Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77195

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 is 

accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of 

the Department’s regulations. 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 include 

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 150 days after 

the date of publication of this notice 

(see ‘‘Extension of Final Results’’

section above). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under section 

351.402(f) of the Department’s 

regulations to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 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 administrative review and this 

notice are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act.

Dated: December 15, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–28119 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–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.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping order of honey from 

Argentina. The review covers seven 

firms. The period of review (POR) is 

December 1, 2002 through November 

30, 2003. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of honey from Argentina have been 

made below the normal value (NV) in 

the case of Nutrin S.A (Nutrin). In the 

case of the other six respondents, 

Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas 

(ACA), Compania Apicola Argentina 

(CAA), HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax), 

Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco), TransHoney 

S.A. (TransHoney), and Nexco S.A. 

(Nexco), we preliminary determine a 

zero or de minimis margin. 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: December 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Cordell for TransHoney and for 

CAA, Brian Sheba for HoneyMax and 

Seylinco, Angela Strom for ACA, Nexco 

and Nutrin, or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0649 OR 

(202) 482–0408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 10, 2001, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order on Honey from Argentina. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 63672. On 

December 31, 2003, the American 

Honey Producers Association and the 

Sioux Honey Association (collectively, 

petitioners) requested an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on honey from Argentina in response to 

the Department’s notice of opportunity 

to request a review published in the 

Federal Register. Petitioners requested 

the Department review entries of subject 

merchandise made by 13 Argentine 

producers/exporters. In addition, the 

Department received requests for review 

from five Argentine exporters. On 

January 15, 2004, petitioners withdrew 

four of their 13 requests. The 

Department initiated the review for the 

remaining nine companies. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 69 FR 3117–3119 (January 22, 

2004). 

On February 18, 2004, petitioners 

withdrew their requests for review for a 

further two companies. The Department 

subsequently rescinded the review with 

respect to these two companies 

Compania Europea Americana, S.A. and 

Radix S.r.L. See Honey from Argentina: 

Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 69 FR 12121 (March 15, 2004). 

On February 11, 2004, the Department 

issued sections A, B, and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire to all 

exporters subject to review. We received 

responses on March 22 and April 6, 

2004, (ACA); March 3 and March 29, 

2004, (HoneyMax); March 19 and April 

2, 2004, (Nexco); March 10 and April 2, 

2004, (Seylinco); March 17, and April 2, 

2004, (TransHoney); March 18 and April 

2, 2004, (CAA). We received no 

response from Nutrin. After numerous 

attempts to contact counsel for Nutrin, 

on June 24, 2004, Nutrin’s counsel 

stated Nutrin would not be responding 

to the Department’s requests for 

information. See Memoranda to the File 

dated April 7, 2004, and June 24, 2004. 

We received no comments from 

petitioners. 

The Department issued additional 

supplemental questionnaires on April 

16 (TransHoney); March 30, May 6, July 

26, and August 20 (CAA); April 15 and 

May 4 (ACA); April 15 and July 30 

(Nexco); May 6 and August 2 

(Honeymax) and May 6 (Seylinco). We 

received responses to these additional 

supplemental questionnaires on May 3 

(TransHoney); May 6, May 20, August 

16, September 3, September 20, 

September 27, and September 29 (CAA); 

April 28 and May 12 (ACA); May 7 and 

August 13 (Nexco); May 20 (Seylinco); 

and May 27 and August 23 (HoneyMax). 

On June 30, 2004, the Department 

77196 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

determined a ‘‘particular market 

situation’’ existed in Argentina during 

the POR. See the discussion of 

‘‘Selection of Comparison Market’’

under ‘‘Normal Value’’ below. 

Consequently on June 30, 2004, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to CAA’s affiliate, Mielar 

S.A. (Mielar), requesting a Section B 

sales database covering sales by Mielar 

to Germany, Mielar’s largest thirdcountry market. Mielar filed its Section 

B sales database on July 21, 2004. 

On November 5, 2004, CAA 

responded to the Department’s request 

for audited financial statements for the 

2003 fiscal year for Mielar. On 

November 16, 2004, the Department 

rejected an untimely submission 

purporting to describe the adjustments 

made to reconcile the unaudited 

financial statements to the audited 

financial report. 

On August 11, 2004, the Department 

extended the time limit for issuance of 

the preliminary results of the 

administrative review to December 20, 

2004. See Honey from Argentina; 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Administrative Review, 69 FR 

48843 (August 11, 2004). 

Because the Department disregarded 

certain ACA sales at prices below the 

cost of production (COP) in the most 

recently completed segment of the 

proceeding at the time of initiation of 

this review, namely the investigation, 

the Department initiated a cost 

investigation and selected six of ACA’s 

unaffiliated suppliers to serve as cost 

respondents. On April 29, 2004, the 

Department issued Section D 

questionnaires to four honey suppliers 

(three beekeepers and one middleman). 

On May 5, 2004, the Department 

selected a new beekeeper to replace one 

of the original cost respondents. On May 

10, 2004, the Department issued its 

Section D questionnaire to the final two 

beekeepers. On June 17, 2004, the 

Department excused the middleman for 

ACA from responding to Section D. On 

June 22, 2004, the Department received 

responses from the five beekeepers 

serving as the cost respondents. 

Supplemental questionnaires were 

issued on August 5, 2004, to two 

beekeepers and on August 10, 2004, to 

the three other beekeepers. Responses to 

these supplemental questionnaires were 

received on September 9, 2004. 

Scope of the Review 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is honey from Argentina. The 

products covered are natural honey, 

artificial honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, 

preparations of natural honey 

containing more than 50 percent natural 

honey by weight, and flavored honey. 

The subject merchandise includes all 

grades and colors of honey whether in 

liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or 

chunk form, and whether packaged for 

retail or in bulk form. 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, 

and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under this order is 

dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

we verified sales information provided 

by CAA and cost information provided 

by ACA, using standard verification 

procedures such as the examination of 

relevant sales and financial records. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

public and proprietary versions of our 

verification reports, which are on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

See CAA’s Sales Verification Report, 

dated December 20, 2004, and 

Verification of ACA and selected 

beekeepers, dated November 26, 2004, 

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 the Review’’ section of this 

notice, supra, which were sold in the 

respective third-country markets during 

the POR to be the foreign like product 

for the purpose of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

honey sold in the United States. We 

matched products based on the physical 

characteristics reported by CAA, ACA, 

HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and 

TransHoney. Where there were no sales 

of identical merchandise in the thirdcountry 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 LOT is that of the starting-price 

sales in the home market or, when NV 

is based on CV, that of the sales from 

which we derive selling, general and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses and 

profit. For CEP, it is the level of the 

constructed sale from the exporter to an 

affiliated importer after the deductions 

required under section 772(d) of the 

Act. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT 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 LOT and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison-market sales at the LOT 

of the export transaction, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the 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 LOTs in the thirdcountry market 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 LOTs when selling functions 

performed for each customer class are 

sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 

351412(c)(2). We found that the selling 

functions ACA provided to its reported 

channels of distribution in the thirdcountry 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 alone sufficient to 

determine the existence of different 

marketing stages. See Final 

Determination of Honey from Argentina

66 FR 50611 (Comment 18); Preliminary 

Results; Honey from Argentina, 69 FR 

62168 (January 6, 2004). Thus, we have 

determined there is only one LOT for 

ACA’s sales to all markets. See ACA’s 

Analysis Memorandum, dated 

December 20, 2004. 

CAA, HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, 

and TransHoney reported a single LOT 

for all U.S. and third-country sales. Each 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77197

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 CRU located 

at Room B–099, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230.

company claimed that its selling 

activities in both markets are identical, 

although we note Seylinco sold to two 

general classes of customers in both the 

U.S. and Germany. For CAA, 

HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and 

TransHoney, we determine that all 

reported sales are made at the same 

LOT, and we have no need to make an 

LOT adjustment. See Analysis 

Memoranda for CAA, HoneyMax, 

Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney, 

dated December 20, 2004. 

Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise made by CAA, 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 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 

normally will use date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, as the date of sale, but may 

use a date other than the date of invoice 

if it better reflects the date on which 

material terms of sale are established. 

For ACA, the Department, consistent 

with its practice, used the reported 

shipment date as the date of sale for 

both its third-country and U.S. markets 

since shipment occurred prior to 

invoice date. See Notice of Final 

Determinations of Sales at Less than 

Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and 

Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 

68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and 

accompanying Decision Memo at 

Comment 3.1 CAA, TransHoney, and 

Nexco reported the earlier of either 

shipment date or invoice date as the 

date of sale for both markets. Seylinco 

reported the invoice date as the date of 

sale for both markets. HoneyMax 

reported the shipment date as the date 

of sale for U.S. sales; however, we used 

the invoice date for its third-country 

market sales.

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 wholly 

owned U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. ACA, 

CAA, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney 

have classified their U.S. sales as EP 

because all of their sales were made 

before the date of importation directly to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. 

market. For purposes of these 

preliminary results, we have accepted 

these classifications. 

Affiliation 

On June 30, 2004, the Department 

determined that CAA, Mielar, and El 

Chelibo (Chelibo) are affiliated within 

the meaning of section 771(3)(B) of the 

Act, and that the Department should 

treat the three companies as a single 

entity for the purposes of this 

administrative review. See Decision 

Memorandum of Relationship of CAA, 

Chelibo and Mielar in the 2002–2003 

Administrative Review of AD Order on 

Honey from Argentina from David 

Cordell through Robert James to Richard 

Weible, dated June 30, 2004. 

Normal Value 

1. Selection of Comparison Market 

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. 

In addition, section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) 

provides that the Department may 

determine that home market sales are 

inappropriate as a basis for determining 

NV if the particular market situation 

would not permit a proper comparison 

with EP or CEP. During the first review 

of this order, the Department found a 

particular market situation rendered the 

Argentine market inappropriate for the 

calculation of NV because of, among 

other reasons, the export-oriented 

nature of the Argentine honey industry. 

See Honey from Argentina-Preliminary 

Results of Anti-Dumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 621 

(January 6, 2004) Honey From 

Argentina: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review (No Changes) 69 FR 30283 (May 

27, 2004). On May 4 and May 12, 2004, 

the Department asked ACA and CAA, 

respectively, to provide further 

information in order to evaluate the 

market situation in Argentina with 

respect to honey, and on May 12 and 

May 20, 2004, respectively, ACA and 

CAA responded to the Department’s 

request. ACA states the circumstances 

in this review are the same as in the first 

review, while CAA argues the honey 

sold in the home market is identical or 

similar to the honey sold in the United 

States and in the third-country markets, 

arguing against finding a ‘‘particular 

market situation’’ in Argentina.

On June 30, 2004, the Department 

determined that a particular market 

situation does, in fact, exist with respect 

to ACA’s and CAA’s sales of honey in 

Argentina, rendering the Argentine 

market inappropriate for purposes of 

determining NV. See Decision 

Memorandum ‘‘Analysis of Particular 

Market Place Situation’’ from Angela 

Strom through Robert James to Richard 

Weible, dated June 30, 2004. 

When sales in the home market are 

not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act 

provides that sales to a third-country 

market may be utilized if (i) the prices 

in such market are representative; (ii) 

the aggregate quantity of the foreign like 

product sold by the producer or 

exporter in the third-country market is 

five percent or more of the aggregate 

quantity of the subject merchandise sold 

77198 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

2See http://ww.trabajo.gov.ar/ legislacion/

resolucion/ fileslrural/ res0033–1994.dot.

3See http://www.indec.mecon.gov.ar/.

in or to the United States; and (iii) the 

Department does not determine that a 

particular market situation in the thirdcountry market prevents a proper 

comparison with the U.S. price. CAA, 

Nexco, TransHoney, and Seylinco 

reported Germany as their largest thirdcountry market during the POR, in 

terms of volume of sales (and with five 

percent or more of sales, by quantity, to 

the United States). ACA reported the 

United Kingdom as its largest thirdcountry market during the POR, in 

terms of volume of sales (and with five 

percent or more of sales to the United 

States). Honeymax reported Australia 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, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Determination To Revoke 

the Order in Part, and Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From 

Chile, 67 FR 51186 (August 7, 2002) 

(selecting the largest third-country 

market as the basis for NV). The 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the prices in Germany, the United 

Kingdom, and Australia are 

representative and no particular market 

situation exists that would prevent a 

proper comparison to EP or CEP. As a 

result, for Nexco, TransHoney, CAA, 

and Seylinco, NV is based on sales to 

Germany. For HoneyMax, NV is based 

on sales to Australia. Finally, for ACA, 

NV is based on sales to the United 

Kingdom. 

In summary, therefore, NV for all 

companies is based on third-country 

market sales to unaffiliated purchasers 

made in commercial quantities and in 

the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we 

used the prices at which the foreign like 

product was first sold for consumption 

in the usual commercial quantities, in 

the ordinary course of trade, and, to the 

extent possible, at the same LOT as the 

EP or CEP, as appropriate. We 

calculated NV as noted in the ‘‘Price-toCV Comparisons’’ and ‘‘Price-to-Price 

Comparisons’’ sections of this notice. 

Background 

2. Cost of Production 

The Department disregarded certain 

sales made by ACA to its comparison 

market at prices below the cost of 

producing the subject merchandise in 

the investigation of this antidumping 

duty order. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 

FR 50611 (October 4, 2001) and Notice 

of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey 

from Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov 21, 

2001) (Final Determination). Because 

the investigation was the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding 

upon initiation of this administrative 

review, the Department determined 

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 section 773(b)(2)(A) of 

the Act. Therefore, we initiated a COP 

inquiry for ACA to determine whether 

ACA made sales in the comparison 

market at prices below the respective 

COP. 

A. Cost of Production Analysis 

We initiated a company-specific salesbelow-cost investigation with respect to 

ACA. As previously stated in this 

proceeding, ACA again indicated that it 

is an exporter, not a producer, of subject 

merchandise in this review. On March 

22, 2004, ACA submitted a list of its 

unaffiliated honey suppliers, which 

identified companies, individuals, and 

cooperatives operating as either 

producers (beekeepers) or 

intermediaries (middlemen) in ACA’s 

honey purchases. To calculate a 

representative COP and CV for the 

merchandise under consideration, the 

Department followed the same 

methodology relied upon in the first 

administrative review. The Department 

selected five beekeepers and one 

middleman from ACA’s list of suppliers. 

See Memorandum to the File: ‘‘Cost 

Respondents,’’ dated April 23, 2004. On 

June 17, 2004, the Department notified 

ACA that it would excuse the selected 

middleman from responding to the 

Department’s cost questionnaire. The 

cost information placed on the record by 

the beekeepers in the current 

administrative review obviated the need 

to obtain the middleman costs for 

purposes of our cost analysis. Thus, as 

in the previous review, the COP 

information for ACA was based upon 

the cost data provided by its five largest 

beekeeper suppliers.

B. Calculation of COP 

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. We then added the associated 

selling expenses that ACA incurred to 

calculate the final COP figure. 

(1) Common and Individual Cost 

Respondent Adjustments 

We relied on the COP data submitted 

by each beekeeper in its cost 

questionnaire response, except for the 

adjustments as discussed below. 

We adjusted the reported labor costs 

for all beekeepers. Virtually all of the 

labor provided was performed by either 

the owners or by a small number of 

hired laborers. For reporting purposes, 

the majority of the cost respondents 

relied on estimated labor hours and 

rates for the tasks performed by owners 

and their employees. Two of the five 

beekeeper suppliers could not provide 

any type of supporting documentation 

for the reported salaries and labor costs 

reported for their employees. In 

addition, none of the beekeepers were 

able to provide support for the reported 

owners’ labor costs. Therefore, to 

calculate employee labor costs for each 

of the beekeepers, we relied on the 

salaries reported for employees from 

three beekeepers who maintained and 

provided supporting documentation. 

For these three beekeepers, we 

calculated a weighted-average labor cost 

using the labor costs reported for 

employees and the quantity of honey 

produced in kilograms. We then 

compared this calculated labor cost to 

the reported labor cost, and used the 

higher of the two amounts. For the 

owner’s labor costs, we imputed a labor 

cost retrieved from the Argentine 

Government’s Bulletin For Agricultural 

Workers.2 We indexed the owner’s 

salary from the 1995 publication to the 

November 2003 Argentine Peso Value 

using the wholesale price index (IPIM).3

See Cost of Production Adjustments for 

the Preliminary Results—Associacion 

de Cooperativas Argentinas (‘‘ACA’’) 

Beekeeper Respondents, dated 

December 20, 2004, (ACA Cost 

Memorandum).

With respect to feed for their hives, 

the beekeepers did not keep formal 

records on consumption rates or 

inventory. Similar to the previous 

review, we calculated a per-kilogram 

feed cost for each beekeeper based on 

the cost studies from the petition. For 

each beekeeper, we compared the 

calculated per-unit feed cost figures to 

those reported by the beekeeper, and 

relied on the higher of the two. 

(2) Individual Cost Respondent 

Adjustments 

For two of the beekeeper cost 

respondents, we made minor cost 

adjustments based on information 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77199

provided in a supplemental 

questionnaire response and our findings 

at verification. See (ACA Cost 

Memorandum). 

C. Test of Third-Country Prices and 

Results of the Cost of Prodcution Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

third country market sales made at 

prices below the COP, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act, we examined: (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 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. 

Price-to-Price Comparisons 

ACA 

For those product comparisons for 

which there were sales at prices above 

the COP, we based NV on the thirdcountry market prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers. In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we made 

adjustments, where applicable, for 

movement expenses. In accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 

credit and other direct selling expenses 

where appropriate. We note that for 

certain claimed direct expenses in the 

third-country market, the Department 

has re-classified them as indirect for the 

reasons outlined in the accompanying 

Analysis Memorandum. See ACA’s 

Sales Analysis Memorandum, dated 

December 20, 2004. 

CAA 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, 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)(C) of the Act, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 

credit and other direct selling expenses, 

where appropriate. We note that for 

certain claimed direct expenses in the 

third country market, the Department 

has re-classified these expenses as 

indirect for the reasons outlined in the 

accompanying Analysis Memorandum. 

See CAA’s Analysis Memorandum, 

dated December 20, 2004. 

HoneyMax 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we based NV on 

the third country market prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers. We made 

adjustments, where applicable, for 

movement expenses. 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 pursuant to 

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

the POR, HoneyMax stored honey at a 

warehouse owned by an affiliate. 

Although a contract stipulated a 

monthly rental fee for the warehouse, in 

fact, HoneyMax compensated its 

affiliate for use of the warehouse space 

by means of improvements made to the 

warehouse itself. Because no warehouse 

rent expenses are included in 

HoneyMax’s income statement or part of 

warehouse expenses in HoneyMax’s 

sales database, we have imputed 

warehouse rent expenses using the 

monthly rental fee set forth in the lease 

between HoneyMax and its affiliate. 

These changes included a warehouse 

improvement amortization expense 

made during the POR from HoneyMax’s 

financial statements as part of 

HoneyMax’s overall warehouse 

expenses. See HoneyMax Analysis 

Memorandum, dated December 20, 

2004, at 4. 

Nexco 

We based NV on the third-country 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers. In 

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

the Act, we made adjustments, where 

applicable, for movement expenses. 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 20, 

2004. 

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. Where 

appropriate, we made circumstance-ofsale adjustments for credit pursuant to 

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 20, 

2004. 

TransHoney 

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

TransHoney’s Analysis Memorandum, 

dated December 20, 2004.

Nutrin 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

We determine that the use of total 

adverse facts available is appropriate for 

the preliminary results with respect to 

Nutrin. Section 776(a)(1) of the Act 

mandates that the Department use facts 

available if necessary information is not 

available on the record of the 

proceeding. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department, fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under the antidumping 

statute, or provides such information 

but the information cannot be verified, 

the Department shall, subject to sections 

782(d) and (e) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. In applying 

facts otherwise available, section 776(b) 

of the Act further provides that the 

Department may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party, if 

the Department finds an interested party 

‘‘has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information.’’

Nutrin did not respond to the 

Department’s antidumping 

77200 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

questionnaire; thus, it has failed to 

supply the information necessary for the 

Department to conduct a margin 

analysis for purposes of this review. 

After requesting this review, Nutrin did 

not comply with the Department’s 

information requests, neglected to 

return phone calls from the Department, 

and failed to place any information on 

the record throughout the entire course 

of this review. Nutrin failed to 

participate in this administrative review 

and, thus, failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability. See Memorandum to the 

File from Angela Strom (documenting 

phone calls and Nutrin’s failure to 

respond to the Department’s requests), 

dated April 7, 2004, and Memorandum 

to the File from Angela Strom (Nutrin’s 

counsel confirming Nutrin would not 

participate in this review), dated June 

24, 2004. 

Because Nutrin failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability, we 

have determined that the application of 

adverse facts available (AFA) is 

warranted within the meaning of section 

776(b) of the Act. When making adverse 

inferences, the Department has the 

authority to consider the extent to 

which a party may benefit from its own 

lack of cooperation, deeming adverse 

inferences 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. 

103–316, at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) 

of the Act authorizes the Department to 

use as adverse facts available (AFA) 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination from the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, a 

previous administrative review, or any 

other information placed on the record. 

Because no information was placed 

on the record with respect to Nutrin in 

this review, the Department was unable 

to calculate a dumping margin for 

Nutrin. Consequently, we relied on 

information from the petition and final 

determination. Specifically, we are 

applying to Nutrin the highest margin 

determined in any segment of this 

proceeding, 55.15 percent, which was 

applied to a non-cooperative respondent 

during the investigation. This is the 

highest estimated dumping margin, 

adjusted for export subsidies, set forth 

in the LTFV investigation. See Final 

Determination, 66 FR 5834; Notice of 

Order, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 

2001). 

We note that information from the 

petition constitutes ‘‘secondary 

information.’’ See SAA at 870. Section 

776(c) of the Act provides that the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate secondary 

information used for facts available by 

reviewing independent sources 

reasonably at its disposal. The SAA 

further provides that the word 

‘‘corroborate’’ means the Department 

will satisfy itself that the secondary 

information used has probative value. 

As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in 

Outside Diameter, and Components 

Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial 

Termination of Administrative Review,

61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) 

(TRBs), in order to corroborate 

secondary information the Department 

will examine, to the extent practicable, 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used. Where circumstances 

indicate the selected margin is not 

appropriate as AFA, the Department 

will disregard the margin and determine 

an appropriate margin. See TRBs at 61 

FR 57392; see also Fresh Cut Flowers 

from Mexico; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 

1996). 

The implementing regulation for 

section 776 of the Act, at 19 CFR 

351.308(d), states ‘‘{t}he fact that 

corroboration may not be practicable in 

a given circumstance will not prevent 

the Secretary from applying an adverse 

inference as appropriate and using the 

secondary information in question.’’

The SAA also recognizes that the 

corroboration process must be flexible 

enough to induce future cooperation 

from respondents. Specifically, section 

(b) of the SAA states the fact that 

corroboration may not be practicable in 

a given circumstance will not prevent 

the Department from applying an 

adverse inference. See Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and 

Rescission in Part, 69 FR 70638 

(December 7, 2004).

Because the data used to calculate CV 

in the petition (i.e., COP figures, 

exporter’s selling and general expenses 

(SG&A), and profit rates) were based 

upon independent sources, foreign 

market research, and financial 

statements from the relevant parties 

involved, the Department believes this 

information has probative value. In 

deriving the margin, the Department 

used the calculated CV and compared it 

to sales prices derived from foreign 

market research and U.S. import 

statistics. The margin of 60.67 percent, 

adjusted downwardly for export 

subsidies in the order, ultimately 

yielded 55.15 percent. See Antidumping 

Duty Order.

In addition, because Nutrin currently 

is subject to the ‘‘All Others’’ rate of 

30.24 percent, the Department 

determines that assigning a rate of 55.15 

percent will prevent Nutrin from 

benefitting from its failure to respond to 

the Department’s requests for 

information. See ‘‘The Use of Facts 

Available for Nutrin S.A. and 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information,’’ from Richard Weible, 

Office Director, to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated December 

20, 2004 (Corroboration Memorandum). 

Further, throughout this proceeding, the 

highest rate, 55.15 percent, was applied 

to an uncooperative respondent, 

Conagra, in the antidumping duty 

investigation, and this rate continues to 

apply to the firm. See Notice of 

Antidumping Order: Honey From 

Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 

2001). 

This margin was derived from 

information in the petition, which was 

corroborated in the investigation stage 

of this proceeding. See Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations: 

Honey from Argentina and the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 65831 

(November 2, 2000) and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 

50611 (October 4, 2001). Because Nutrin 

failed to cooperate, no additional 

information has been presented in the 

current review that would call into 

question the reliability or relevance of 

the margin, or the calculation on which 

it was based. Because there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that would render the application of this 

rate inappropriate or the margin 

irrelevant, we are applying the highest 

dumping margin from this proceeding, 

55.15 percent, to Nutrin and have 

satisfied the corroboration requirements 

under section 776(c) of the Act. See e.g., 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews, 68 

FR 68868 (December 10, 2003); (Results 

Unchanged) Final Results, 69 FR 33626 

(June 16, 2004). 

Currency Conversion 

The Department’s preferred source for 

daily exchange rates is the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 

in Coins from France, 68 FR 47049 

(August 7, 2003). However, the Federal 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77201

Reserve Bank does not track or publish 

exchange rates for the Argentine Peso. 

Therefore, we made currency 

conversions based on the daily 

exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow 

Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. 

Factiva publishes exchange rates for 

Monday through Friday only. We used 

the rate of exchange on the most recent 

Friday for conversion dates involving 

Saturday through Sunday where 

necessary. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period December 1, 2002, 

through November 30, 2003:

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percentage) 

Asociacion de Cooperativas 

Argentinas ........................... 0 

Compania Apicola Argentina .. 0 

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

Nexco S.A. .............................. 0.38 

Nutrin S.A. .............................. 55.15 

Seylinco S.A. .......................... 0 

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 pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties 

may submit case briefs or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs and 

comments, may be filed no later than 35 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Parties who submit arguments in 

these proceedings are requested to 

submit with the argument: (1) A 

statement of the 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 (30.24 percent). See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value; Honey From 

Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey 

From Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 

2001) (Final Determination), and Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey 

From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 

2001) (Notice of AD Order). 

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 20, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–28220 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–834] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATES: December 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Flessner at (202) 482–6312 or 

Robert James at (202) 482–0649, AD/

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine that 

certain purified carboxymethylcellulose 

(CMC) from Mexico is being sold, or is 

likely to be sold, in the United States at 

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 

in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

of this notice. 

Case History 

On June 9, 2004, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received a 

petition for the imposition of 

antidumping duties on purified CMC 

from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, 

and Sweden, filed in the proper form by 

Aqualon Company (Aqualon or 

petitioner), a division of Hercules 

Incorporated. See Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Imports of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and 

Sweden (Petition). The Department 

initiated the antidumping investigation 

of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico,