```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77195-77201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28220]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 77196]]

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 third-country 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 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 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 CEP-offset 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 third-country 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 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 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

[[Page 77197]]

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 weight-
averaged 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 77198]]

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. CAA, Nexco, 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, by quantity, 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). 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-to-CV 
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 sales-below-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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://ww.trabajo.gov.ar/ legislacion/resolucion/ 
files--rural/ res0033-1994.dot.
    \3\ See http://www.indec.mecon.gov.ar/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 third-country 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-of-sale 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

[[Page 77200]]

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 less-than-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{time} 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

[[Page 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                       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
```