto 

National de Estadistica y Censos to 

reflect the effects of inflation. After 

calculating the weighted average COP 

for each cost respondent, we calculated 

an average COP for each exporter based 

on that exporter’s selected honey 

suppliers. We then restated the average 

COPs for each exporter in the currency 

value of each respective month. 

Common and Individual Cost 

Respondent Adjustments 

We relied on the COP data submitted 

by each cost respondent in its cost 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Notices 625

3See RESOLUCION C.N.T.A. N° 33/94 issued on 

December 29, 1994, which is available on the Web 

at http://www.trabajo.gov.ar/legislacion/resolucion/

files_rural/res0033–1994.dot.

questionnaire response, as discussed 

below: 

(1) Common Cost Respondent 

Adjustment 

We adjusted the reported labor costs 

for all cost respondents. Virtually all of 

the labor provided on these farms was 

performed by the owners or a small 

number of hired laborers. For reporting 

purposes, a majority of the cost 

respondents relied on estimated labor 

hours and rates for the hired laborers 

and minimal or zero labor costs for the 

owners. However, nine of the beekeeper 

suppliers did not maintain any labor 

type records and could not provide 

supporting documentation for the labor 

costs reported for hired laborers. In 

addition, none of the beekeeper 

suppliers were able to provide support 

for the reported owner’s labor costs. As 

a result, we relied instead on the per 

hive labor rate from the one beekeeper 

supplier that maintained and provided 

supporting documentation for the costs 

incurred for hired laborers to produce 

honey. For the owner’s labor costs, we 

used the labor cost from the Argentine 

Government’s Bulletin For Agricultural 

Workers.3

We adjusted the denominator used in 

the calculation of the general and 

administrative expenses (G&A) and the 

financial expense ratios for all 

beekeepers. We excluded imputed labor 

from the total cost of manufacturing 

(COM) of all products in the calculation 

of the ratio denominator. We then 

applied the calculated G&A and 

financial expense ratios to the per-unit 

COM exclusive of imputed labor. 

(2) Individual Cost Respondent 

Adjustments 

See Memoranda from The Team to 

Neal M. Halper, ‘‘Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Adjustments for 

the Preliminary Results,’’ dated 

December 30, 2003, (COP/CV 

Adjustments Memoranda). 

C. Test of Third Country Prices and 

Results of the COP Test

In determining whether to disregard 

third country market sales made at 

prices below the COP, we examined, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the Act: (1) Whether, within 

an extended period of time, such sales 

were made in substantial quantities; and 

(2) whether such sales were made at 

prices which permitted the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time in the normal course of trade. 

Where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model (i.e., CONNUM) were at 

prices below the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

model because we determined that the 

below-cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of the respondent’s 

home market sales of a given model 

were at prices less than COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because: (1) They were made within an 

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) 

based on our comparison of prices to the 

weighted-average COPs for the POR, 

they were at prices which would not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this 

administrative review, we disregarded 

below-cost sales made by TransHoney 

or ACA where 20 percent or more of the 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model were at prices less than 

COP, and used the remaining sales as 

the basis for determining NV, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act. 

With respect to HoneyMax, because 

the Department did not receive COP 

information from HoneyMax suppliers 

until very late in the proceeding, we 

were unable to incorporate sales below 

cost analysis in these preliminary 

results of the review. Subsequent to 

these preliminary results and prior to 

the date for comments with respect to 

HoneyMax, the Department intends to 

issue a preliminary analysis 

memorandum detailing the COP 

calculation for HoneyMax suppliers and 

the results of the cost test involving 

HoneyMax sales. These results, in 

consideration of all comments 

submitted, will be included in the 

Department’s final results of the review. 

Price-to-Price Comparisons 

ACA 

For those product comparisons for 

which there were sales at prices above 

the COP, we based NV on the third 

country market prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers. We made adjustments, 

where applicable, for movement 

expenses (i.e., inland freight) in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. We also made adjustments, 

where applicable, for direct selling 

expenses, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. See ACA’s 

Analysis Memorandum dated December 

30, 2003. 

HoneyMax 

We based NV on the third country 

market prices to unaffiliated purchasers. 

We made adjustments, where 

applicable, for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale 

adjustments for credit, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C). We also made adjustments, 

where applicable, for other direct selling 

expenses in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. See HoneyMax’s 

Analysis Memorandum dated December 

30, 2003. 

Nexco 

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 Act. We made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 

credit and other direct selling expenses 

where appropriate in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. See 

Nexco’s Analysis Memorandum dated 

December 30, 2003. 

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 Act. We made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 

credit where appropriate in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We 

also made adjustments, where 

applicable, for other direct selling 

expenses in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. See Seylinco’s 

Analysis Memorandum dated December 

30, 2003. 

TransHoney 

For those product comparisons for 

which there were sales at prices above 

the COP, we based NV on the third 

country market prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers. We made adjustments, 

where applicable, for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 

credit and direct selling expenses, 

where appropriate, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)C of the Act. See 

TransHoney’s Analysis Memorandum

dated December 30, 2003. 

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act. Section 773A(a) of the 

Act directs the Department to use a 

daily exchange rate in order to convert 

foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 

unless the daily rate involves a 

626 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Notices 

fluctuation. It is the Department’s 

practice to find that a fluctuation exists 

when the daily exchange rate differs 

from the benchmark rate by 2.25 

percent. The benchmark is defined as 

the moving average of rates for the past 

40 business days. When we determine a 

fluctuation to have existed, we 

substitute the benchmark rate for the 

daily rate, in accordance with 

established practice. See Policy Bulletin 

96.1; see also Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly 

Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From 

the Netherlands, 64 FR 36841, 36843 

(July 8, 1999); Notice of Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From 

Thailand, 64 FR 30476, 30480 (June 8, 

1999). 

In adopting its currency conversion 

policy, the Department recognized that 

a sudden large decrease in the value of 

a currency without any significant 

rebound could meet the technical 

definition of a fluctuation. To avoid this 

unintended result, in Policy Bulletin 

96.1 the Department explained that we 

would apply the average benchmark rate 

in the case of an exchange rate 

‘‘fluctuation’’ but also stated that we 

would use daily rates when ‘‘the decline 

in the value of a foreign currency is so 

precipitous and large as to reasonably 

preclude the possibility that it is merely 

fluctuating.’’ In Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 

From Korea, 64 FR 30664 (June 8, 1999) 

(SSSS from Korea), the Department 

found that a decline of more than 40 

percent within a two-month period was 

sufficiently large and precipitous that 

use of daily rates was warranted during 

this two-month period. In contrast, in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Extruded 

Rubber Thread from Indonesia, 64 FR 

14690, 14693 (March 26, 1999) 

(Extruded Rubber Thread from 

Indonesia), the Department found that a 

decline of some 50 percent spread over 

five months was not precipitous and 

large and continued to employ its 

normal exchange rate methodology. See 

64 FR 14690, 14693 (March 26, 1999). 

See Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 64 FR 

56759, 56763 (October 21, 1999) (Pipe 

and Tube from Thailand). See also, 

DRAMS from Korea: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 69694, 69703–04 

(December 14, 1999). 

Our preliminary analysis of dollarpeso exchange rates shows that the peso 

declined rapidly in early 2002, losing 

almost 70 percent of its value over a 

three month period. Prior to this, the 

Argentine peso was pegged to the U.S. 

dollar and it did not fluctuate. Starting 

in January 2002, however, the peso 

experienced a large decline against the 

dollar in short succession, and it did not 

rebound significantly in a short time. 

Indeed, the decline in value of the peso 

was as large and more rapid than the 

decline in the value of the Korean won 

in 1997, which we have found to be 

precipitous and large. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value of Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils from the Republic of 

Korea, 64 FR 109, 30664, 30670 (June 8, 

1999). As such, we preliminary 

determine that the decline in the peso 

during January through March 2002 was 

of such magnitude that the dollar-peso 

exchange rate cannot reasonably be 

viewed as having simply fluctuated at 

that time, i.e., as having experienced 

only a momentary drop in value relative 

to the normal benchmark. We find that 

there was a large, precipitous drop in 

the value of the peso in relation to the 

U.S. dollar between January through 

March 2002, warranting application of 

daily exchange rates. We recognize that, 

following a large and precipitous 

decline in the value of a currency, a 

period may exist during which 

exchange rate expectations are revised 

and thus it is unclear whether further 

declines are a continuation of the large 

and precipitous decline or merely 

fluctuations. Thus, we devised a 

methodology for identifying the point 

following a precipitous drop at which it 

is reasonable to presume the rates were 

merely fluctuating. Beginning on 

January 7, 2002, we used only actual 

daily rates until the daily rates were not 

more than 2.25 percent below the 

average of the 20 previous daily rates for 

five consecutive days. At that point, we 

determined that the pattern of daily 

rates no longer reasonably precluded the 

possibility that they were merely 

‘‘fluctuating.’’ Using a 20-day average 

for this purpose provides a reasonable 

indication that it is no longer necessary 

to refrain from using the normal 

methodology, while avoiding the use of 

daily rates exclusively for an excessive 

period of time. Accordingly, from the 

first of these five days, we resumed 

classifying daily rates as ‘‘fluctuating’’

or ‘‘normal’’ in accordance with our 

standard practice, except that we began 

with a 20-day benchmark and on each 

succeeding day added a daily rate to the 

average until the normal 40-day average 

was restored as the benchmark. See Pipe 

and Tube from Thailand. Applying this 

methodology in the instant case, we 

used daily rates from January 7, 2002, 

through March 31, 2002. We then 

resumed the use of our normal 

methodology through the end of the 

period of review (November 30, 2002), 

starting with a benchmark based on the 

average of the 20 reported daily rates 

beginning on April 1, 2002. 

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 Coins from France, 68 FR 47049 

(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. The 

exchange rate is expressed as pesos per 

dollar. 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 May 11, 2001, 

through November 30, 2002:

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted

average margin

(percentage) 

Asociacion de 

Cooperativas Argentinas 0 

HoneyMax S.A .................. 0 

Nexco S.A ......................... 0.87 

Seylinco S.A ..................... 0.59 

TransHoney S.A ............... 0 

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 per 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Notices 627

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 issue, (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. 

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. 

Furthermore, 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 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 (36.59 percent); See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value; Honey From 

Argentina, 66FR 50611–50613, 40562 

(October 4, 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 Act.

Dated: December 30, 2003. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–236 Filed 1–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–850] 

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy 

Seamless Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of 

antidumping duty administrative 

review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 2004.

SUMMARY: On July 29, 2003, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register (68 FR 44524) a notice 

announcing the initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain large 

diameter carbon and alloy seamless 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from 

Japan covering the period June 1, 2002, 

through May 31, 2003. This review was 

requested by United States Steel 

Corporation (the petitioner). We are now 

rescinding this review as a result of the 

petitioner’s withdrawal of its request for 

an administrative review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance Handley or Keith Nickerson, 

at (202) 482–0631 or (202) 482–3813, 

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Office 5, Group II, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), on June 30, 2003, the 

petitioner requested an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

for Kawasaki Steel Corporation, Nippon 

Steel Corporation, NKK Tubes and 

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. 

(collectively, the respondents) on 

certain large diameter carbon and alloy 

seamless standard, line, and pressure 

pipe from Japan. On July 29, 2003, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an 

administrative review of this order for 

the period June 1, 2002, through May 

31, 2003 (68 FR 44524). The petitioner 

withdrew its request for this review on 

December 22, 2003. 

Rescission of Review 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the 

Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review. The 

regulations further provide that the 

Secretary ‘‘may extend this time limit if 

the Secretary decides that it is 

reasonable to do so.’’ The petitioner was 

the only party to request this review. 

Although the petitioner’s withdrawal 

request for this review was not within 

the normal time limit as prescribed in 

section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, we find that, 

under the circumstances of this review, 

it is appropriate to accept the 

withdrawal request and rescind the 

review. Continuing the review would 

only require the petitioner, respondents, 

and the Department expend time and 

resources on a review in which the only 

party that requested the review is no 

longer interested. 

The respondents have either claimed 

no shipments during the period of 

review or have stated that they will not 

participate in the review in response to 

the Department’s questionnaire, and, 

therefore, the Department has neither 

released supplemental questionnaires 

nor conducted verification at this point 

in the proceeding. Accordingly, the 

Department does not believe the 

administrative review has proceeded to 

a point at which it would be 

‘‘unreasonable’’ to rescind the review. 

The Department, therefore, determines 

that it is reasonable to extend the 90-day 

time limit and to rescind the