77184 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

1The request included: Anhui Honghui, Eurasia, 

Jiangsu Kanghong, Anhui Native Produce Import & 

Export Corp. (‘‘Anhui Native’’); Cheng Du Wai Yuan 

Bee Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Cheng Du’’); Foodworld 

International Club, Ltd. (‘‘Foodworld’’); Henan 

Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & 

Export Company (‘‘Henan’’); High Hope 

International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import & 

Export Corp. (‘‘High Hope’’); Inner Mongolia; Inner 

Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Inner Mongolia Youth’’); Jinan Products Industry 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinan’’); Jinfu; Kunshan Foreign Trade 

Company (‘‘Kunshan’’); Native Produce and Animal 

Import & Export Co. (‘‘Native Produce’’); Eswell; 

Shanghai Shinomiel; Shanghai Xiuwei International 

Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Xiuwei’’); Dubao, 

Wuhan Bee; and Zhejiang Native Produce and 

Animal By-Products Import & Export Group Corp. 

(‘‘Zhejiang’’).

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–863] 

Honey From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results, Partial 

Rescission, and Extension of Final 

Results of Second Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting the second administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on honey from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is December 1, 2002 through 

November 30, 2003. Petitioners issued a 

timely withdrawal of their request for an 

administrative review for two 

companies named in the initiation of 

this review; consequently, we rescinded 

our review of these companies. In 

addition, we rescinded our review of 

five companies because they are 

participating in new shipper reviews 

covering the periods December 1, 2002 

through May 31, 2003, or December 1, 

2002, through November 30, 2003. 

Another company had no exports or 

sales of the subject merchandise during 

the POR; therefore, we are preliminarily 

rescinding our review of this company. 

We preliminarily determine that three 

companies have failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of their ability to 

comply with our requests for 

information and, as a result, should be 

assigned a rate based on adverse facts 

available. Finally, we have preliminarily 

determined that five respondents made 

sales to the United States of the subject 

merchandise at prices below normal 

value. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties that submit comments are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument(s).

DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 

2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anya Naschak, Kristina Boughton, or 

Bobby Wong at (202) 482–6375, (202) 

482–8173, or (202) 482–0409, 

respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

On December 2, 2003, the Department 

published a Notice of Opportunity to 

Request an Administrative Review of 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation, 68 FR 67401 (December 2, 

2003). On December 29, 2003, Anhui 

Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Anhui Honghui’’); Eurasia Bee’s 

Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Eurasia’’); Jiangsu 

Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Jiangsu Kanghong’’); Inner Mongolia 

Autonomous Region Native Produce 

and Animal By-Products Import & 

Export Corp. (‘‘Inner Mongolia’’); Jinfu 

Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinfu’’); Shanghai 

Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. (‘‘Eswell’’); 

Shanghai Shinomiel International Trade 

Corporation (‘‘Shanghai Shinomiel’’); 

and Wuhan Bee Health Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Wuhan Bee’’), requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of each respective company’s 

entries during the POR. On December 

31, 2003, Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao 

Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dubao’’) 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of its entries 

during the POR. Also on December 31, 

2003, the American Honey Producers 

Association and the Sioux Honey 

Association (collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’) 

requested, in accordance with section 

351.213(b) of the Department’s 

regulations, an administrative review of 

entries of subject merchandise made 

during the POR by 20 Chinese 

producers/exporters.1

On January 14, 2004, petitioners filed 

a letter withdrawing their request for 

review of Henan, High Hope, Jinan, and 

Native Produce. On January 22, 2004, 

the Department initiated the review for 

the remaining 16 companies. See

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 68 FR 3009 (January 22, 2004) 

(‘‘Review Initiation’’). On January 29, 

2004, the Department issued 

antidumping duty questionnaires to the 

16 PRC producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise covered by this 

administrative review. 

On February 13 and February 18, 

2004, petitioners withdrew their request 

for review of Foodworld and Anhui 

Native, respectively. On February 24, 

2004, Cheng Du stated that all of its 

direct and indirect export sales of honey 

to the United States during the POR fall 

within a separate new shipper review 

covering the period December 1, 2002 

through May 31, 2003, and requested 

that the Department rescind this 

proceeding for Cheng Du. See Honey 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping 

Duty Reviews, 68 FR 47537 (August 11, 

2003). On February 25, 2004, Inner 

Mongolia Youth similarly stated that the 

only sale it made during the POR was 

currently being reviewed under another 

new shipper review, covering the 

identical period as this current 

administrative review, and requested 

that the Department rescind this 

administrative review for Inner 

Mongolia Youth. See Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

New Shipper Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 69 FR 5835. On March 5, 2004, 

Anhui Honghui, Eurasia, and Jiangsu 

Kanghong withdrew their requests for 

the administrative review covering the 

POR because all of their entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

were also subject to the new shipper 

review covering the identical POR.

On March 10, 2004, the Department 

rescinded the administrative review for 

Foodworld and Anhui Native because 

petitioners had withdrawn their review 

request for these companies. See Honey 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 69 FR 11383 (March 10, 2004). 

On March 12, 2004, petitioners also 

withdrew their request for an 

administrative review of entries made 

by Anhui Honghui, Cheng Du, Eurasia, 

Inner Mongolia Youth, and Jiangsu 

Kanghong. On April 27, 2004, the 

Department rescinded the review for 

Anhui Honghui, Cheng Du, Eurasia, 

Inner Mongolia Youth, and Jiangsu 

Kanghong. See Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 22760 

(April 27, 2004). 

On March 25, 2004, we invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Department’s surrogate country 

selection and/or significant production 

in the other potential surrogate 

countries and to submit publicly 

available information to value the 

factors of production. On April 15, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77185

2004, petitioners submitted comments 

on the selection of the proper surrogate 

country. On May 10, 2004, petitioners 

and respondents submitted comments 

on surrogate information with which to 

value the factors of production in this 

proceeding. On May 20, 2004, 

respondents submitted comments on 

petitioners’ submissions for surrogate 

values. 

With regard to Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, 

Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang, between 

March and December 2004, the 

Department received timely filed 

original and supplemental questionnaire 

responses and petitioners’ comments on 

those responses. 

Inner Mongolia 

We received timely responses from 

Inner Mongolia to the Department’s 

original questionnaire and petitioners 

commented on these submissions. We 

subsequently issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Inner Mongolia and 

received a partial response. The 

Department then received a letter from 

Inner Mongolia’s counsel stating that 

Inner Mongolia was withdrawing its 

request for an annual review. On June 

23, 2004, the Department issued a letter 

to Inner Mongolia, noting that 

petitioners have not withdrawn their 

request for review, that the Department 

is proceeding with the review, and that 

the Department requires Inner 

Mongolia’s continued participation or 

the Department may resort to facts 

available. The Department received a 

response from counsel for Inner 

Mongolia, in which Inner Mongolia’s 

counsel stated that Inner Mongolia 

would not be participating in this 

administrative review any further as it 

was canceling operations, and that 

counsel was no longer representing 

Inner Mongolia. See Memorandum to 

the File from Steve Williams dated July 

1, 2004 (‘‘Shanghai Shinomiel and Inner 

Mongolia Memo’’).

Shanghai Xiuwei 

We received timely responses from 

Shanghai Xiuwei to Sections A, C, and 

D, and petitioners submitted comments 

on these responses. We issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai 

Xiuwei and received an incomplete 

response. The Department issued a 

letter to Shanghai Xiuwei, requesting for 

a second time that Shanghai Xiuwei 

respond completely to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire as 

requested, or risk application of facts 

available. Shanghai Xiuwei requested 

that the review be rescinded, as it had 

been unable to collect certain data from 

its board or its importers to respond to 

the Department’s questionnaire. On 

August 27, 2004, the Department issued 

another letter to Shanghai Xiuwei 

rejecting its withdrawal request, noting 

that petitioners had not withdrawn their 

request for review. We received no 

response from Shanghai Xiuwei. 

Shanghai Shinomeil 

The Department received no response 

from Shanghai Shinomiel to its original 

questionnaire. The Department 

subsequently issued a letter to shanghai 

Shinomeil requesting that it respond to 

the Department’s questionnaire as 

requested, or risk application of adverse 

facts available. In addition, the 

Department spoke with counsel for 

Shanghai Shinomeil, and Shanghai 

Shinomeil’s counsel informed the 

Department that Shanghai Shinomiel 

would not be participating in this 

administrative review. See Shanghai 

Shinomiel and Inner Mongolia Memo. 

Kunshan 

The Department received no response 

from Kunshan to its original 

questionnaire by the deadlines. The 

Department issued a second request to 

Kunshan to respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. See Letter 

from Abdelali Elouaradia to Kunshan 

Foreign Trade Company, dated March 

10, 2004. Kunshan notified the 

Department that it made no shipments 

to the United States during the POR, 

and requested that the Department 

rescind this administrative review for 

Kunshan. See Letter from Kunshan, to 

Abdelali Elouaradia (undated). We 

received no comments from any 

interested parties regarding Kunshan’s 

request for rescission. Therefore, 

because Kunshan had no shipments to 

the United States during the POR, the 

Department is preliminarily rescinding 

this administrative review for Kunshan. 

See ‘‘Preliminary partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review’’ section, below. 

On June 1, 2004, the Department 

published an extension of the time 

limits to complete these preliminary 

results. See Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit of Preliminary Results of Second 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 69 FR 30879 (June 1, 2004). 

On August 12, 2004, petitioners 

submitted a letter requesting that the 

Department apply adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) to Shanghai Xiuwei, 

Inner Mongolia, and Shanghai 

Shinomiel for the preliminary results. 

On October 1, 2004, the Department 

published an additional extension of the 

time limits to complete these 

preliminary results. See Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

time Limit of Preliminary Results of 

Second Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 58893 

(October 1, 2004). 

On November 18, 2004, petitioners 

submitted comments on the valuation of 

the hone surrogate value and surrogate 

financial ratios. On December 3, 3004, 

Eswell, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang 

submitted comments on the surrogate 

financial ratios.

Extension of Final Results 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, as amended, we 

determine that it is not practicable to 

complete this review within the original 

time frame because of the Department’s 

decision to verify certain respondents in 

this review (see ‘‘Verification’’ section 

of this notice for further discussion). We 

are currently unable to conduct 

verification or allow sufficient 

opportunity for the submission of 

interested party comments, prior to the 

current final results deadline. Thus, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

review until no later than 150 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The products covered by this order 

are natural honey, artificial honey 

containing more than 50 percent natural 

honey by weight, preparations of natural 

honey containing more than 50 percent 

natural honey by weight, and flavored 

honey. The subject merchandise 

includes all grades and colors of honey 

whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut 

comb, or chunk form, and whether 

packaged for retail or in bulk form. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, 

and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under order is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.307, we intend to 

verify certain information relied upon in 

making our final results. On May 3, 

2004, petitioners submitted a request 

that the Department conduct 

verifications of Inner Mongolia, Jinfu, 

Eswell, Shanghai Xiuwei, Dubao, 

Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang. Petitioners 

noted that Inner Mongolia’s 

questionnaire responses have not been 

verified in any of the immediately 

77186 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

2Shanghai Shinomiel did not request a separate 

rate.

preceding new shipper reviews, and 

that Eswell has never had its 

information verified. Petitioners state 

that the remaining respondents should 

be verified pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.307(b)(1)(iv), and submitted 

information regarding ‘‘good cause’’

related to Jinfu, Shanghai Xiuwei, 

Dubao, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang. We 

intend to verify Dubao and Wuhan Bee. 

However, we do not intend to verify 

Jinfu, Eswell, and Zhejiang because we 

have not been provided with a sufficient 

basis to conclude that there is ‘‘good 

cause’’ for verification within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv), 

and there have not been two 

administrative reviews without 

verification within the meaning of 19 

CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v)(B). Additionally, 

because Shanghai Xiuwei and Inner 

Mongolia have declined to participate in 

this administrative review, we are 

unable to verify information submitted 

on the record by these two companies. 

See ‘‘The PRC-wide Rate and Use of 

Facts Otherwise Available’’ section 

below. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 

have preliminarily determined that 

Kunshan made no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. In making this determination, 

the Department examined PRC honey 

shipment data maintained by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). 

Based on the information obtained from 

CBP, we found no entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR 

manufactured or exported by Kunshan 

to the United States. See also

Memorandum to the File regarding 

Entries by Kunshan Foreign Trade 

Company, dated December 15, 2004. 

Therefore, based on the results of our 

CBO query, demonstrating no shipments 

of subject merchandise by Kunshan 

during the POR, as well as Kunshan’s 

claim that it had no subject shipments, 

we are preliminarily rescinding the 

administrative review, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) with respect 

to Kunshan because we found no 

evidence that Kunshan made shipments 

of the subject merchandise during the 

POR.

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to its export activities. In 

this review Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan 

Bee, Zhejiang, Inner Mongolia, and 

Shanghai Xiuwei requested separate 

company-specific rates.2

Accordingly, we have considered 

whether each of the companies is 

independent from government control, 

and therefore eligible for a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate-rate test to 

determine whether the exporters are 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border-type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision-making process at 

the individual firm level. See Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 

61757 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control of its export 

activities to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s 

Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 

1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In accordance 

with the separate-rates criteria, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if respondents can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure

and de facto government control over 

export activities. 

Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, 

Zhejiang (collectively ‘‘fully responsive 

companies’’) provided complete 

separate-rate information in their 

responses to our original and 

supplemental questionnaires. 

Accordingly, we performed a separaterates analysis to determine whether 

these exporters are independent from 

government control. 

As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’

section, Inner Mongolia, Shanghai 

Xiuwei, and Shanghai Shinomiel 

(collectively ‘‘non-responsive 

companies’’ did not respond in a 

complete and timely manner to the 

Department’s requests for information 

and therefore are subject to adverse facts 

available, and no separate-rates analysis 

is necessary. Because these three nonresponsive companies did not provide 

complete and verifiable responses to our 

requests for information regarding 

separate rates, we preliminarily 

determine that these companies do not 

merit separate rates. See, e.g., Natural 

Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads 

from the People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 

57389 (November 6, 1996). 

Consequently, consistent with the 

statement in our notice of initiation, we 

find that, because these companies do 

not qualify for separate rates, they are 

deemed to be part of the PRC-entity. See

Review Initiation. See also ‘‘The Use of 

Facts Otherwise Available and PRCwide Rate’’ section below.

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactment decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

centralizing control of companies. See

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. As discussed 

below, our analysis shows that the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control for the five fully 

responsive companies based on each of 

these factors. 

Dubao 

Dubao has placed on the record a 

number of documents to demonstrate 

absence of de jure control, including the 

‘‘Regulations of the People’s Republic of 

China for Controlling the Registration of 

Enterprises as Legal Persons,’’ and the 

‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (May 12, 1994) 

(‘‘Foreign Trade Law ’’). See Exhibit 3 of 

Dubao’s March 15, 2004, submission 

(‘‘Dubao Section A’’). Dubao also 

submitted a copy of its business license 

in Exhibit 2 of Dubao Section A. This 

license was issued by the Chengdu 

Municipal Industrial and Commercial 

Administration. Dubao explains that its 

business license is necessary to register 

the company. Dubao affirms that its 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77187

business operations are limited to the 

scope of the license, and that the license 

may be revoked if the company engages 

in illegal activities or if the company is 

found to have insufficient capital. 

Eswell 

Eswell has placed on the record a 

number of documents to demonstrate 

absence of de jure control, including the 

‘‘Company Law of the People’s Republic 

of China’’ (December 29, 1993) 

(‘‘Company Law’’), Foreign Trade Law, 

and the ‘‘Administrative Regulations of 

the People’s Republic of China 

Governing the Registration of Legal 

Corporations’’ (June 3, 1998) (‘‘Legal 

Corporations Regulations’’). See Exhibit 

3 of Eswell’s March 11, 2004, 

submission (‘‘Eswell Section A’’). In 

addition, Eswell placed on the record in 

Exhibit 6 of its October 29, 2004, 

submission the Certificate of Approval 

for Enterprises with Foreign Trade 

rights in the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘Foreign Trade Rights’’). Eswell also 

submitted a copy of its business license 

in Exhibit 4 of Eswell Section A. This 

license was issued by the Shanghai 

Industry and Commerce Administrative 

Bureau. Eswell explains that its 

business license is necessary to register 

the company. Eswell affirms that its 

business operations are limited to the 

scope of the license, and that the license 

may be revoked if the company engaged 

in illegal activities or if the company is 

found to have insufficient capital. 

Jinfu 

Jinfu has placed on the record a 

number of documents to demonstrate 

absence of de jure control, the Company 

Law, Foreign Trade Law, and the Legal 

Corporations Regulations. See Exhibit 2 

of Jinfu’s March 11, 2004, submission 

(‘‘Jinfu Section A’’). Jinfu also submitted 

a copy of its business license in Exhibit 

3 of Jinfu Section A. The Suzhou 

Kunshan Industry and Commerce 

Administrative Bureau issued this 

license. Jinfu explains that the business 

license defines its business scope. Jinfu 

also affirms that its business operations 

are limited to the scope of the license, 

and that the license may be revoked if 

the company engages in illegal activities 

or if the company conducts activities 

outside of the business scope described 

on its business license. 

Wuhan Bee 

Wuhan Bee has placed on the record 

a number of documents to demonstrate 

absence of de jure control, including the 

Foreign Trade Law, the Legal 

Corporations Regulations, The Law of 

the People’s Republic of China: On 

Chinese-Foreign Joint Ventures (April 

13, 1998) and the Law of the People’s 

Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign 

Equity Joint Ventures (April 4, 1990). 

See Exhibit 2 of Wuhan Bee’s March 11, 

2004, submission (‘‘Wuhan Bee Section 

A’’). Wuhan Bee also submitted a copy 

of its business license in Exhibit 3 of 

Wuhan Bee Section A. The Industrial 

and Commercial Administrative Bureau 

of Wuhan City issued this license. 

Wuhan Bee explains that its business 

license is necessary to register the 

company and that the license defines 

the scope of the company’s business 

activities and ensures that the company 

has sufficient capital to continue its 

business operations. Wuhan Bee affirms 

that its business operations are limited 

to the scope of the license, unless 

amended, and that the license may be 

revoked if the company is found to have 

insufficient capital or if the company 

engages in activities outside the scope of 

its business license.

Zhejiang 

Zhejiang has placed on the record a 

number of documents to demonstrate 

absence of de jure control, including the 

Company Law, Foreign Trade Law, and 

the Legal Corporations Regulations. See

Exhibit 2 of Zhejiang’s March 11, 2004, 

submission (‘‘Zhejiang Section A’’). 

Zhejiang also submitted a copy of its 

business license in Exhibit 3 of Zhejiang 

Section A. This license was issued by 

the Industrial and Commercial 

Administrative Bureau of Zhejiang 

Province on May 17, 2001. Zhejiang 

explains that its business license is 

necessary to register the company. 

Zhejiang affirms that its business 

operations are limited to the scope of 

the license, and that the license may be 

revoked if the company engages in 

illegal activities or if the company is 

found to have insufficient capital. 

We note that three of the five fully 

responsive companies have stated that 

they are governed by the Company Law, 

which they claim governs the 

establishment of limited liability 

companies, and provides that such a 

company shall operate independently 

and be responsible for its own profits 

and losses. All of the fully responsive 

companies have placed on the record 

the Foreign Trade Law, and stated that 

this law allows them full autonomy 

from the central authority in governing 

their business operations. We have 

reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the 

Foreign Trade Law, which states 

‘‘foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full 

autonomy in their business operation 

and be responsible for their own profits 

and losses in accordance with the law.’’

As in prior cases, we have analyzed 

such PRC laws and found that they 

establish an absence of de jure control. 

See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of New Shipper Review, 63 FR 

3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) and 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that there is an absence of de jure

control over the export activities of 

Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, and 

Zhejiang. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether a 

respondent is subject to de facto

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to, the approval of 

a government authority; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts, and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of its management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide at 22587. 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide at 22586–

22587. Therefore, the Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of government control, 

which would preclude the Department 

from assigning separate rates. 

Dubao has asserted the following: (1) 

It is a privately owned company; (2) 

there is no government participation in 

its setting of export prices; (3) its sales 

manager has the authority to bind sales 

contracts; (4) it does not have to notify 

any government authorities of its 

management selection; (5) there are no 

restrictions on the use of its export 

revenue; and (6) it is responsible for 

financing its own losses. We have 

examined the documentation provided 

and note that it does not suggest that 

pricing is coordinated among exporters 

of PRC honey. 

Eswell has asserted the following: (1) 

It is a privately owned limited liability 

company; (2) there is no government 

participation in its setting of export 

prices; (3) the president of its affiliated 

company in the United States or its 

designated sales agents have the 

77188 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

3 Kunshan did not reply to the Department’s 

questionnaire; however, based on its request dated 

march 24, 2004, and the Department’s analysis of 

CDP data, we have determined that Kunshan had 

no shipments during the POR and therefore we are 

preliminarily rescinding this review for Kunshan. 

See ‘‘Partial Rescission’’ section of this notice.

authority to bind sales contracts; (4) its 

management is selected by its board of 

directors and it does not have to notify 

any government authorities of its 

management selection; (5) there are no 

restrictions on the use of its export 

revenue; and (6) it is responsible for 

financing its own losses. We have 

examined the documentation provided 

and note that it does not suggest that 

pricing is coordinated among exporters 

of PRC honey.

Jinfu has asserted the following: (1) It 

is a privately owned company; (2) there 

is no government participation in its 

setting of export prices; (3) its chief 

executive officer and authorized 

employee have the authority to bind 

sales contacts; (4) it does not have to 

notify any government authorities of its 

management selection; (5) there are no 

restrictions on the use of its export 

revenue; and (6) its board of directors 

decides how profits will be used. We 

have examined the documentation 

provided and note that it does not 

suggest that pricing is coordinated 

among exporters of PRC honey. 

Wuhan Bee has asserted the 

following: (1) It is a joint-venture 

corporation; (2) there is no government 

participation in its setting of export 

prices; (3) its general manager and its 

U.S.-based affiliate have the authority to 

bind sales contracts; (4) it does not have 

to notify any government authorities of 

its management selection; (5) there are 

no restrictions on the use of its export 

revenue; and (6) its board of directors 

decides how profits will be used. We 

have examined the documentation 

provided and note that it does not 

suggest that pricing is coordinated 

among exporters of PRC honey. 

Zhejiang has asserted the following: 

(1) It is a publicly owned company; (2) 

there is no government participation in 

its setting of export prices; (3) the 

Manager of the Bee products 

Department has the authority to bind 

sales contracts; (4) it does not have to 

notify any government authorities of its 

management selection; (5) there are no 

restrictions on the use of its export 

revenue; and (6) it is responsible for 

financing its own losses. We have 

examined the documentation provided 

and note that it does not suggest that 

pricing is coordinated among exporters 

of PRC honey. 

Consequently, because evidence on 

the record indicates an absence of 

government control, both in law and in 

fact, over each respondent’s export 

activities, we preliminarily determine 

that each fully responsive company has 

met the criteria for the application of a 

separate rate. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

the PRC-Wide Rate 

Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, 

Zhejiang, Kunshan, Shanghai Xiuwei, 

Inner Mongolia, and Shanghai 

Shinomiel were given the opportunity 

to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. As explained above, we 

received complete questionnaire 

responses from Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, 

Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang, and we have 

calculated a separate rate for these 

companies (collectively ‘‘fully 

responsive companies’’). The PRC-wide 

rate applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from 

PRC producers/exporters that have their 

own calculated rate. See ‘‘Separate 

Rates’’ section above.3

As discussed above, Shanghai Xiuwei, 

Inner Mongolia, and Shanghai 

Shinomiel (collectively ‘‘non-responsive 

companies’’) are appropriately 

considered to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity because they failed to establish 

their eligibility for a separate rate. 

Furthermore, because the PRC-wide 

entity did not provide information 

necessary to the instant proceeding, it is 

necessary that we review the PRC-wide 

entity. In doing so, we note that Section 

776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the 

Department use the facts available if 

necessary information is not available 

on the record of an antidumping 

proceeding. In addition, section 

776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an 

interested party or any other person: (a) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the administering 

authority; (b) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines for the 

submission of the information or in the 

form and manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title; or (D) provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i), 

the Department shall, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, use the facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title. Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

promptly inform the party submitting 

the response of the nature of the 

deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party with an 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. Section 782(d) further states 

that if the party submits further 

information that is unsatisfactory or 

untimely, the administering authority 

may, subject to subsection (e), disregard 

all or part of the original and subsequent 

responses. Section 782(e) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall not 

decline to consider information that is 

submitted by an interested party and is 

necessary to the determination but does 

not meet all the applicable requirements 

established by the administering 

authority if (1) the information is 

submitted by the deadline established 

for its submission, (2) the information 

can be verified, (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination, (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information and meeting 

the requirements established by the 

administering authority with respect to 

the information, and (5) the information 

can be used without undue difficulties.

As addressed below separately for 

each non-responsive company, we find 

that the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to our request for information, 

and necessary information either was 

not provided, or the information 

provided cannot be verified and is not 

sufficiently complete to enable the 

Department to use it for these 

preliminary results. Therefore, we find 

it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of 

the Act, to use facts otherwise available 

as the basis for the preliminary results 

of this review for the PRC-wide entity. 

Shanghai Shinomiel 

As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’

section, Shanghai Shinomiel did not 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. Rather, as 

noted above, Shanghai Shinomiel 

informed the Department that it would 

not be participating in this proceeding, 

and failed to respond to the 

Department’s repeated requests for 

information. See Shanghai Shinomiel 

and Inner Mongolia Memo. The 

Department has no information on the 

record for Shanghai Shinomiel with 

which to calculate a dumping margin in 

this proceeding; therefore, we find that 

Shanghai Shinomiel has significantly 

impeded the proceeding, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act. Because Shanghai Shinomiel 

did not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaires, sections 782(d) and (e) 

of the Act are not applicable. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77189

4Prior to the Department sending out an 

additional supplemental questionnaire to Inner 

Mongolia, on May 24, 2004, Inner Mongolia 

submitted a letter to the Department, which 

included a request for withdrawal from this 

administrative review. Inner Mongolia further 

stated that the company is canceling its operations 

and liquidating its assets, and no longer has 

personnel available to complete this administrative 

review.

5Shanghai Xiuwei requested that it be allowed to 

withdraw from the review, well after the time limit 

had passed for making such a request. Moreover, as 

the Department informed Shanghai Xiuwei, 

petitioners did not withdraw their request for 

review, and the Department was therefore required 

to continue with the review.

Inner Mongolia 

As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’

section, Inner Mongolia responded to 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire. The Department 

subsequently requested additional 

information from Inner Mongolia in a 

supplemental questionnaire. See

Supplemental A, C, and D 

questionnaire, dated April 19, 2004. On 

May 14, 2004, the Department received 

a partial response to this supplemental 

questionnaire that was seriously 

deficient. Inner Mongolia stated that it 

would provide additional information 

subsequent to this response, but failed 

to do so. We note that the information 

omitted included details on Inner 

Mongolia’s and its producers’ board 

members, information critical to the 

Department’s separate-rates analysis 

(see ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above), as 

well as information on its U.S. affiliate.4

The Department gave Inner Mongolia an 

additional opportunity to provide the 

information the Department had 

requested on April 19, 2004. The 

Department explained to Inner 

Mongolia that it must comply with its 

requests for information or be subject to 

facts available for the preliminary 

results. See Letter from Edward Yang to 

Inner Mongolia dated June 23, 2004. In 

response to this additional request for 

information, Inner Mongolia’s counsel 

informed the Department that Inner 

Mongolia is out of business and would 

no longer participate in this review. See

Shanghai Shinomiel and Inner Mongolia 

Memo.

The Department provided Inner 

Mongolia with several opportunities to 

comply with its requests for information 

and to submit complete and accurate 

information. However, Inner Mongolia 

failed to provide the Department with 

the requested information. 

Due to these serious deficiencies, we 

preliminarily find that Inner Mongolia 

has failed to provide the information 

requested, thereby significantly 

impeding the proceeding. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B), 

and (C) of the Act, the Department 

preliminarily finds that the application 

of facts available is appropriate for these 

preliminarily results.

Shanghai Xiuwei 

Shanghai Xiuwei responded to the 

Department’s original questionnaire. 

However, as stated in the ‘‘Background’’

section of this notice, the Department 

requested additional information from 

Shanghai Xiuwei on April 19, 2004. 

This supplemental questionnaire 

included 73 questions that addressed 

serious deficiencies in Shanghai 

Xiuwei’s response regarding affiliation 

of importers, sales process, and factors 

of production. Despite providing 

Shanghai Xiuwei with ample time to 

collect the requested information (see

memorandum to the File from Brandon 

Farlander, dated April 23, 2004), the 

Department did not receive any of the 

requested information from Shanghai 

Xiuwei. The Department provided 

Shanghai Xiuwei with an additional 

opportunity to respond to the 

Department’s request for information on 

June 23, 2004. Shanghai Xiuwei again 

failed to provide the information 

requested and stated that it was unable 

to supply any of the requested 

information.5 The Department supplied 

Shanghai Xiuwei with numerous 

opportunities to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

However, Shanghai Xiuwei refused to 

submit any information in response. 

The Department preliminarily finds, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C), 

and (D) of the Act, that Shanghai Xiuwei 

has repeatedly withheld information 

requested by the Department, thereby 

significantly impeding the Department’s 

ability to conduct this proceeding. 

Therefore, the application of facts 

available is warranted with respect to 

Shanghai Xiuwei.

Application of Adverse Inference 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

available, the Department may use an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of the respondent if it determines that 

a party has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. Adverse inferences are 

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Act (‘‘SAA’’) 

accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 

316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 

(1994). In determining whether a 

respondent has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability, the Department need 

not make a determination regarding the 

willfulness of a respondent’s conduct. 

See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,

337 F. 3rd 1373, 1382–1393 (Fed. Cir. 

2003). Furthermore, ‘‘an affirmative 

finding of bad faith on the part of the 

respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference.’’ Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). Instead, 

the courts have made clear that the 

Department must articulate its reasons 

for concluding that a party failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability, and 

explain why the missing information is 

significant to the review. Id.

In determining whether a party failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability, the 

Department considers whether a party 

could comply with the request for 

information, and whether a party paid 

insufficient attention to its statutory 

duties. See Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. 

United States, 223 F. Supp 2d 1336, 

1342 (August 6, 2002). Furthermore, the 

Department also considers the accuracy 

and completeness of submitted 

information, and whether the 

respondent has hindered the calculation 

of accurate dumping margins. See

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–53820 

(October 16, 1997). 

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

we find that the PRC-wide entity failed 

to cooperate by not acting to the best of 

its ability to comply with requests for 

information. As noted above, the PRCwide entity informed the Department 

that it would not participate in this 

review, or otherwise, did not provide 

any of the requested information, 

despite repeated requests that it do so. 

This information was the sole 

possession of the respondents, and 

could not be obtained otherwise. Thus, 

because the PRC-wide entity refused to 

participate fully in this proceeding, we 

find it appropriate to use an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of the 

PRC-wide entity in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available. By 

doing so, we ensure that the companies 

that are part of the PRC-wide entity will 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than had they 

cooperated fully in this review.

An adverse inference may include 

reliance on information derived from 

the petition, the final determination in 

the investigation, any previous review, 

or any other information placed on the 

record. See section 776(b) of the Act. It 

is the Department’s practice to assign 

the highest rate from any segment of a 

proceeding as total adverse facts 

77190 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

6Secondary information is described in the SAA 

as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave 

rise to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject merchandise, 

or any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 

870.

available when a respondent fails to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. See, 

e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils form 

Taiwan; Preliminary Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789 

(February 7, 2002) (‘‘Consistent with 

Department practice in cases where a 

respondent fails to cooperate to the best 

of its ability, and in keeping with 

section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse 

facts available, we have applied a 

margin based on the highest margin 

from any prior segment of the 

proceeding.’’). 

In accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we have preliminarily assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity (including 

Shanghai Xiuwei, Inner Mongolia, and 

Shjanghai Shinomiel) the rate of 183.80 

percent as adverse facts available. See, 

e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper 

Review and Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999). 

This rate is the highest dumping margin 

from any segment of this proceeding 

and was established in the less-thanfair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation based 

on information contained in the 

petition. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value; Honey from the PRC, 66 FR 

50608 (October 4, 2001) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Final Determination’’). 

In selecting a rate for adverse facts 

available, the Department selects a rate 

that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to 

effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static 

Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 

8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 

Corroboration 

We note that information from a prior 

segment of this proceeding constitutes 

‘‘secondary information,’’ and section 

776(c) of the Act provides that, when 

the Department relies on such 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of a 

review, the Department shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal.6 The 

SAA state that the independent sources 

may include published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation or review. The SAA also 

clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See SAA at 870. As 

noted 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 Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996) (‘‘TRBs’’), to 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used.

We note that in the LTFV 

investigation, the Department 

corroborated the information in the 

petition that formed the basis of the 

183.80 percent PRC-wide rate, See Final 

Determination. Specifically, in the 

LTFV investigation, the Department 

compared the prices in the petition to 

the prices submitted by individual 

respondents for comparable 

merchandise. For normal value (‘‘NV’’), 

we compared petitioners’ factorconsumption data to data reported by 

respondents. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 24101 (May11, 

2001) (‘‘Investigation Prelim’’). 

In order to satisfy the corroboration 

requirements under section 776(c) of the 

Act, in the instant review, we reviewed 

the Department’s corroboration of the 

petition rates from the LTFV 

investigation and in the first 

administrative review. See, e.g.,

Investigation Prelim; Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 69988 

(December 16, 2003) (‘‘First Admin 

Review’’); and reinforced in Honey from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 24128 

(May 3, 2004). Because the secondary 

information from the LTFV 

investigation was recently corroborated 

in the first administrative review, and 

no information has been presented to 

call into question the reliability of the 

information from the LTFV 

investigation or the first administrative 

review, we find that the petition 

information is reliable. For a further 

discussion, see e.g., Memorandum to the 

File from Kristina Boughton through 

James Doyle, Office Director regarding 

the Corroboration of the Petition Rate, 

dated December 15, 2004 

(‘‘Corroboration Memo’’).

We further note that, with respect to 

the relevance aspect of corroboration, 

the Department stated in TRBs that it 

will consider information reasonably at 

its disposal as to whether there are 

circumstances that would render a 

margin irrelevant. Where circumstances 

indicate that the selected margin is not 

appropriate as adverse facts available, 

the Department will disregard the 

margin and determine an appropriate 

margin.’’ 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) (disregarding 

the highest margin in the case as best 

information available because the 

margin was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an extremely high margin). 

The rate applied in this review is the 

rate currently applicable to all exporters 

subject to the PRC-wide rate. Further, as 

noted above and in the Corroboration 

Memo, there is no information on the 

record that the application of this rate 

would be inappropriate in this 

administrative review or that the margin 

is not relevant. Thus, we find that the 

information is relevant. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the PRC-wide rate of 183.80 is still 

reliable, relevant, and has probative 

value within the meaning of section 

776(c) of the Act. 

Affiliation 

Jinfu has claimed that it is affiliated 

with Jinfu Trading (USA) Inc., (‘‘Jinfu 

USA’’) within the meaning of section 

771(33) of the Act. Section 771(33) of 

the Act states that affiliated persons 

include: (A) Members of a family, 

including brothers and sisters (whether 

by the whole or half blood), spouse, 

ancestors, and lineal descendants, (B) 

any officer or director of an organization 

and such organization, (C) partners, (D) 

employer and employee, (E) any person 

directly or indirectly owning, 

controlling, or holding with power to 

vote, five percent or more of the 

outstanding voting stock or shares of 

any organization and such organization, 

(F) two or more persons directly or 

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 

under common control with, any 

person, (G) any person who controls any 

other person and such other person. For 

purposes of this paragraph, a person 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77191

shall be considered to control another 

person if the person is legally or 

operationally in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over the other 

person. In order to find affiliation 

between companies, the Department 

must find that at least one of the criteria 

listed above is applicable to the 

respondents. 

Though no party in this case is 

questioning whether or not Jinfu was in 

fact affiliated with Jinfu USA at some 

point during the POR within the 

meaning of Section 771(33), we note 

that the effective date of this affiliation 

is in question ,and is significant to this 

proceeding for purposes of determining 

whether Jinfu’s U.S. sales should be 

reported as ‘‘export price’’ sales or 

‘‘constructed export price’’ sales. See

discussion below under ‘‘United States 

Price’’ section of this notice. in this 

regard, Jinfu claims that it was affiliated 

with Jinfu USA as of October 25, 2002, 

which means the two firms were 

affiliated throughout the entire POR. In 

support of this contention, Jinfu has 

provided documentation it claims 

establishes that it acquired ownership of 

Jinfu USA on October 25, 2002. 

Nevertheless, in the most recently 

completed segment of these PRC honey 

proceedings, the Department 

determined that Jinfu was not affiliated 

with Jinfu USA at the time of its first 

sale to the United States, which 

occurred on November 2, 2002. See

Final Results and Final Rescission, In 

Part, of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review, 69 FR 64029 (November 3, 

2004) (‘‘NSR Chengdu Final Results’’) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. In making 

this finding in NSR Chengdu Final 

Results, the Department further noted 

that evidence on the record suggested 

that Jinfu did not actually own Jinfu 

USA until after the new shipper POR, 

ending May 31, 2003. See, id.

In considering for purposes of these 

preliminary results whether Jinfu was 

affiliated with Jinfu USA under section 

771(33) of the Act, we analyzed all 

information on the record regarding 

possible affiliation between Jinfu and 

Jinfu USA. In particular, we considered 

whether Jinfu’s purchase/investment in 

Jinfu USA, as delineated in a stock 

ownership transfer agreement, resulted 

in a common control relationship 

between Jinfu USA and Jinfu at any time 

during the POR. 

Based on all of the information on the 

record, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that Jinfu and 

Jinfu USA were not affiliated with the 

meaning of section 771(33) of the Act 

until October 25, 2003, which is the 

date the above-referenced stock transfer 

agreement was executed. We note that 

this decision is consistent with our 

findings in NSR Chengdu Final Results. 

Moreover, in reaching this decision, the 

Department considered all the 

additional information submitted by 

Jinfu in this proceeding, but determined 

such additional information did not 

have sufficient probative value to call 

into question the decision in NSR 

Chengdu Final Results. For a further 

discussion of this issue, see Proprietary 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Honey 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC): Analysis of the Relationship and 

Treatment of Sales between Jinfu 

Trading, Co., Ltd. and Jinfu Trading 

(USA) Inc. from Kristina Boughton, Case 

Analyst, to James Doyle, Office Director, 

dated December 15, 2004. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether the 

respondents’ sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

made at prices below normal value, we 

compared their United States prices to 

normal values, as described in the 

‘‘United States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. 

United States Price 

Export Price 

For Dubao and Jinfu, and certain sales 

by Wuhan Bee and Zhejiang, we based 

United States price on export price 

(‘‘EP’’) in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, because the first sale 

to an unaffiliated purchaser was made 

prior to importation, and constructed 

export price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise 

warranted by the facts on the record. We 

calculated EP based on the packed price 

from the exporter to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. Where 

applicable, we deducted foreign inland 

freight, foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses 

from port to warehouse, and U.S. import 

duties and brokerage and handling from 

the starting price (gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act. 

Certain information regarding the 

sales made from Dubao to its 

unaffiliated customers raises concerns 

regarding the status of Dubao’s 

relationship with its customers, the 

status of its customers as legitimate 

importers of record, and when and how 

Dubao received payment for its sales. 

Therefore, the Department intends to 

further examine this information for the 

final results of review. Moreover, the 

Department intends to further examine 

this information for the final results of 

review. Moreover, the Department will 

issue an additional supplemental 

questionnaire following the preliminary 

results of review. Due to the proprietary 

nature of this information, the specific 

issues are identified in the Proprietary 

Analysis Memorandum to the File from 

Anya Naschak, Case Analyst, dated 

December 15, 2004. For purposes of 

these preliminary results, the 

Department has determined to rely on 

the U.S. sales data submitted by Dubao. 

For these preliminary results for Dubao, 

we deducted foreign inland freight and 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses from the starting price (gross 

unit price), in accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act. For Wuhan Bee, we 

added billing and quantity adjustments 

and freight revenue to the starting price 

and deducted discounts, foreign inland 

freight, and foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses from the starting 

price (gross unit price), in accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act. And for 

Zhejiang, where applicable, we 

deducted foreign inland freight and 

international freight from the starting 

price (gross unit price), in accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act.

Based on the Department’s 

preliminary decision on affiliation 

between Jinfu and Jinfu USA, the 

Department requested that Jinfu supply 

EP sales information for all of its sales 

to the United States during the POR. 

Therefore, we calculated EP and 

deducted foreign inland freight and 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses from the starting price (gross 

unit price), in accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act. 

Where foreign inland freight, foreign 

brokerage and handling, or marine 

insurance were provided by PRC service 

providers or paid for in renminbi, we 

valued these services using Indian 

surrogate values (see ‘‘Factors of 

Production’’ section below for further 

discussion). For those expenses that 

were provided by a market-economy 

provider and paid for in marketeconomy currency, we used the 

reported expense. 

Constructed Export Price 

For Eswell and certain sales by 

Wuhan Bee and Zhejiang, we calculated 

CEP in accordance with section 772(b) 

of the Act, because certain sales were 

made on behalf of the PRC-based 

company by its U.S. affiliate to 

unaffiliated purchasers. We based CEP 

on packed, delivered or ex-warehouse 

prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States. Where appropriate, 

we made deductions from the starting 

price (gross unit price) for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

77192 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

7This memorandum is attached to the letters sent 

to interested parties to this proceeding requesting 

comments on surrogate country and surrogate value 

information, dated March 25, 2004.

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included 

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 

and handling charges, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, U.S. import 

duties, and U.S. inland freight expenses. 

In accordance with section 772(c)(1) 

of the Act, we also deducted those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States, including direct selling 

expenses and indirect selling expenses. 

We also made an adjustment for profit 

in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 

the Act. 

Specifically, for Eswell we deducted 

(where applicable) foreign inland 

freight, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. brokerage, U.S. customs 

duties, U.S. inland freight from the port 

to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from 

the warehouse to the customer, 

commissions, credit expenses, other 

direct selling expenses (lab tests), 

indirect selling expenses, CEP profit, 

and added (where applicable) freight 

revenue. 

For Zhejiang we deducted (where 

applicable) foreign inland freight, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

U.S. brokerage, U.S. customs duties, 

U.S. inland freight from the port to 

warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the 

warehouse to the customer, 

commissions, credit expenses, indirect 

selling expenses, as well as CEP profit. 

Wuhan Bee reported to the 

Department further manufacturing costs 

associated with blending subject 

merchandise with non-subject 

merchandise in the United States. On 

December 3, 2004, Wuhan Bee 

submitted comments on the appropriate 

methodology for assessing further 

manufacturing costs for these 

preliminary results. The Department has 

examined these comments and 

determined, for these preliminary 

results, the appropriate methodology for 

calculating a further manufacturing cost. 

Because of the proprietary nature of this 

information, further discussion of this 

issue can be found in the Memorandum 

to the File from Kristina Boughton: 

Wuhan Bee Healthy Co. Ltd. Analysis 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of Review, dated December 15, 

2004. For Wuhan Bee, to calculate CEP 

we added (where applicable) billing and 

quantity adjustments and freight 

revenue to the gross unit price. Then we 

deducted (where applicable) discounts, 

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 

and handling charges, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. 

brokerage, U.S. customs duties, U.S. 

inland freight from the port to 

warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the 

warehouse to the customer, further 

manufacturing, credit expenses, 

commissions, inventory carrying costs, 

indirect selling expenses, and CEP 

profit.

Where foreign inland freight, foreign 

brokerage and handling, or marine 

insurance, were provided by PRC 

service providers or paid for in 

renminbi, we valued these services 

using Indian surrogate values (see

‘‘Factors of Production’’ section below 

for further discussion). For those 

expenses that were provided by a 

market-economy provider and paid for 

in market-economy currency, we used 

the reported expense. 

Normal Value 

Non-Market-Economy Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. 

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 

Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). 

None of the parties to these reviews 

have contested such treatment. 

Accordingly, we calculated NV in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires 

the Department to value an NME 

producer’s factors of production, to the 

extent possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (1) are at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (2) are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. India is among the 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of overall economic development, 

as identified in the February 24, 2004, 

Memorandum from the Office of Policy 

to Abdelali Elouaradia.7 In addition, 

based on publicly available information 

placed on the record (e.g., world 

production data), India is a significant 

producer of the subject merchandise. 

Accordingly, we considered India the 

surrogate country for purposes of 

valuing the factors of production 

because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate-country selection. 

See Memorandum to the file from Anya 

Naschak through James Doyle entitled, 

‘‘Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’

dated December 15, 2004 (‘‘Surrogate 

Country Memo’’).

Factors of Production 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

factors of production which included, 

but we were not limited to: (A) Hours 

of labor required; (B) quantities of raw 

materials employed; (C) amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed; 

and (D) representative capital costs, 

including depreciation. We used factors 

of production reported by the producer 

or exporter for materials, energy, labor, 

and packing. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported unit factor 

quantities by publicly available Indian 

values. 

In selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data, in 

accordance with our practice. When we 

used publicly available import data 

from the Ministry of Commerce of India 

(‘‘Indian Import Statistics’’) for 

December 2002 through November 2003 

to value inputs sourced domestically by 

PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian 

surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 

calculated using the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory or the distance 

from the nearest port of export to the 

factory This adjustment is in accordance 

with the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp

v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used nonimport surrogate values for factors 

sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, 

we based freight for inputs on the actual 

distance from the input supplier to the 

site at which the input was used. In 

instances where we relied on Indian 

import data to value inputs, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we excluded imports from both 

NME countries and countries deemed to 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may 

benefit all exporters to all export 

markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand) from our surrogate value 

calculations. See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002) and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 1. See, also, 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77193

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 

28, 2003), unchanged in the 

Department’s final results at 69 FR 

20594 (April 16, 2004). Also consistent 

with our policy, we excluded, in a few 

instances, import data that appeared to 

be aberrational when compared to the 

average import value of all countries not 

excluded. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594, April 16, 2004, and 

accompanying issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. See

Memorandum to the File, through James 

Doyle, Office Director, entitled, ‘‘Factors 

of Production Valuation Memorandum 

for the Preliminary Results of the 

Second Antidumping Duty Review of 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated December 15, 2004 

(‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’), for a 

complete discussion of the import data 

what we excluded from our calculation 

of surrogate values. This memorandum 

is on file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’) located in room B–099 of the 

Main Commerce Building.

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR to value factors, we 

adjusted the surrogate values using the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) 

as published in the International 

Financial Statistics (‘‘IFS’’) of the 

International Monetary Fund (‘‘IMF’’), 

for those surrogate values in Indian 

rupees. We made currency conversions, 

where necessary, pursuant to section 

351.415 of the Department’s regulations 

to U.S. dollars using the applicable 

average exchange rate for the POR. We 

based the average exchange rates on 

exchange rate data from the Import 

Administration Web site at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. See

Factor Valuation Memo. We valued the 

factors of production as follows: 

To value raw honey, we used the 

average of two raw honey prices, 

provided in an article published in The 

Tribune (of India) on December 15, 

2003, entitled, ‘‘Honey sweet despite 

price fall.’’ A copy of the original article, 

which was submitted by petitioners, is 

attached at Attachment 3 of the Factor 

Valuation Memo. The respondents in 

this review submitted other news 

articles to be used as potential sources 

for the surrogate value data for raw 

honey, including an article from the 

Hindu Business Line dated April 2003 

and an article from IndiaInfoline.com 

dated September 2003. We have not 

used either of these alternate sources 

proposed by respondents in the 

preliminary results, as discussed in the 

Factor Valuation Memo. 

In selecting the raw honey values 

from The Tribune (of India) article as 

the best available information with 

which to value raw honey in this 

proceeding, we note that the 

Department has conducted extensive 

research on potential raw honey 

surrogate values for this administrative 

review. The relevant research is 

included as Attachment 17 of the Factor 

Valuation Memo. Additionally, the 

Department contacted U.S. Foreign 

Agriculture Service (‘‘FAS’’) officers in 

India to conduct research on its behalf 

(see Memorandum to the File from Anya 

Naschak, dated November 19, 2004). 

The information obtained from these 

FAS officers included price quotes from 

the North India Beekeepers Society 

(‘‘NIBS’’). The Department also 

evaluated the reasonableness of using 

Mahabaleshwar Honey Producers 

Cooperative Society, Ltd.’s (‘‘MHPC’’) 

cost of raw honey from its financial 

statements. None of these other sources 

of information are as reliable as the raw 

honey values appearing in The Tribune 

(of India) article. Specifically, the 

Department cannot confirm the quality 

or reliability of the NBS values, and the 

MHPC price is that a single producer. In 

addition, we note ‘‘the Department’s 

preference is to use industry-wide 

values, rather than the values of a single 

producer, wherever possible, because 

industry-wide values are more 

representative of prices/costs of all 

producers in the surrogate country.’’ See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Honey From the 

People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 50608 

(October 4, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2 (‘‘Final Determination’’). 

See also Final Results of the First 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Honey 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 

FR 25060 (May 5, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3.

The use of The Tribune (of India) 

article is also consistent with the 

Department’s recent decision in the 

third new shipper review of this order. 

See NSR Chengdu Final Results and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. For a 

further discussion of this issue, see 

Factor Valuation Memo, as well as the 

preliminary results of the new shipper 

reviews that are contemporaneous with 

the instant review. See Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews, 69 FR 

69350 (November 29, 2004) (‘‘NSR 

Anhui Prelim Results’’). 

To value water, we used the water 

tariff rate, as reported on the Municipal 

Corporation of Greater Mumbai’s Web 

site. See http://www.mcgm.gov.in/

Stat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm.

Because this data is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, an 

adjustment has been made for inflation 

using WPI data. 

To value diesel fuel for autos, we used 

the rate published in International 

Energy Agency, Energy Prices and 

Taxes—Quarterly Statistics (Fourth 

Quarter 2003), under ‘‘Automotive 

Diesel for Commercial Use.’’ See Factor 

Valuation Memo. 

To value beeswax, scrap honey, coal, 

paint, and labels, we used Indian Import 

Statistics, contemporaneous with the 

POR, removing data from certain 

countries as discussed in the Factor 

Valuation Memo. We also adjusted the 

surrogate values to include freight costs 

incurred between the shorter of the two 

reported distances from either (1) the 

closet PRC seaport to the location 

producing the subject merchandise, or 

(2) the PRC domestic materials supplier 

to the location where the subject 

merchandise is produced. See Factor 

Valuation Memo. 

We valued electricity using the 

Annual Report (2001–2002) on The 

Working of State Electricity Boards & 

Electricity Departments of the Planning 

Commission (Power and Energy 

Division) of the Government of India 

(May 2002), as submitted by 

respondents in their May 10, 2004, 

submission at Exhibit 5. We inflated the 

value for electricity using the POR 

average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation 

Memo. 

To value drums, we relied upon a 

price quote from an Indian steel drum 

manufacturer from September 2000, as 

provided by Petitioners in their May 10, 

2004, submission at Exhibit 9. We 

inflated the value for drums using the 

POR average WPI rate. See Factor 

Valuation Memo. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, we relied upon 

publicly available information in the 

2002–2003 annual report of MHPC, a 

producer of the subject merchandise in 

India, upon which both petitioners and 

respondents have argued that the 

Department should rely upon. 

Petitioners aver in their November 18, 

2004, submission that the Department 

should continue to rely on the 

methodology used in NSR Chengdu 

Final Results. Respondents argued in 

their December 3, 2004, submission that 

the Department should exclude the line 

77194 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

8Where entered value was not reported, we relied 

on the quantity of subject merchandise.

item for ‘‘Honey Sale Commission’’ from 

the calculation of SG&A. However, we 

preliminarily find that the Department’s 

calculation in NSR Chengdu Final 

Results was appropriate. Therefore, for 

these preliminary results we are 

continuing to include ‘‘Honey Sale 

Commission’’ in our calculation of the 

SG&A ratio and have applied the 

resulting ratios to the calculated cost of 

manufacture and cost of production 

using the same methodology established 

in NSR Chengdu Final Results and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5 and 

reinforced in NSR Anhui Prelim 

Results. For a further discussion of this 

issue, see Factor Valuation Memo. 

Because of the variability of wage 

rates in countries with similar levels of 

per capita gross domestic product, 

section 351.408(c)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations requires the 

use of regression-based wage rate. 

Therefore, to value the labor input, we 

used the PRC’s regression-based wage 

rate published by Import 

Administration on its Web site. The 

source of the wage rate data on the 

Import Administration Web site is the 

Yearbook of Labor Statistics 2002, 

International Labor Organization 

(‘‘ILO’’), (Geneva: 2002), and gross 

national income (GNI’’) data as reported 

in World Development Indicators, The 

World Bank, (Washington, DC: 2003 and 

2004). See Factor Valuation Memo. 

To value truck freight, we used an 

average truck freight cost based on 

Indian truck freight rates on a permetric-ton basis published in the Iron 

and Steel Newsletter, April 2002, which 

we adjusted for inflation. See Factor 

Valuation Memo. 

We valued marine insurance, where 

necessary, based on publicly available 

price quotes from a marine insurance 

provider at http://

www.rjgconsultants.com/

insurance.html. We also valued 

brokerage and handling using the 

source, dated November 12, 1999, that 

petitioners provided in their May 10, 

2004, submission. Since the brokerage 

rate was not contemporaneous with the 

POR, we adjusted the rate for inflation. 

See Factor Valuation Memo. 

In accordance with section 

351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations, for the final results of this 

administrative review, interested parties 

may submit publicly available 

information to value the factors of 

production until 20 days following the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results.

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margins 

exist:

Exporter Margin

(percent) 

Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee 

Industrial Co., Ltd. ..................... 41.99 

Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., 

Ltd. ............................................ 38.25 

Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. .................. 73.67 

Wuhan Bee Healthy Company, 

Ltd. ............................................ 5.69 

Zhejian Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Group Corp. ....................... 44.98 

Shanghai Xiuwei International 

Trading Co., Ltd. ....................... 183.80 

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. .................................. 183.80 

Shanghai Shinomiel International 

Trade Corporation ..................... 183.80 

PRC-Wide Rate ............................ 183.80 

For details on the calculation of the 

antidumping duty weighted-average 

margin for each company, see the 

respective company’s Analysis 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of the Second Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated December 15, 2004. Public 

Versions of these memoranda are on file 

in the CRU. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department calculates an assessment 

rate for each importer of the subject 

merchandise. Upon issuance of the final 

results of this review, if any importerspecific assessment rates calculated in 

the final results are above de minimis

(i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), the 

Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries by applying the assessment rate 

to the entered quantity or value of the 

merchandise. For assessment purposes, 

we calculated importer-specific 

assessment rates for the subject 

merchandise by aggregating the 

dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to 

each importer and dividing the amount 

by the total quantity or entered value of 

the sales to that importer.8 If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting rate against 

the total quantity or entered value for 

the subject merchandise on each of the 

respondents’ importer’s/customer’s 

entries during the POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit rates will 

be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this review for all 

shipments of honey from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject 

merchandise exported by Dubao, 

Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang, 

the cash-deposit rate will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

companies not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period 

(except for Inner Mongolia and 

Shanghai Xiuwei, whose cash-deposit 

rates have changed in their review to the 

PRC-wide entity rate as noted below); 

(3) the cash-deposit rate for all other 

PRC exporters (including Inner 

Mongolia, Shanghai Xiuwei, and 

Shanghai Shinomiel) will be the PRCwide rate established in the final results 

of this review; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other non-PRC exporters will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. 

Schedule for Final Results of Review 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed in connection 

with the preliminary results of this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with section 351.224(b) of the 

Department’s regulations. Any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice is accordance with section 

351.310(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. Any hearing would 

normally be held 37 days after the 

publication of this notice, or the first 

workday thereafter, at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who 

wish to request a hearing must submit 

a written request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street 

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