Honey From Argentina and China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892 and 893 (Review)

Publication 3929 June 2007

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Mary Messer, Investigator

Gabriel Ellenberger, Investigator

Daniel Cook, Industry Analyst

Rhonda Hughes, Attorney

George Deyman, Supervisor Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Honey From Argentina and China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892 and 893 (Review)

Publication 3929 June 2007
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Information obtained in the reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Commerce’s determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Previous and related Commission investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. Government programs and regulations affecting the U.S. honey industry . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Production process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

U.S. beekeepers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

U.S. packers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Related parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-42

Barriers to entry in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-42

The world market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-44

The subject foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-46

 Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-46

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-46

 The industries in Argentina and China combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-48

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892 and 893 (Review)

HONEY FROM ARGENTINA AND CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on honey from Argentina

and the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on November 1, 2006 (71 F.R. 64292) and determined

on February 5, 2007 that it would conduct expedited reviews (72 F.R. 6745, February 13, 2007).

 1

 Honey from Argentina and China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-402 (Final) and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Pub.

3470 (Nov. 2001), at 1 (“Original Determinations”).

 2

 We note that on October 3, 1994, the American Beekeeping Federation and the AHPA filed a petition alleging

that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less than

fair value imports of honey from China. The Commission subsequently made an affirmative preliminary

determination and the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued a preliminary determination finding dumping

margins ranging from 127.52 to 157.16 percent. On August 2, 1995, Commerce and representatives of the

government of China concluded an agreement that suspended the investigations being conducted by the Commission

and Commerce concerning honey from China. The suspension agreement obligated the government of China to

restrict the volume of honey exports to the United States from all Chinese producers/exporters and established a

pricing mechanism for Chinese exports. Specifically, Chinese honey exported to the United States could not be sold

at a price less than a reference price, which the agreement defined to be “92 percent of the weighted-average of the

honey unit import values from all other countries for the most recent six months of data available at the time the

reference price is calculated.” The suspension agreement was in place until August 16, 2000. Confidential Report 

(“CR”) at I-12 - I-13, Public Report (“PR”) at I-10; 65 Fed. Reg. 46,426 (July 28, 2000).

 3

 Original Determinations at 1. With respect to subject imports from China for which Commerce made

affirmative critical circumstances findings, Commissioners Bragg, Miller and Devaney made an affirmative critical

circumstances finding and Chairman Koplan, Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioner Hillman made a negative

critical circumstances finding.

 4

 66 Fed. Reg. 63,673 (Dec. 10, 2001) (countervailing duty order regarding imports from Argentina), id. at 63,672

(antidumping duty order regarding imports from Argentina), id. at 63,670 (antidumping duty order regarding imports

from China).

 5

 In January 2002, Chinese exporters and U.S. importers appealed the Commission’s determination to the Court

of International Trade contesting various findings, primarily regarding the affirmative determination as to critical

circumstances. Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. v. United States, Ct. No.

02-00064. They also sought to amend the complaint later to add two counts challenging the legitimacy of thenCommissioner Devaney’s vote on critical circumstances. The Commission opposed this motion; however, it was

granted by Judge Eaton. The case was then stayed pending the final disposition of Nippon Steel Corp. v. U.S.

International Trade Commission, Ct. No. 01-00103, which involved issues relating to whether the participation of

Commissioner Devaney was unlawful that were also pertinent to appeal of the original determinations. Judge Eaton

determined that the appointment of Commissioner Devaney was valid and that his vote was lawful. Nippon Steel

(continued...)

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on honey from

Argentina and the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

The original investigations on imports of honey from Argentina and China were instituted on

September 29, 2000, based on a petition filed by the American Honey Producers Association (“AHPA”)

and the Sioux Honey Association (“SHA”).1 2

 In November 2001, the Commission found that an industry

in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of honey from Argentina that were found

by Commerce to be subsidized by the Government of Argentina, and by reason of imports of honey from

Argentina and China that were found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value

(“LTFV”).3

 Commerce issued the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on December 10, 2001.4 5
 5

 (...continued)

Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1381 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

 6

 CR/PR at App. A.

 7

 The Commission received one response from the domestic industry, which was filed on behalf of the AHPA and

the SHA. The AHPA is a trade association whose 182 current members are engaged in the business of producing

honey in the United States. The SHA, which is comprised of 318 current members, is a nonprofit cooperative

marketing organization that collects, processes, packs, and markets honey produced by its members, as well as by

independent beekeepers. The domestic interested parties indicated that they accounted for *** percent of U.S. honey

production in 2005. CR/PR at I-1 n.4.

 8

 CR/PR at App. B.

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979).

 12 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United

Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-380 to 382 and 731-TA-797 to 804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 at 6 (Jul. 2005);

Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

4

The Commission instituted these reviews on November 1, 2006 pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Act, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on honey from Argentina and the

antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.6

 In response

to its notice of institution of these reviews, the Commission received one response from the domestic

industry, which was filed on behalf of the AHPA and the SHA.7

 Consequently, the Commission found

that the domestic interested party group response to the notice of institution for each review was adequate. 

The Commission received no responses from any respondent interested party regarding the orders on

subject imports from Argentina or China. Thus, it unanimously determined on February 5, 2007, that the 

respondent interested party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate for each review. In

the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response, or any other circumstances that

would warrant a full review of any order, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews of all

orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.8 9

 Because we have expedited our reviews of these

countervailing and antidumping duty orders, much of the information we have relied upon was either

collected during the original investigations, provided by the domestic industry in its submissions in this

proceeding or obtained from public sources.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”10 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation

under this subtitle.”11 In five-year reviews, the Commission looks to the domestic like product definition

from the original determination and any previous reviews and considers whether the record indicates any

reason to revisit that definition.12
 13 72 Fed. Reg. 10,150, 10,151 (Mar. 7, 2007). Commerce’s scope with respect to the countervailing duty order

on imports of honey from Argentina is virtually the same. 72 Fed. Reg. 32,078 (June 11, 2007). Because Commerce

received adequate substantive responses from both domestic and respondent interested parties, it determined to

conduct a full review of the Argentine countervailing duty order. The net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if

the order were revoked is 5.85 percent. Id.

 14 CR at I-21, PR at I-15.

 15 CR at I-20 - I-21, PR at I-14 - I-15.

 16 CR at I-21, PR at I-15.

 17 CR at I-21 - I-22, PR at I-15 - I-16.

 18 66 Fed. Reg. 63,670, 63,672 and 63,673.

 19 Original Determinations at 5. In the original investigations, the Commission considered whether raw (or bulk)

honey should be defined as a separate domestic like product from bottled honey, but determined that there was a

single like product based on substantial similarities in physical characteristics and uses, some interchangeability and

overlapping channels of distribution. Id.

5

In the final results of its expedited five-year review determination with respect to the antidumping

duty orders, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as:

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.13

One of the most widely functional sweeteners, honey appears in a variety of products such as bread and

other baked goods, cereal, condiments, candy, medicine, and shampoo. Honey also contains mild

antiseptic properties when used on the skin.14

Natural honey is a sweet viscous fluid derived from the nectar of flowers and produced in the

honey sac of bees. Most natural honey is marketed as cream honey (also called “creamed,” “whipped” or

“spun”), which consists of pure honey in which dextrose crystallization has been encouraged; comb

honey, which is honey marketed in the beeswax comb, both of which are edible; cut comb honey, which

is liquid honey that has been packaged with chunks of honey comb; and dry honey (also known as “dried”

or “powdered”), which is made by removing the water found in liquid honey by drum- or spray-drying.15

The term “artificial honey” applies to mixtures based on sucrose, glucose or invert sugar,

generally flavored or colored and prepared to imitate natural honey. Artificial honey could include a

variety of products such as honey mixed with refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and other

sweeteners. Artificial honey mixed with more than 50 percent natural honey by weight is included in the

scope of these reviews. Artificial honey exists in relatively small amounts in the U.S. market and is

supplied by both foreign and domestic producers. The product is a direct substitute for natural honey.16

Preparations of natural honey include natural honey mixed with bees’ royal jelly. There is no

official definition of flavored honey, which is most likely sold as a specialty product for retail

consumption and not for industrial use, but the unofficial guideline is that it must contain 99 percent or

more honey by weight. Imports of flavored honey are not significant relative to overall imports of natural

honey.17

The definition of the scope of the reviews as set out above is unchanged from Commerce’s

definition in the original investigations.18 In the Commission’s original investigations, it defined a single

domestic like product as all honey, consistent with the scope of the investigations.19
 20 Domestic Industry’s Comments at 3.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

include in the industry all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or

sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted in the United

States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96

F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 22 Original Determinations at 11.

 23 Original Determinations at 6-7.

 24 Original Determinations at 7.

 25 CR at I-24 - I-26, PR at I-17 - I-18.

 26 In the original investigations, the Commission also examined whether appropriate circumstances existed to

exclude as related parties five importers of subject merchandise and 16 purchasers (packers) of imported honey

(including four of the five importers of subject merchandise). Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission,

if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or

importer of subject merchandise, or which are themselves importers. The primary factors the Commission has

examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the

firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to

continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion

of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.

See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d

809 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 The Commission has also concluded that a domestic producer that does not itself import subject

merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer or foreign producer or exporter, may

(continued...)

6

In these reviews, AHPA and SHA agree with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like

product as set forth in the original investigations.20 The Commission has not obtained any new

information during these reviews that indicates a need to revisit that definition. Accordingly, we continue

to define the domestic like product as all honey, consistent with the scope of the reviews.

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”21

In the original determinations, the Commission defined the domestic industry as consisting of all

domestic producers of honey, both raw and processed.22 The Commission considered whether to include

honey packers in the domestic industry. In 2000, there were over 100,000 beekeepers, 350 beekeeperpackers and 110 independent packers in the United States. Upon receipt of extracted honey, packers

blended different types of honey, both domestic and foreign. Heat could then be used to pack a finished

product, as heating aided the flow of honey through the processing facility and could retard granulation

and spoilage.23 The Commission found that all packers engaged in sufficient production-related activities

to be included in the domestic industry.24

The record does not indicate that packer operations have changed since the time of the original

investigations.25 In light of our domestic like product determination and because there is no new

information obtained during these reviews that would suggest otherwise, we again define the domestic

industry as the domestic producers of honey, both raw and processed.26
 26 (...continued)

nonetheless be deemed a related party if it controls large volumes of imports. The Commission has found such

control to exist where the domestic producer was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s

purchases and the importer’s purchases were substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891

(Final), USITC Pub. 3449 (Sept. 2001), at 8-9.

 27 Original Determinations at 9.

 28 Original Views (Confidential) at 16. The Commission excluded these domestic producers from the industry in

the original investigations because they sourced a large portion of their honey from subject sources and had shielded

themselves from the effects of unfairly traded imports. Id.

 29 Domestic Industry’s Comments at 3.

 30 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-895 (Review), USITC Pub. 3908 (Mar. 2007), at 15-

16. We note that ***. CR at I-39, PR at I-28.

 31 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like

product. Finally, if based on that analysis they intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject

countries, they analyze whether they are precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or

more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry. See Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-678, 679, 681, and 682

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3895 (Dec. 2006) (Additional and Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson

and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun).

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

7

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the record contained insufficient

information regarding the importers from whom the packers purchased subject honey such that the

Commission could not determine whether the packers controlled importers or exporters through their

purchases. Consequently, it did not exclude these packers from the industry.27 However, the Commission

found that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude ***, *** and *** from the domestic industry.28

In these reviews, AHPA and SHA agree with the Commission’s definition of the domestic

industry and have not argued that the Commission should exclude any producers from the domestic

industry.29 As stated above, our information is limited in these expedited reviews. Because we lack

current company-specific data with respect to individual honey producers, we are unable to resolve

whether any domestic producers are related parties, let alone whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude any from the domestic industry.30

III. CUMULATION31

A. Overview

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.32
 33 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(I).

 34 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 06-188 at 17 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 22, 2006)

(recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding

whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews).

 35 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different

countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of

Korea, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A.

v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Mukand Ltd. v.

United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 915 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 36 See Mukand, 937 F. Supp. at 916; Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50, 52 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1989) (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group, 873 F. Supp. at 685. We

note, however, that there have been investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in

competition and has declined to cumulate subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs.

Nos. 701-TA-386 (Prelim.) and 731-TA-812-813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d, RanchersCattlemen Action Legal Foundation v. United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random

Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 38 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994).

 39 CR/PR at I-2.

8

Cumulation is therefore discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike in the case of original investigations,

which are governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.33 Because of the prospective nature of five-year

reviews and the Commission’s discretion with respect to cumulation, we consider significant conditions

of competition that are likely to prevail with respect to each subject country if the orders under review are

terminated.34

The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate, however, only if the reviews are

initiated on the same day and the Commission determines that the subject imports are likely to compete

with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. The Commission generally has

considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining whether the imports compete

with each other and with the domestic like product.35 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is

required.36 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be competition after

revocation of the orders, even if none currently exists.

The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.37 We note that neither the statute

nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”)

provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.38 With respect to this provision,

the Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of

those imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Argentina and

China. In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the same

day is satisfied as all the reviews were initiated on November 1, 2006.39
 40 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 41 CR/PR at Table I-19.

 42 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 43 CR/PR at Table I-19.

 44 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 45 CR/PR at Table I-20.

 46 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 47 CR/PR at Table I-20.

 48 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). 

 49 See Mukand, 937 F. Supp. at 917.

 50 Original Determinations at 14-15.

9

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

We do not find that subject imports of honey from Argentina and China would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the countervailing duty and antidumping duty

orders were revoked.

Argentina. During the original investigations, subject imports from Argentina accounted for 19.7

to 23.7 percent of apparent U.S. consumption from 1998-2000.40 In 2000, production of subject honey in

Argentina totaled 198.4 million pounds, 97.3 percent of which was exported.41 In these expedited review

investigations, subject imports from Argentina have been in the U.S. market in substantial volumes

throughout the period of review. They have risen, albeit irregularly, from 45.1 million pounds in 2001 to

49.9 million pounds in 2005; their share of the U.S. market varied between 2.2 and 13.7 percent during

the period of review.42 The Argentine industry’s total exports to all markets rose irregularly from 161.0

million pounds to 237.4 million pounds during that period.43

China. During the original investigations, subject imports from China accounted for 8.6 to 14.0

percent of apparent U.S. consumption from 1998-2000.44 In 2000, production of subject honey in China

totaled 438.6 million pounds, 51.4 percent of which was exported.45 In these expedited review

investigations, subject imports from China have been in the U.S. market in substantial volumes

throughout the period of review. They have increased from 39.3 million pounds in 2001 to 64.7 million

pounds in 2005; their share of the U.S. market varied between 4.5 and 16.4 percent.46 China continues to

export a large volume of honey, although total exports to all markets fell from 235.2 million pounds to

194.8 million pounds during that period.47

Based on these factors, we do not find that subject imports from Argentina or China would likely

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked.

C. Likely Reasonable Overlap of Competition

With regard to likely overlap of competition, the relevant inquiry is whether there would likely be

competition after revocation of the orders, even if there are no current imports from a subject country.48

Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.49 In the original investigations, the Commission

cumulated subject imports from both subject countries based on a reasonable overlap of competition.50

In these expedited reviews, the record does not show any current or likely changes in the

reasonably foreseeable future with respect to geographic markets or simultaneous presence from those
 51 See CR at I-51, PR at I-38, CR/PR at Table I-15 (geographic markets); CR at I-51, PR at I-38, CR/PR at Table

I-16 (simultaneous presence).

 52 The domestic industry argues that there is general interchangeability between subject imports and between the

subject imports and the domestic like product. In addition, both domestic honey and subject imports continue to be

sold in all three channels of distribution: retail, food service and industrial/ingredient. Domestic Industry’s

Comments at 5-6.

 53 Commissioners Pinkert and Lane do not join in this analysis of other considerations. Where, in a five-year

review, they do not find that the subject imports are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry and find that such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in

the U.S. market, they intend to cumulate such imports unless there is a condition or propensity – not merely a trend –

that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly limits competition such that

cumulation is not warranted. Here, they find there is no such condition or propensity and that the industries in China

and Argentina have been and are significantly oriented toward exports to the United States. Therefore, they

determine to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports.

 54 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 55 CR/PR at Table I-19.

 56 CR/PR at Table I-20.

 57 CR/PR at Table I-17.

10

found in the original investigations.51 Regarding fungibility and channels of distribution, there is likewise

no evidence in the record that this situation has changed from the original investigations.52 Accordingly,

we again find a reasonable overlap of competition in these five-year reviews.

D. Other Considerations

Based on the record in these expedited five-year reviews, we find that subject imports of honey

from Argentina and China would likely compete in the U.S. market under similar conditions of

competition.53

Subject imports from both countries have maintained a steady presence in the U.S. market

throughout the period of review. In fact, subject honey imports from both countries increased, albeit

irregularly, during that period despite the fact that the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders

were in place. Subject imports from Argentina increased from 45.1 million pounds in 2001 to 49.9

million pounds in 2005, while subject imports from China increased from 39.3 million pounds in 2001 to

64.7 million pounds in 2005.54 In 2005, 29.5 percent of Argentina’s production was exported to the

United States,55 while 9.5 percent of China’s production was exported to the United States in that year.56

Argentina’s share of apparent U.S. consumption, as measured by quantity, was 13.7 percent in 2001 and

fell slightly to 12.3 percent in 2005. China’s share of apparent U.S. consumption, as measured by

quantity, was similar in size to that of Argentina. It was 11.9 percent in 2001 and rose to 15.9 percent in

2005.57

There is no evidence in the record of these expedited reviews that would indicate that, upon

revocation of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders, subject honey imports from Argentina

and China would likely compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition. Both

countries have large honey industries and both export large amounts of honey. In particular, both

countries export large quantities of honey to the United States. We acknowledge that some differences

exist with respect to the industries in the subject countries; however, based on the similarities noted above

that are evident from the limited record in these expedited reviews we find that subject imports from each

country are likely to compete in the U.S. market under similar conditions of competition if the orders are

revoked. Therefore, we determine to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from these

countries.
 58 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 59 The SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of

material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 60 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 61 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 140 Fed.

Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24,

2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20,

2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’

to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-

105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury,

not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is

tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 62 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review)

and 731-TA-707-710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 63 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No.

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

(continued...)

11

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF 

THE COUNTERVAILING DUTY AND/OR ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE

REVOKED

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on

honey from Argentina and the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry producing honey

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Legal Standard In a Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke a

countervailing duty order or an antidumping duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping

or subsidization is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination that

revocation of the countervailing duty order or the antidumping duty order “would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”58 The Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), states that “under the

likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely

impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or

termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of

imports.”59 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.60 The U.S. Court of International

Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,”

and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.61 62 63
 63 (...continued)

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses the issue.

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 65 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 67 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has not made any duty absorption determinations with respect to the

orders under review. CR/PR at I-3 n.16. The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that

the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one

factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 68 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when: (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp., 155 F. Supp. 2d at 765 (“[T]he ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission investigation.”).

 69 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by the

participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not

automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level

of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider all

(continued...)

12

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”64 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”65

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

countervailing duty or antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental

elements. The statute provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and

impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated.”66 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the

suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are

revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty

absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).67

No respondent interested party has participated in these reviews. The record, therefore, contains

limited information with respect to the honey industries in Argentina and China. Accordingly, we rely on

available information when appropriate, which consists primarily of information from the original

investigations and information collected in these five-year reviews, including that submitted by AHPA

and SHA.68 69
 69 (...continued)

evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis

superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding

a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the

evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

 71 Original Determinations at 15-16.

 72 Original Determinations at 16.

 73 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 74 Original Determinations at 17.

 75 Original Determinations at 16-17.

 76 See CR at I-37 - I-39, PR at I-27 - I-28.

 77 CR/PR at Table I-17. 

 78 CR/PR at Table I-17. 

13

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”70 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. In the original investigations, the Commission found that demand for honey increased

over the period examined. As measured by apparent U.S. consumption, demand rose from 352.7 million

pounds in 1998 to 419.2 million pounds in 2000.71 The Commission also found that the honey market

comprised three sets of customers: the industrial/ingredient sector, the retail sector and the food service

sector. Each of these used imports from both Argentina and China.72

Since the original investigations, the demand for honey, as measured by apparent U.S.

consumption, has declined, although it increased from the beginning of the period of review to the end. 

Apparent U.S. consumption increased from 330.4 million pounds in 2001 to 407.3 million pounds in

2005.73 There is no evidence in the record of these reviews that there have been changes in the structure

of the market.

Supply. In the original investigations, the Commission found that nonsubject imports exhibited a

relatively stable presence in the U.S. market during most of the period examined.74 The Commission also

found that pollination services had become increasingly important to beekeepers as a means of

augmenting their income. Beekeepers received agricultural program payments in 1999 and 2000 as well

as Commodity Credit Corporation loans that were considered income at the time of the loan.75

In these reviews, the structure of the domestic industry has not changed significantly since

2000.76 In 2000, at the end of the original investigations, cumulated subject import volume totaled

157.9 million pounds and accounted for 37.7 percent of apparent U.S. consumption. In 2005, at the end

of the review period, despite the orders cumulated subject imports maintained a substantial share of the

U.S. market, at 28.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.77 Nonsubject import volume increased from

40.2 million pounds in 2000 to 118.0 million pounds in 2005. As measured by quantity, nonsubject

imports accounted for 9.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2000, and 29.0 percent in 2005.78 
 79 CR at I-40, PR at I-28 - I-29.

 80 CR at I-40, PR at I-29.

 81 Original Determinations at 16.

 82 Original Determinations at 16.

 83 See Domestic Industry’s Comments at 4.

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 85 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

14

Bee populations in the United States have declined over the past 50 years by an estimated 40 to

50 percent.79 The major cause of this decline has been disease and the use of pesticides. Varroa mites

(also known as “vampire mites”) are the greatest known long-term threat to domestic honeybees. They

feed on the honeybees’ blood, often leaving the bees with deformed wings and/or abdomens and a

reduced life span. The mites are also carriers for many honeybee diseases, especially viral diseases, that

have also contributed to the population decline. In addition, honeybee populations have experienced

more dramatic temporary declines in population due to reasons largely not understood by scientists.80

Substitutability. In the original investigations, the Commission found that price is an important

factor in purchasing decisions for both independent packers and purchasers, such that honey is highly

substitutable within the same grades. Most responding independent packers indicated that quality is the

most important factor, and most responding purchasers ranked it as one of the top three factors in their

purchasing decisions.81 The Commission also stated that 14 of 22 responding independent packers

indicated that they blend honey from different country sources, including the United States, Argentina

and China.82

There is no evidence in the record of these reviews that honey imported from the subject

countries is viewed as less substitutable than it was in the original investigations. Indeed, the domestic

industry argues that the price-based nature of competition for sales of honey in the U.S. market remains as

true today as during the original investigations such that, upon revocation of the orders, Argentina and

China have the ability to reenter the U.S. market rapidly and in large volumes by selling at low prices.83

Based on the evidence in the record of these expedited reviews, we find that conditions of

competition in the honey market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable

future. Accordingly, we find that current conditions in the market provide us with a reasonable basis on

which to assess the likely effects of revocation of the orders in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume

of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States.84 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including

four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production

capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases

in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries

other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to

produce other products.85

In the original investigations, the Commission found that cumulated subject import volume

increased over the entire period of investigation, including between interim periods (Jan.-June 2000 and

Jan.-June 2001). Domestic market share decreased over the period and subject import market share
 86 Original Determinations at 17-18.

 87 CR at I-64, PR at I-49, CR/PR at Table I-20.

 88 See CR/PR at Table I-18.

 89 CR/PR at Table I-19.

 90 CR/PR at Table I-19. These exports exceed 100 percent due to the compilation of the data from various public

sources. See id. Data from the original investigations indicate that Argentina historically exported nearly 100

percent of its production. CR/PR at Table I-19. 

 91 CR at I-62, PR at I-47.

 92 CR at I-62, PR at I-47.

 93 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 94 CR/PR at Table I-20.

 95 CR at I-64, PR at I-49.

 96 CR/PR at Table I-20.

 97 CR/PR at Table I-17.

15

steadily and substantially increased. The record also indicated that the volume of domestic beekeepers’

end-of-period stocks and the ratio of those stocks to production increased during the period of

investigation. The Commission found that the increased volumes of subject imports, both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption in the United States, were significant.86

In these reviews, we note again that the honey industries in Argentina and China are large. China

remains by far the world’s largest producer of honey. Since the original investigations, honey production

in China has continued to grow; it grew from 438.6 million pounds in 2000 to 657.0 million pounds in

2005.87 Argentina was ranked as the second largest honey producer in 200588 and the largest honey

exporter in the world. Honey production in Argentina has decreased since the time of the original

investigations, but remains quite substantial; it was 198.4 million pounds in 2000 and 176.4 million

pounds in 2005.89

As stated above, both countries export large amounts of honey. Argentina’s exports relative to

production totaled 134.6 percent in 2005,90 and the United States is one of its two most important export

markets.91 While honey exports to the United States fell sharply upon imposition of the antidumping duty

and countervailing duty orders, they have recently risen substantially. In 2004, the United States

accounted for approximately 6.6 percent of Argentina’s honey exports, but by 2005, it accounted for 21.9

percent.92 Notwithstanding the restraining effect of the orders, imports of subject honey from Argentina

accounted for 12.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in 2005, rising from 5.1 percent in

2002.93

China exported 29.7 percent of its honey production in 2005,94 and the United States is its second

most important export market.95 In 2005, China’s honey exports to the United States represented 9.5

percent of its production. As is the case with Argentina, China’s exports to the United States declined

sharply upon imposition of the antidumping duty order, but then began to rise substantially. In 2002,

Chinese honey exports to the United States, relative to production, were less than three percent, but rose

to almost 10 percent in 2005.96 Imports of subject honey from China accounted for 15.9 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in 2005, rising from 4.5 percent in 2002, notwithstanding the

restraining effects of the order.97

The attractiveness of the U.S. market to Chinese exporters is further indicated by the numerous

“new shipper” reviews instituted by Chinese exporters during the period of review. Evidence in the

record of these expedited reviews indicates that a substantial part of the increase in subject imports from

China was due to the ability of exporters undergoing “new shipper” reviews to satisfy the duty deposit

requirement on any entry with a bond as opposed to cash. This had the effect of allowing a large volume
 98 Domestic Industry’s Response to the Notice of Institution at 5, 18-23; Domestic Industry’s Comments at 8;

CR/PR at Table I-14. Congress suspended the new shipper bonding option in August 2006 for a three-year period. 

Domestic Industry’s Comments at 8.

 99 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 100 Original Determinations at 18.

 101 Original Determinations at 18.

 102 Original Determinations at 19.

 103 Original Determinations at 19.

16

of imports from “new shipper” exporters in China to enter the United States. Honey imports from China

nearly quadrupled from 16.7 million pounds in 2002 to 64.7 million pounds in 2005, with the bulk of this

increase from “new shipper” Chinese exporters.98

Based on the substantial volumes of subject imports into the United States and gains in market

share during the original investigations, the importance of the U.S. market to both Argentine and Chinese

producers and the fact that there have been substantial volumes of subject imports in the U.S. market

throughout the period of review notwithstanding the restraining effects of the orders, as well as the size

and export orientation of both foreign industries, we find that these producers would have an incentive to

ship significant volumes of additional exports to the United States if the orders were revoked. We

therefore find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative to production

and consumption in the United States, would be significant if the orders were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the countervailing duty or antidumping

orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant

underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject

imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing

or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.99

In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor in

purchasing decisions. In 72 percent of the instances in which price comparisons were possible, subject

import prices were below those of domestically produced honey. The margins of underselling ranged

from 0.4 percent to 20.8 percent. The Commission found the margins of underselling to be significant,

especially in view of large and increasing volumes of subject imports that represented a substantial

portion of the market.100 Both domestic and subject prices for honey fell by 17 to 26 percent over the

period examined for all pricing products with available data. Prices rebounded somewhat in the first half

of 2001, but remained at levels well below those of the first quarter of 1998.101 In addition, there were

confirmed allegations of lost sales and revenues.102 The Commission found that, in view of the significant

underselling by subject imports and depressed domestic prices, together with subject imports’ increased

volumes and market share, the subject imports had depressed domestic prices to a significant degree

during the period.103

As stated above in our discussion of conditions of competition, price is an important factor in

purchasing decisions. We have no new product-specific pricing information on the record in these

expedited reviews. However, the publicly available data show that the subject imports continue to
 104 CR/PR at Figures I-1, I-2 (Bee Culture magazine monthly pricing data).

 105 CR at I-34 - I-35, PR at I-24.

 106 Domestic Industry’s Response to the Notice of Institution at 8; see CR/PR at Tables I-12, I-14.

 107 CR/PR at Table I-17.

 108 Compare CR/PR at Table I-12 with CR/PR at Table I-17.

 109 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 110 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its antidumping duty determinations in its reviews of honey from Argentina and China and

found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping. For Argentina, Commerce found a margin of 37.44 percent for Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas,

32.56 percent for Radix S.R.L., 60.67 percent for ConAgra Argentina, and 35.76 percent for all others. For China,

Commerce found a margin of 57.13 percent for Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal

(continued...)

17

undersell the domestic like product, often by substantial margins.104 The annual average price of retail

sales of honey by domestic producers and sales of honey to private processors and cooperatives in the

United States, as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service,

fell from a historical high of 138.7 cents per pound in 2003 to 90.4 cents per pound in 2005.105 The

domestic industry argues that an increase in low-priced subject imports coincided with the downturn in

honey prices after 2003.106 Indeed, the volume of subject imports rose by 90.8 percent from 2003 to

2005, and their cumulated market share rose from 15.7 percent to 28.1 percent.107 We note that the more

recent declines in prices occurred coincident with the increase in imports from China via the “new

shipper” reviews.108

Based on the information available in these reviews, including the information from the original

investigations, we find that the market for subject honey is price competitive. We have found that likely

subject import volumes would be significant in the foreseeable future if the orders were revoked. Subject

imports would likely gain market share by underselling the domestic like product. The volume of subject

imports at relatively low prices, in turn, would be likely to have significant depressing or suppressing

effects on prices of the domestic like product.

Therefore, we conclude that, if the orders were revoked, subject imports from Argentina and

China likely would undersell the domestic like product and those imports would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the countervailing duty or

antidumping duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic

factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not

limited to: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,

and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product.109 All relevant economic factors are to be considered

within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

industry.110 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the
 110 (...continued)

By-Products Import and Export Corporation, 49.60 percent for Kunshan Foreign Trading Co., 25.88 percent for

Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corp., 45.46 percent for High Hope

International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp., 45.46 percent for Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co.,

Ltd., 45.46 percent for Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corporation, 45.46 percent for Henan Native

Produce Import and Export Corporation, and a China-wide rate of 183.80 percent. 72 Fed. Reg. at 10,151.

Commerce conducted a full review with respect to its countervailing duty determinations in the review of

honey from Argentina. Commerce found the net countervailable subsidy to be 5.85 percent. 72 Fed. Reg. at 32,078. 

The statute requires that we “consider information regarding the nature of the countervailable subsidy and whether

the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(6). The

domestic industry argues that Argentina has at least three subsidy programs benefitting subject honey producers that

meet the definition of a subsidy as described in article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. Domestic Industry’s

Response to the Notice of Institution at 28-29; Domestic Industry’s Comments at 14. Commerce identified three

programs as described under Article 3.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. It identified four more that could fall under

Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement if certain requirements are met. Issues and Decision Memorandum from

Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner (Feb. 28, 2007).

 111 Original Determinations at 20.

 112 Original Determinations at 20.

 113 Original Determinations at 21.

 114 Original Determinations at 21-22.

 115 CR/PR at Table I-13. Independent packers packed *** pounds of honey in 2000, and the amount packed in

2005 is unknown. CR/PR at Table I-13.

 116 CR/PR at Table I-13. Independent packers employed *** workers in 2000, and the number employed in 2005

is unknown. CR/PR at Table I-13.

 117 CR/PR at Table I-13. Wages paid to workers employed by the independent packers were $*** in 2000, and

the sum paid in 2005 is unknown. CR/PR at Table I-13.

18

state of the domestic industry is related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the order is revoked.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that while domestic consumption increased

steadily and significantly between 1998 and 2000, the domestic producers’ market share decreased

steadily and significantly while domestic inventories and the ratio of inventories to production grew.111

Key trade and financial trends for domestic producers, including the packers, declined over the period.112

To the extent that the loan program permitted beekeepers to receive greater revenues than the market

prices reflected by the Commission’s questionnaire data, these revenues were reflected in an increased

burden on the government’s loan program. Beekeepers indicated that one of the actual negative effects of

subject unfairly traded imports was the difficulty in repaying agricultural program loans.113 In sum, the

record indicated that the overall condition of the industry declined during the period examined and that

the cumulated subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.114

As explained in our discussion of the conditions of competition above, apparent consumption has

decreased since the original investigations. Domestic production has declined as well. Beekeepers’

production was 221.0 million pounds in 2000, falling to 174.6 million pounds in 2005.115 The number of

production and related workers has increased, however. Beekeepers employed *** workers in 2000, and

employed 1,515 workers in 2005.116 Their wages paid increased from $*** in 2000 to $40.3 million in

2005.117

There is no current information in the record of these expedited reviews pertaining to many of the

other indicators that we customarily consider in assessing whether the domestic industry is in a weakened

condition, as contemplated by the statute. The limited evidence in these expedited reviews is insufficient

for us to make a finding on whether the domestic industry producing honey is vulnerable to the
19

continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders. It is also unclear to what extent the current condition of the domestic industry

has been affected by the imposition of the orders.

We find that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant if the orders were revoked

and that subject imports would likely undersell the domestic like product to a significant degree and

significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. We find that the significant likely volume of low-priced

subject honey and the likely adverse price effects of those imports would likely have a significant adverse

impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels of the domestic industry. This reduction in

the industry’s production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels likely would have a direct adverse impact

on the industry’s profitability and employment levels, as well as its ability to raise capital and make and

maintain necessary capital investments.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the countervailing duty order on honey from Argentina and the

antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China were revoked, subject imports from

Argentina and China would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within

a reasonably foreseeable time. Thus, we determine that revocation of the orders on honey from Argentina

and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on

honey from Argentina and the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.
 
 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2

 71 FR 64292, November 1, 2006. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting

the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping and countervailing duty orders concurrently with

the Commission’s notice of institution. 71 FR 64242, November 1, 2006.

 4

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject reviews. It was

filed on behalf of the American Honey Producers Association (“AHPA”) and the Sioux Honey Association (“SHA”)

(collectively referred to herein as “domestic interested parties”). The AHPA is a trade association whose 182 current

members are engaged in the business of producing honey in the United States. The SHA, which is comprised of 318

current members, is a non-profit cooperative marketing organization that collects, processes, packs, and markets

honey produced by its members, as well as by independent beekeepers. The domestic interested parties are

represented by the law firm of Kelley Drye Collier Shannon and indicated in their response that they accounted for

*** percent of U.S. honey production in 2005. Response of AHPS and SHA, December 21, 2006, p. 12.

 5

 The Commission did not receive any responses to its notice of institution from respondent interested parties.

 6

 The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 8

 72 FR 6745, February 13, 2007. The Commission’s notice of expedited reviews appears in app. A.

 9

 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of five-year sunset reviews are

presented in app. A. 

I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEWS

INTRODUCTION

On November 1, 2006, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as

amended,1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it had

instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on honey from

Argentina and China and the countervailing duty order on honey from Argentina would be likely to lead

to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On February 5,

2007, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party response to its notice of institution

was adequate;4

 the Commission also determined that the respondent interested party response was

inadequate.5

 The Commission found no other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.6

Accordingly, the Commission unanimously determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant

to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.7 8

 The Commission voted on these reviews on June 14, 2007, and notified

Commerce of its determinations on June 29, 2007. Selected information relating to the schedule of these

current five-year reviews is presented below:9
 10 Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), p. I-1.

 11 66 FR 50608, 50611, and 50613, October 4, 2001. Commerce published a notice of amended final

determination of sales at LTFV concerning honey from Argentina on November 21, 2001 (66 FR 58434). 

Commerce published a notice of amended final determination of sales at LTFV concerning honey from China on

December 10, 2001 (66 FR 63670).

 12 66 FR 59026, November 26, 2001; Honey from Argentina and China: Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and

731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, p. 1. The Commission determined that critical

circumstances existed with respect to subject imports from China for which Commerce made affirmative critical

circumstances findings. Commissioners Bragg, Miller, and Devaney made an affirmative critical circumstances

finding and Chairman Koplan, Vice Chairman Okun, and Commissioner Hillman made a negative critical

circumstances finding with respect to those imports. Ibid.

I-2

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

November 1, 2006 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews

71 FR 64292

November 1, 2006

November 1, 2006 Commerce’s initiation of five-year reviews

71 FR 64242

November 1, 2006

February 5, 2007

Commission’s determinations to conduct expedited five-year

reviews

72 FR 6745

February 13, 2007

February 28, 2007

Commerce’s preliminary results of full five-year review concerning

the countervailing duty order

72 FR 8970

February 28, 2007

March 7, 2007

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews concerning

the antidumping duty orders

72 FR 10150

March 7, 2007

June 14, 2007 Commission’s vote Not applicable

June 29, 2007 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

June 29, 2007

Scheduled date for Commerce’s final results of full five-year review

concerning the countervailing duty order Not applicable

The Original Investigations

On September 29, 2000, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission by the AHPA,

Bruce, South Dakota, and the SHA, Sioux City, Iowa, alleging that an industry in the United States was

materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports

of honey from Argentina and China and by reason of subsidized imports of honey from Argentina.10 On

October 4, 2001, Commerce made final affirmative LTFV determinations regarding honey from

Argentina and China and a final affirmative subsidy determination regarding honey from Argentina.11

The Commission completed its original investigations concerning honey from Argentina and China on

November 19, 2001, determining that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of

imports of honey from Argentina that were found by Commerce to be subsidized by the Government of

Argentina and by reason of imports of honey from Argentina and China that were found by Commerce to

be sold in the United States at LTFV.12 After receipt of the Commission’s final determinations,
 13 66 FR 63672, December 10, 2001.

 14 66 FR 63670, December 10, 2001.

 15 66 FR 63673, December 10, 2001.

 16 No duty absorption findings, changed circumstance reviews, or scope rulings were made for either subject

country.

 17 71 FR 64242, November 1, 2006.

 18 Letter from Jim Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, December 20, 2006.

 19 72 FR 8970, February 28, 2007. Commerce indicated that it plans to issue a notice of final results concerning

the countervailing duty order on honey from Argentina not later than June 29, 2007.

 20 Commerce preliminarily determined that the Regional Productive Revitalization Program was no longer

operational but continued to provide residual benefits. Commerce also preliminarily determined that the

Convergence Factor Program had been terminated with no residual benefits or replacement program. Issues and

Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Honey

I-3

Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of honey from Argentina13 and China14 and a

countervailing duty order on imports of honey from Argentina.15

Commerce’s Determinations16

Commerce’s Five-Year Reviews

On November 1, 2006, Commerce initiated reviews of the countervailing duty order on honey

from Argentina and the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China.17 On December

20, 2006, Commerce notified the Commission that it was conducting expedited reviews with respect to

the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China based on an adequate substantive

response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and an inadequate response from respondent

interested parties. Commerce also notified the Commission that it received an adequate response to its

notice of initiation from respondent interested parties in the review concerning the countervailing duty

order on honey from Argentina and was, therefore, conducting a full review in that case.18 

Commerce published the preliminary results of its full review concerning the countervailing duty

order on imports of honey from Argentina on February 28, 2007.19 As a result of its analysis in the

review of the countervailing duty order, Commerce preliminarily found that revocation of the

countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable

subsidy on the subject merchandise from Argentina. In determining whether revocation of a

countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable

subsidy, Commerce considered the net countervailable subsidy determined in the investigation and

subsequent reviews, and whether any changes in the programs which gave rise to the net countervailable

subsidy have occurred that are likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy. In its original

investigation, Commerce found that six programs conferred countervailable subsidies: (1) the Argentine

Internal Tax Reimbursement/Rebate Program (“Reintegro”); (2) the Regional Productive Revitalization

Program; (3) the BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector; (4) the Province of

San Luis Honey Development Program; (5) the Province of Chaco Line of Credit Earmarked for the

Honey Sector; and (6) the Province of Buenos Aires Honey Program. In the first administrative review of

this order, Commerce found two more programs to be countervailable, the Convergence Factor and the

BNA Financing of Argentine Origin. In this five-year review, Commerce considered the status of all

programs found countervailable over the history of the order and it preliminarily determined that six of

the eight programs were still ongoing.20 Therefore, Commerce found that subsidization was likely to
from Argentina, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, February 28, 2007, pp. 2, 10, 13-14.

 21 Commerce explained that it normally provides to the Commission the net countervailable subsidy that was

determined in the original investigation because that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters

and foreign governments without the discipline of an order in place. It added that it may make adjustments to the

investigation rate where, for example, it has found in subsequent reviews that a program has been terminated, there

has been a program-wide change, or an additional program was found to be countervailable. Ibid.

 22 72 FR 10150, March 7, 2007.

 23 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of the

Antidumping Duty Orders on Honey from Argentina and the People’s Republic of China, International Trade

Administration, Department of Commerce, March 7, 2007, p. 8.

 24 Ibid., p. 9.

 25 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

I-4

continue or recur and that the countervailable subsidy likely to prevail is 5.85 percent ad valorem for all

producers or exporters of honey from Argentina.21

Commerce published its final results of the expedited reviews concerning the antidumping duty

orders on imports of honey from Argentina and China based on the facts available on March 7, 2007.22

As a result of its final sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders, Commerce found that revocation of

the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

In its final results, Commerce explained that it “normally determines that revocation of an

antidumping duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where (a) dumping

continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject

merchandise ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated after the issuance of an

order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly.”23 Commerce found that the

average volume of imports from Argentina during the period 2002-06 was significantly less than the preorder volume, and dumping margins continued to be above de minimis for imports of honey from

Argentina. With regard to China, Commerce found that although the volume of imports of honey from

China increased, the dumping margins remained above de minimis.

24 Therefore, Commerce determined

that the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and China would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.

Commerce’s Original and Five-Year Review Margins

Tables I-1 and I-2 present the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations and

first five-year reviews.

Commerce’s Administrative and New Shipper Review Determinations25

Two administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order on imports of honey from Argentina

have been completed by Commerce since the issuance of the order in December 2001. The results of the

administrative reviews are shown in table I-3. No new shipper reviews have been conducted by

Commerce with respect to the countervailing duty order on imports of honey from Argentina.

Four administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order concerning U.S. imports of honey

from Argentina have been completed by Commerce since the issuance of the order in December 2001.

The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table I-4. One new shipper review has been

conducted by Commerce with respect to the antidumping duty order on imports of honey from Argentina.
I-5

Table I-1

Honey: Commerce’s original and preliminary five-year review countervailing duty margins for

producers/exporters in Argentina

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

Preliminary five-year review

margin (percent)

1

Argentina2

Country-wide rate 4.533 5.85

 1 Commerce will issue its final results not later than June 29, 2007.

 2 Countervailing duty order, 66 FR 63673, December 10, 2001; preliminary results of first full sunset review, 72

FR 8970, February 28, 2007.

 3 Due to a program-wide change, Commerce established a cash deposit rate of 5.85 percent ad valorem.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Table I-2

Honey: Commerce’s original and five-year review antidumping duty margins for

producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

Five-year review margin

(percent)

Argentina1

ACA 31.92 37.44

Radix 27.04 32.56

ConAgra Argentina 55.15 60.67

All others 30.24 35.76

China2

Inner Mongolia 57.13 57.13

Kunshan 49.603 49.60

Zhejiang 25.883 25.88

High Hope 45.463 45.46

Shanghai Eswell 45.46 45.46

Anhui 45.46 45.46

Henan 45.46 45.46

All others 183.803 183.80

 1 Antidumping duty order, 66 FR 63672, December 10, 2001; final results of first expedited sunset review, 72

FR 10150, March 7, 2007.

 2

 Antidumping duty order, 66 FR 63670, December 10, 2001; final results of first expedited sunset review, 72

FR 10150, March 7, 2007.

 3

 Affirmative critical circumstances determinations were made with respect to U.S. imports of honey from these

firms.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
I-6

Table I-3

Honey: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order on imports of honey from

Argentina

Date results published Period of review Producer/exporter Margin (percent)

May 24, 2004

(69 FR 29518)

1/1/2001 - 12/31/2001 Country-wide rate 5.774

1/1/2002 - 12/31/2002 Country-wide rate 0.571

June 24, 2005

(70 FR 36563) 1/1/2003 - 12/31/2003 Country-wide rate 0.0831 2

 1 This rate is comprised of the Regional Productive Revitalization Program at 0.01 percent, the BNA Financing

for the Acquisition of Goods of Argentine Origin at 0.005 percent, the Province of San Luis Honey Development

Program at 0.015 percent, the Province of Chaco Line of Credit Earmarked for the Honey Sector at 0.015 percent,

and the Buenos Aires Honey Program at 0.038 percent.

 2 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to

Customs.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices and Issues and Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Full

Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Honey from Argentina, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce, February 28, 2007, p. 2.

Table I-4

Honey: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on imports of honey from Argentina

Date results published Period of review Producer/exporter Margin (percent)

May 27, 2004

(69 FR 30283) 5/11/2001 - 11/30/2002

ACA 0.00

HoneyMax 0.00

Nexco 0.87

Seylinco 0.60

TransHoney 0.00

All others 30.241

April 15, 2005

(70 FR 19926) 12/1/2002 - 11/30/2003

ACA 0.00

CAA/Mielar/El Chelibo 0.00

HoneyMax 0.00

Nexco 0.382

Nutrin 55.15

Seylinco 0.00

TransHoney 0.00

All others 30.24

May 4, 2006

(71 FR 26333) 12/1/2003 - 11/30/2004

ACA 2.95

Seylinco 0.00

All others 30.24

April 17, 2007

(72 FR 19177)3 12/1/2004 - 12/31/2005

Patagonik 0.00

Colmenares Santa Rosa 0.00

All others 30.24

May 4, 2007

(72 FR 25245) 12/1/2004 - 11/30/2005

Seylinco 0.00

El Mana, S.A. 0.00

Mielar/CAA 0.00

All others 30.24

 1 Amended results. 69 FR 59187, October 4, 2004.

 2 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to

Customs.

 3 New shipper review.

Note.–The “all others” rate applies to all other exporters and/or manufacturers of subject merchandise in Argentina

which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate by Commerce.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 26 Commerce is currently conducting a fourth administrative review. On April 2, 2007, Commerce published its

expedited partial results in response to a request by the AHPA and the SHA. Commerce expedited the final results

of the fourth administrative review for Chengdu, an uncooperative respondent, because of its extraordinary surge of

exports and the significant difference between Chengdu’s current cash deposit rate of 22.03 percent and Chengdu’s

preliminary cash deposit rate of 212.39 percent (based on facts available and adverse inference). 72 FR 15655, 

April 2, 2007.

 27 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 28 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 29 Honey, Report to the President on Investigation No. TA-201-14 Under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974,

USITC Publication 781, June 1976.

 30 U.S. Honey Industry, Communication from the President of the United States to Congress, August 28, 1976, 

p. 1 (41 FR 36787).

I-7

Commerce completed three administrative reviews26 and five new shipper reviews of the

antidumping duty order with regard to subject imports of honey from China since the issuance of the

order in December 2001. The results of the reviews are shown in table I-5.

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.27 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

honey were eligible to receive disbursements from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”)

under CDSOA relating to two antidumping duty orders and one countervailing duty order on the subject

product beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.28 Tables I-6 and I-7 present CDSOA disbursements and

claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2001-06, by source and by firm, respectively.

Total CDSOA disbursements increased from $29,000 in 2003 to $4.4 million in 2005. Such

disbursements then declined in 2006. Under the Argentine antidumping and countervailing duty orders,

uncollected duties of $8,962 (as of September 30, 2004), $12,020 (as of September 30, 2005), and $1,290

(as of September 30, 2006) were subtracted by Customs from the liquidated duties reported. Also

excluded from the reported disbursements were the uncollected duties of $4.5 million (as of September

30, 2003), $616,336 (as of September 30, 2004), $9.5 million (as of September 30, 2005), and $2.0

million (as of September 2006) under the antidumping duty order concerning China. Customs explained

that the amounts of the uncollected duties were subtracted from the liquidated duties since funds not yet

collected cannot be disbursed. Collections are disbursed by Customs in the year in which they are

received.

Previous and Related Commission Investigations

In 1976, the Commission conducted an investigation concerning honey under section 201 of the

Trade Act of 1974.29 At that time, the Commission determined that honey was being imported into the

United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of the threat of serious injury to the

domestic industry producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported article. The

Commission found that a tariff-rate quota system was necessary to prevent the threatened injury. On

August 28, 1976, President Ford advised Congress that “import relief for the U.S. industry engaged in the

commercial production and extraction of honey is not in the national economic interest.”30
I-8

Table I-5

Honey: Administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on imports of honey from

China

Date results published Period of review Producer/exporter Margin (percent)

October 31, 2003

(68 FR 62053)1 12/1/2001 - 5/31/2002

Wuhan Bee Healthy 32.632

All others 183.80

May 3, 2004

(69 FR 24128)1 2/10/2001 - 11/30/2002

Dubao 21.61

Shanghi Xiuwei 183.80

All others 183.80

May 5, 2004

(69 FR 25060) 2/10/2001 - 11/30/2002

Henan 183.80

High Hope 183.80

Kunshan 183.80

Zhejiang 67.703

All others 183.80

November 3, 2004

(69 FR 64029)1 12/1/2002 - 5/31/2003

Chengdu 22.03

Jinfu PRC 183.80

All others 183.80

February 25, 2005

(70 FR 9271)1 12/1/2002 - 11/30/2003

Anhui Honghui 25.72

Eurasia 50.35

Inner Mongolia Youth 51.71

Jiangsu Kanghong 46.92

All others 183.80

July 6, 2005

(70 FR 38873) 12/1/2002 - 11/30/2003

Eswell 38.60

Jinfu 72.02

Wuhan Bee 101.51

Zhejiang 45.54

All others4 183.80

June 16, 2006

(71 FR 34893) 12/1/2003 - 11/30/2004

Anhui Honghui 212.39

Jiangsu Kanghong 210.53

Jinfu 168.88

Eswell 168.30

Zhejiang 169.11

All others5 212.39

October 4, 2006

(71 FR 58579)1 12/1/2004 - 5/31/2005

Shanghai Taiside 39.63

All others 212.39

April 2, 20076

(72 FR 15655) 12/1/2004 - 11/30/2005

Chengdu 212.39

All others 212.39

 1 New shipper review.

 2

 Amended result. 71 FR 4894, January 30, 2006.

 3

 Amended result. 69 FR 32494, June 10, 2004.

 4

 Includes Dubao, Shanghai Xiuwei, Shanghai Shinomiel, Kunshan, and Inner Mongolia.

 5

 Includes Dubao and Eurasia.

 6

 Expedited partial final results of antidumping duty administrative review. Review was expedited for Chengdu because of its

extraordinary surge of exports and the significant difference between its previous cash deposit rate of 22.03 and its deposit rate of

212.39 from the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review. The non-expedited final results for Anhui

Honghui, Jiangsu, Kunshan Xin’an, and Shino-Food are due by May 3, 2007.

Note.–The “all others” rate applies to all other Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled

to a separate rate by Commerce.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
I-9

Table I-6

Honey: CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2001-06

Item

Federal fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20062

Disbursements (1,000 dollars)

Argentina 0 0 0 691 3,292 139

China 0 0 29 797 1,1281 8101

 Total 0 0 29 1,488 4,420 949

 1 Uncollected duties of $9.5 million (as of September 30, 2005) and $2.0 million (as of September 2006) under

the China antidumping duty order were subtracted from the liquidated duties reported. Customs explained that

collections are disbursed in the year in which they are received.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from

www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.

Table I-7

Honey: CDSOA disbursements, by top ten firms, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2001-06

Item

Federal fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Disbursements (1,000 dollars)

A. H. Meyer & Sons 0 0 (1

) 13 37 9

Adee Honey Farms 0 0 1 78 252 62

Bailey Enterprises 0 0 (1

) 17 23 10

Danzig Honey 0 0 (1

) 13 44 10

Hamilton Honey 0 0 (1

) 14 43 0

Harvest Honey 0 0 (1

) 7 60 0

Horace Bell Honey 0 0 1 36 87 15

Sioux Honey 0 0 11 1,068 2,856 575

Steve E. Park Apiaries 0 0 1 10 90 21

Strachan Apiaries 0 0 (1

) 11 35 8

All others 0 0 15 221 893 239

 Total 0 0 29 1,488 4,420 9492

Claims (1,000 dollars)

 Total 0 8,206 533,697 885,850 1,233,440 1,535,900

 1 Less than $500.

 2

 $16,954 in additional claims are being held due to pending litigation.

Note.–Because up to 212 companies filed claims in some years, only the companies who received the most

CDSOA disbursements over the period are shown in the table. These ten companies received between 55 percent

and 85 percent of disbursements each year.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from

www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.
 31 Honey from China, Inv. No. TA-406-13, USITC Publication 2715, January 1994.

 32 Presidential Documents, Import Relief Determination Under Section 406 of the Trade Act of 1974 on Honey

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 19627, April 25, 1994.

 33 Honey from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-722 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 2832,

November 1994.

 34 Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People’s Republic of

China, 60 FR 14725, March 20, 1995.

 35 The export limit was set at 43.925 million pounds plus or minus a maximum of 6 percent per year based on

changes in the U.S. market for honey. Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 42522, August 16, 1995.

 36 Honey from the People’s Republic of China; Suspension of Investigation, 60 FR 42521, August 16, 1995.

 37 Following consultation and negotiation between China and the United States, an agreement was reached to

change the period for the calculation of the reference price. Beginning on July 1, 1998, the reference price was

based on the most recent three months of data available. People’s Republic of China, Honey Annual 1999, FAS

GAIN Report, USDA, August 25, 1999.

 38 65 FR 41053 and 41085, July 3, 2000.

 39 Termination of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 65

FR 46426, July 28, 2000.

I-10

On October 6, 1993, following a request from the U.S. Trade Representative, the Commission

instituted an investigation under the provisions of section 406(a) of the Trade Act of 1974. As a result of

the investigation, the Commission determined that imports of honey from China were increasing rapidly

so as to be a significant cause of market disruption to a domestic industry in the United States. On

January 7, 1994, the Commission reported its determinations and recommendations to the President.31 On

April 21, 1994, President Clinton determined that import relief for honey was not in the national interest

of the United States and directed the U.S. Trade Representative to develop a plan to monitor imports of

honey from China.32

On October 3, 1994, the American Beekeeping Federation (“ABF”) and the AHPA filed a

petition alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material

injury by reason of LTFV imports of honey from China. The Commission subsequently made an

affirmative preliminary determination33 and Commerce issued a preliminary determination finding

dumping margins ranging from 127.52 to 157.16 percent ad valorem.

34 

On August 2, 1995, Commerce and the representatives of the government of China concluded an

agreement that suspended the investigations being conducted by the Commission and Commerce

concerning honey from China. The suspension agreement obligated the government of China to restrict

the volume of honey exports to the United States from all Chinese producers/exporters35 and established a

pricing mechanism for Chinese exports.36 Specifically, Chinese honey exported to the United States

could not be sold at a price less than a reference price, which the agreement defined to be “92 percent of

the weighted-average of the honey unit import values from all other countries for the most recent six

months of data available at the time the reference price is calculated.”37

On July 3, 2000, the Commission and Commerce instituted five-year reviews concerning the

suspended investigation on honey from China.38 The U.S. industry elected not to participate in the sunset

review of the suspended investigation because it believed that the reference price mechanism of the

suspension agreement was unsuccessful in establishing price stability. Based on the fact that no domestic

interested party expressed a willingness to participate in the five-year sunset review, Commerce published

a notice on July 28, 2000, terminating the suspended investigation concerning honey from China.39
 40 66 FR 63670, 63672, and 63673, December 10, 2001.

 41 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information from the following sources:

Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), app. D; and Honey from Argentina and China, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, app. D.

I-11

THE PRODUCT

Scope

The imported product subject to countervailing duties from Argentina and antidumping duties

from Argentina and China has been defined by Commerce as follows:

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.40

U.S. Tariff Treatment

The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(“HTS”) subheadings 0409.00.00 (“natural honey”), 1702.90.90 (“other sugars, other,” including artificial

honey), and 2106.90.99 (“other food preps,” including preparations of natural honey and flavored honey). 

Goods currently entering the United States under HTS subheading 0409.00.00 are dutiable at a normal

trade relations rate (applicable to China) of 1.9 cents per kilogram. Goods currently entering the United

States under HTS subheadings 1702.90.90 and 2106.90.99 are dutiable at normal trade relations rates of

5.1 percent and 6.4 percent ad valorem, respectively. HTS subheadings 1702.90.90 and 2016.90.99 are

“basket” categories that contain both subject and nonsubject merchandise. Consistent with past

Commission practice regarding honey, the import data that are presented in this report are derived from

only HTS subheading 0409.00.00.

U.S. Government Programs and Regulations Affecting the U.S. Honey Industry41

Food and Drug Administration

Currently, there is no official definition for “honey” or legal standards for honey composition

provided by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). However, the general regulations on labeling

and adulteration of foods under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 Act do apply. The FDA is

authorized to make factory inspections and randomly check imports upon entry into the United States.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Standards for grades of honey

The USDA issues voluntary U.S. grade standards for extracted honey under the authority of the

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, which calls for the development of official U.S. grades for use in

designating different levels of quality. These grades provide uniform standards that producers, suppliers,

buyers, and consumers can all apply to extracted honey for their specific purposes. The grade standards,

while voluntary, serve as a basis for inspection and grading by the USDA’s Federal inspection service.
 42 The Hive and the Honey Bee, Dadant & Sons, Inc., Hamilton, IL, 1992, p. 886.

 43 The Pfund grader is a color grading device used by the honey industry, and is generally the color grader used

in international trade.

 44 Honey darkens when it is heated or stored (The Hive and the Honey Bee, Dadant & Sons, Inc., Hamilton, IL,

1992, p. 886).

 45 Hoff, F. and J.K. Phillips, Honey: Background for 1990 Farm Legislation, ERS, USDA, April 1989, p. 26.

 46 USDA Press Release No. 0495.99, December 21, 1999, p. 1.

I-12

Grades are based on a minimum soluble solids requirement and on three quality factors: absence

of defects; flavor and aroma; and clarity. Absence of defects is defined as the degree of freedom from

particles of comb, propolis (a brownish resinous material of waxy consistency collected by bees from the

buds of trees), or other defects which may be in suspension or deposited as sediment in the honey. Flavor

and aroma are defined as the degree of taste excellence and aroma for the predominant floral source. 

Clarity means, with respect to filtered honey only, the transparency or clearness of honey to the eye and

to the degree of freedom from air bubbles, pollen grains, or other fine particles suspended in the product. 

The three aforementioned factors are examined, classified, and then scored. The specific grade of

the honey is then determined based upon the total score received. The grades are: (1) U.S. Grade A or

“U.S. Fancy;” (2) U.S. Grade B or “U.S. Choice;” (3) U.S. Grade C or “U.S. Standard;” and (4)

Substandard. 

Color designation is not considered a factor of quality for the purpose of the grade standards, but

the USDA does issue approved color standards. Color is generally related to flavor in that the lighter

honeys are milder in flavor and the darker honeys are more pronounced in taste.42 USDA color standard

designations are based upon the color range as measured by the Pfund scale,43 and optical density. Honey

is graded by color from water white to dark amber.44

The honey program

Honey was first supported by the U.S. Government via a price support program included in the

Agriculture Act of 1949. After 1951, the program evolved into two parts–a loan program and a purchase

program. In 1986, the purchase feature of the loan rate program was eliminated, and the program became

solely a loan program under which beekeepers were required to repay the loan upon maturity (i.e., a

recourse loan program).45 However, the 1996 Farm Bill eliminated the recourse loan rate program for

honey. 

Recourse loan rate program, 1998-2000.--In 1998, the Honey Recourse Loan Program was reestablished to provide loans to honey producers to help them to “market their crop in an orderly manner

during a time of low prices.”46 The program authorized the Commodity Credit Corp. (“CCC”) to make

available to producers 9-month recourse loans for their honey. The program provided a national average

loan rate of 59 cents per pound. Upon (or before) maturity, the producer was required to repay the loan,

plus any charges and interest. If the producer failed to settle the loan, a claim for the loan amount plus

charges and interest was made by the CCC, and foreclosure could occur. The CCC could remove the

honey from storage and sell it. Any difference between the amount received from sale and the value of

the loan plus interest was still required to be paid by the producer.

Non-recourse loan rate program.--A change was made to the honey loan rate program with the

passage of the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. This legislation included a nonrecourse loan provision that provided for a loan deficiency payment program (“LDP”) for the 2000 crop. 

The loan rate was increased by 10 percent, from 59 cents per pound to 65 cents per pound, and served as a

minimum price (i.e., a price floor) for honey. If the market price dropped below the loan rate, the
 47 Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996, Title I (Agricultural Market Transition Act), 7 USC 7201.

 48 Canada, Carol and Jasper Womach, Farm Commodity Programs: Honey, CRS Report for Congress,

Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, October 4, 2006, p. CRS-4.

 49 A beekeeper, packer, or importer who produces or imports less than 6,000 pounds of honey annually, or who

consumes the honey at home or donates the honey to a non-profit organization, is exempt from the assessment. 

 50 National Honey Board, 2006 Strategic Plan, http://www.honey.com/about/SP2006.pdf.

 51 National Honey Board, National Honey Board Industry Statistics Report, Domestic vs. Import Assessments

Received, by Calendar Year 1997-2006, http://www.honey.com/honeyindustry/stats/DomvsImp97-06.htm.

I-13

beekeeper could forfeit the honey to the CCC and collect 65 cents per pound. Outstanding recourse loans

were converted to the non-recourse loans and beekeepers that had already sold their 2000 crop of honey

were eligible for the deficiency payment.

Under the non-recourse loan rate program, if a beekeeper placed honey under loan, the beekeeper

had the option of repaying the CCC at the lower of the loan rate plus interest or the prevailing market

price as established by the USDA. If the beekeeper chose not to take a loan on his or her honey, then the

beekeeper received a deficiency payment in the amount of the difference between the loan rate and the

prevailing market price. Deficiency payment limitations of 15 cents per pound and overall payment

limitations of $150,000 per beekeeper remain in effect.47

No support was approved by Congress for the 2001 honey crop, but the 2002 Farm Bill provided

for non-recourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments for crop years 2002-07 at a

loan rate of 60 cents per pound. Annual net outlays for the program ranged from $1 million to $8 million

for fiscal years 2002 through 2006.48

The National Honey Board

The National Honey Board (“NHB”) was created in 1986 to establish a program for generic

honey research, advertising, and promotion under the Honey, Research, Promotion, and Consumer

Information Act. The NHB consists of 13 members appointed by the Agriculture Secretary, based upon

nominations from representatives of state beekeeping associations. Included on the NHB are domestic

producers, packers, importers/exporters, and a representative from the general public. 

The NHB is funded by an assessment of 1 cent per pound on all honey entering the market from

domestic and foreign sources.49 The NHB assessments collected are used for advertising, public relations

campaigns, and commissioned research, as well as providing industry service and support.50 During the

original investigations, the Commission reported that the total amount of assessments collected by the

NHB increased by *** percent between 1995 and 2000, from $*** to $3.6 million. Assessments on

imported honey increased nearly *** percent from 1995 to 2000, while assessments on domestic honey

fell by just over *** percent. From 2000 to 2006, the total amount of assessments collected increased by

12 percent, from $3.6 million to $4.0 million. Assessments collected on imported honey increased by

over 42 percent from 2000 to 2006, while assessments collected on domestic honey fell by almost 24

percent.51
 52 Honey from Argentina and China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC

Publication 3470, November 2001, p. I-5.

 53 Ibid., p. I-11.

 54 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information from the following sources:

Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), pp. I-7 through I-10; and Honey from Argentina and China,

Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, pp. I-5

through I-7.

 55 The remaining components of honey are maltose, sucrose, and other complex carbohydrates. 

I-14

The Market Access Program

Minimal export assistance is provided by the U.S. government to promote exports of U.S. honey

through the Market Access Program (“MAP”), which is administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service

of the USDA. The MAP program, in existence since 1996, uses funds from the CCC to assist in the

creation, expansion, and maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products. In order to

receive MAP funds, trade associations and private firms must develop and submit proposals outlining

their plans for marketing and promotion of their product in foreign markets. In 2000, the NHB received

$116,674 in MAP funds. The NHB has been initially allocated $72,030 in MAP funds for fiscal year

2007.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic like product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. The domestic

industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like product, or those producers whose

collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total production of the

product. The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the

subject imported products is based on a number of factors, including (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; 

(4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price.

In its original investigations, the Commission determined that there was a single domestic like

product consisting of all honey, consistent with the description in Commerce’s scope definition.52 It also

found the relevant domestic industry to consist of U.S. producers of both raw and processed honey,

including beekeepers that produce raw honey and packers that process and pack the honey. In the final

phase of the original investigations, the Commission excluded two domestic packers (***) and one

domestic beekeeper/packer (***) from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provisions.53

No comments regarding the Commission’s definitions of domestic like product and domestic industry

were provided by the domestic interested parties in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these reviews.

Physical Characteristics and Uses54

Natural Honey

Honey is a sweet viscous fluid derived from the nectar of flowers and produced in the honey sac

of bees. Honey is an invert sugar, composed approximately 70 percent of simple sugars (i.e., fructose and

glucose) and approximately 17 percent of water.55
 56 The Hive and the Honey Bee, Dadant & Sons, Inc., Hamilton, IL, 1992, p. 869.

 57 National Honey Board, America’s Honey Suppliers, 1999, p. v.

 58 Examples of monofloral classifications include “blueberry honey” and “clover honey.” Examples of polyfloral

classifications include “autumn honey” and “mountain honey,” referring to the time of year or general area in which

the honey was produced.

 59 National Honey Board, America’s Honey Suppliers, 1999, p. v.

 60 Ibid., p. iv.

 61 Royal jelly is food, rich in gland products and sugars, which is produced and fed by the bees to potential

queens. The main markets for royal jelly in North America are the cosmetics industry and the health food market. 

The Hive and the Honey Bee, op. cit., pp. 81 and 971-972.

I-15

Honey is classified by its individual characteristics (e.g., floral source, color, season, physical

state, and means of preparation).56 There are over 300 unique varieties of honey that are produced in the

United States,57 differing in flavor and color. Honey may be classified as monofloral (i.e., the nectar is

extracted from a specific blossom type) or polyfloral (i.e., the nectar is extracted from multiple botanical

sources, with no single predominant floral source).58 The floral source gives honey its distinctive flavor

(e.g., star thistle, orange blossom, sage, and clover) and color (e.g., dark amber). Generally, lightercolored honeys (e.g., clover honey) possess a more mild flavor, while darker-colored honeys (e.g.,

buckwheat honey) possess a stronger flavor. Honey is valued on the basis of floral source and color, and

in most countries the light-colored and milder-tasting honeys are considered to be more valuable. While

many varieties of honey exist on the market, most honey is blended to achieve a desired color and

flavor,59 as well as to provide a uniform product throughout a given market and/or lower costs.

Most natural honey produced in the United States is marketed in liquid form, which is honey that

is extracted from the comb by centrifugal force, gravity, or straining. Natural honey is also marketed as

cream honey (also called “creamed,” “whipped,” or “spun”), which consists of pure honey in which

dextrose crystallization has been encouraged; comb honey, which is honey marketed in the beeswax

comb, both of which are edible; cut comb honey, which is liquid honey that has been packaged with

chunks of honey comb; and dry honey (also know as “dried” or “powdered”), which is made by removing

the water found in liquid honey by drum- or spray-drying.60

One of the most widely functional sweeteners, honey appears in a variety of products such as

bread and other baked goods, cereal, condiments, candy, medicine, and shampoo. Honey also contains

mild antiseptic properties when used on the skin. 

Artificial Honey Mixed with Natural Honey

The term “artificial honey,” as defined in the explanatory notes to the HTS, applies to mixtures

based on sucrose, glucose, or invert sugar, generally flavored or colored and prepared to imitate natural

honey. Artificial honey could include a variety of products such as honey mixed with refined sugar, highfructose corn syrup, and other sweeteners. Artificial honey mixed with more than 50 percent natural

honey by weight is included in the scope of the reviews. Artificial honey exists in relatively small

amounts in the U.S. market and is supplied by both foreign and domestic producers. The product acts as

a direct substitute for natural honey. 

Preparations of Natural Honey and Flavored Honey

Preparations of natural honey are not explicitly defined in the HTS or in the explanatory notes to

the HTS; however, in the explanatory notes it is indicated that the 6-digit HTS subheading 2106.90

includes “natural honey mixed with bees’ royal jelly.”61 The notes do not indicate the percentage of
 62 65 FR 65831, November 2, 2000.

 63 Staff conversation with Stan Hopard, National Import Specialist, U.S. Customs Service, October 20, 2000. 

 64 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information from the following sources:

Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), pp. I-10 through I-14; and Honey from Argentina and China,

Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, pp. I-7

through I-9.

 65 The young honeybees are collectively called brood.

I-16

honey content required for classification under this subheading; however, in the scope language, such

preparations must contain more than 50 percent by natural weight of honey.62 It is not clear whether

importation of the product exists, but it is likely that any such imports comprise a small portion of imports

entering under the HTS subheading. Also, it is not clear whether there is substantial production of the

product in the United States; the product, as defined in the scope language, would most likely be

marketed as a specialty product in specialty stores and health food stores.

Flavored honey was not explicitly defined by the petitioners in the original investigations. In

fact, Customs reported that, although no official definition exists, the unofficial guideline is that a product

entering under statistical reporting number 2106.90.9988 (“flavored honey”) must contain 99 percent or

more honey by weight.63 Imports of flavored honey are not significant relative to overall imports of

natural honey. Flavored honey is most likely sold as a specialty product for retail consumption and not

for industrial use.

Production Process64

Honey is produced in a beehive by a colony of honeybees. A typical colony of commercial

honeybees in the United States contains one queen, 500 to 1,000 drones (male bees without stingers

whose single purpose is to mate with the queen), and approximately 40,000 to 60,000 workers (female

bees that perform the work of the colony including cleaning the nursery, caring for larvae, collecting

nectar, making wax, and guarding and cooling the hive). The beehive is a series of combs composed of

hexagonal cells that are made from wax produced in the stomach of the worker bees. The wax cells are

used for storage. The worker bees naturally construct a core nest where the brood65 are stored and then

create a layer of insulation above the nest consisting of pollen and honey. 

The production of honey begins with the bees gathering nectar from various plants. Bees may

forage for several miles from their hive to find nectar. Each bee may make several trips for nectar per

day, weather permitting. Upon returning to the hive, the bee regurgitates the nectar into the mouth of a

specialized “house” bee. The house bee adds enzymes and places the unripe honey into the hexagonal

cells of the comb. The unripe honey is often spread among several cells to help in moisture evaporation,

which the house bees promote by fanning their wings. Cells are then capped with a thin layer of wax, and

the honey is allowed to ripen. 

U.S. Beekeeper Operations

Beekeepers maintain bee colonies and extract honey from them. Beekeepers are often migratory,

moving their hives as needed to areas in need of bees’ pollination services or areas rich in certain flora to

promote production of a distinct type of honey. In the United States, it has been estimated that

approximately 69 percent of all colonies are on the road each year to pollinate crops and to produce honey
 66 Morse, R.A. and N.W. Calderone, “The Value of Honey Bees as Pollinators of U.S. Crops in 2000,” Bee

Culture magazine, March 2000, p. 1.

 67 “America’s Beekeepers: Hives for Hire,” National Geographic, May 1993, p. 76.

 68 Honey may also be stored for years under proper storage conditions (i.e., in a dry place at approximately 70o

 F,

or alternatively at freezing temperatures). According to the USDA, honey stored for years at freezer temperatures, 0o

to -10o F, cannot be distinguished from fresh, newly-extracted honey in color, flavor, or aroma. Honey: Background

for 1995 Farm Legislation, ERS, USDA, April 1989, p. 12. 

 69 One gallon of honey equals 11.84 pounds (Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural

Commodities and Their Products, USDA, ERS, Agricultural Handbook Number 697, p. 13.)

I-17

and beeswax.66 The migration is generally from north in the summer to south in the winter, as well as to

California during almond season and several other states for pollination of crops such as melons.67 

Beekeepers in the United States keep their bees in constructed wooden hives that are relatively

easy to transport. Hives are often placed on wooden pallets for ease of handling by forklifts. 

Bees live in the core nest of beekeepers’ artificially constructed hives, and store the honey,

intended to serve as food for the colony, in wooden frames known as “supers.” To prevent the queen

from laying brood in the supers containing the honey, beekeepers place an “excluder” between the lower

core nest and the supers above. Worker bees produce more honey than required for use by the colony, so

the excess honey can be harvested without harming the colony. 

Honey is harvested by driving the bees out of the super down into the core nest via smoke,

chemicals, or low-pressure air. Then the wooden frames contained in the super are removed from the

hive. The frames are removed when the honeycomb cells are fully capped with wax, which ensures that

the honey is fully ripened and free of excess water. After removal of the frames, almost all honey is

extracted from the combs, although some remains in the form of “comb” or “chunk” honey. The liquid

honey is exposed by “uncapping” the combs–removing the wax capping that covers the honeycomb

frames. Combs are uncapped using either hot knives or power uncappers. The wax from caps is used for

the production of beeswax foundation and the sale of beeswax for candles and other uses. Any remaining

honey left in the caps is separated via centrifugal force by a wax spinner or mechanically squeezed out by

a cap compressing system. Separation of honey from the uncapped cells is done by an “extractor” (a

centrifuge). The uncapped frames are placed in the extractor where the honey is spun out of the comb. 

As honey flows from the extractor, it contains particles of wax, bees, and other hive matter. The honey

may run through a simple netting (usually nylon) or a more complicated high-pressure filter before it is

drained into a storage tank (sump).

At this point, the honey is still considered “raw” or “unprocessed.” It is then either placed in

large drums and transported to an independent packer for further processing; further processed by

beekeeper-packers and bottled for local sale; or left in its raw form and bottled by the beekeeper for local

sale.

U.S. Packer Operations

Virtually all U.S. packers of honey are either beekeeper-packers, which are keepers of bee

colonies that extract honey from those colonies and then process or pack the honey, or independent

packers that purchase honey and then process or pack that honey. A few packers are both beekeeperpackers and independent packers, but even these firms are predominantly one or the other. In addition,

SHA is operated on a cooperative basis to process, pack, and market honey for its beekeeper members.

Upon receipt of extracted honey, packers may blend different types of honey from both domestic

and foreign sources.68 The honey, usually in 55-gallon drums69 from the beekeepers, is labeled by the
 70 A 55-gallon steel drum with an FDA-approved food liner and an open head with a lid is the common container

for U.S.-produced bulk raw honey. Imports of honey from Argentina and China are packed in 55-gallon closed-head

steel drums. The steel drums, both foreign and domestic, are often reusable, and so are returned to U.S. beekeepers

for refilling with newly extracted honey.

 71 A large portion of U.S. honey must be heated due to the honey arriving in a crystallized state from the

beekeeper.

 72 Diastase is an enzyme that destroys starch and HMF is a by-product of the decomposition of sugars in acid. 

 73 Some operations reverse the process, and place honey in settling tanks before filtration.

 74 Although nearly all honey can be creamed, those honeys higher in glucose generally granulate the fastest.

 75 The Hive and the Honey Bee, Dadant & Sons, Inc., Hamilton, IL, 1992, p. 702.

 76 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information from the following sources:

Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), pp. II-8 through II-15; and Honey from Argentina and China,

Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, pp. 12-13.

I-18

packers according to color and floral source, making blending selections or production of a monofloral

honey possible.70

Honey is normally heated to aid the flow of honey through the processing facility and retard

granulation and spoilage, largely through the destruction of yeasts naturally present in honey.71 Honey

that has been heated is acceptable to most users in the United States, although in some other areas of the

world, honey that has been heated is perceived to have lost some of its health and nutritional benefits. 

Some countries require certain levels of diastase and hydroxymethylfurfural (“HMF”) in imported honey,

both of which are affected by heating.72 “Flash heating,” whereby the honey is rapidly heated to 120

degrees or above and then quickly cooled, can produce honey with acceptable HMF and diastase levels

for export to many countries, while maintaining its favorable processing characteristics.

Heated honey next flows through filtering mechanisms (filtering paper sheets in commercial

processing plants), usually under high pressure, and into a “settling tank” in a warm area for several hours

or even days, with any remaining foreign material floating to the top, where it can be skimmed.73 Honey

then can be poured directly into containers and sold to consumers or industrial users.

Creamed honey is another honey product that the packer may also process. This is honey in

which the natural granulation has been encouraged and controlled for a smooth consistency similar to

butter.74 The honey is heated and filtered first, but once it cools, a “starter” seed consisting of creamed

honey that has been finely ground to create extremely fine glucose crystals is blended into the honey to

assure uniform crystallization. After blending, the mixture of seed and honey is allowed to set for a

period of time during which air bubbles rise to the surface and are skimmed.75

Packers rarely pack products other than honey on the same equipment and machinery or using the

same production and related workers employed to pack honey. However, four packers that responded to

the Commission’s questionnaire during the original investigations indicated that relatively small

quantities of molasses and/or barbeque sauce were processed on the same machinery and/or with the same

workforce. 

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions76

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported honey depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality (i.e., grade standards and defect rates), and conditions of sale (i.e., price

discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product services, and

reliability of supply). Based on the record in the original investigations, the Commission concluded that

there appeared to be at least a moderate level of substitutability between domestic and imported honey

and between subject imports. Subject honey was often blended with domestic honey to obtain a uniform
 77 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information from the following sources:

Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), pp. I-14 through I-16; and Honey from Argentina and China,

Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, pp. 13 and

I-9 through I-12.

I-19

product. In addition, purchasers indicated that they did not differentiate between honey from different

countries because they had limited knowledge about the country of origin of their honey. While

beekeepers believed that domestic and imported honey were highly substitutable, independent packers

and importers indicated that there were some limits to the substitutability between domestic and imported

honey. 

In the original investigations, most responding beekeepers (88.5 percent) indicated that domestic

honey was “always” interchangeable with Argentine honey. Fifty-seven percent of the responding

packers indicated that domestic honey was “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with Argentine

honey and 31 percent of the responding importers indicated the same. Six importers (46.2 percent)

reported that domestic and Argentine honey are “sometimes” interchangeable.

Most (84.8 percent) of the responding beekeepers indicated that domestic honey was “always”

interchangeable with Chinese honey. One of the 13 responding importers indicated the same. Seventyfive percent of the responding packers reported that the products were at least sometimes interchangeable

and 62 percent of the responding importers reported the same.

Most of the responding beekeepers (88.7 percent) indicated that honey produced in Argentina

was “always” interchangeable with Chinese honey. Sixty percent of the responding independent packers

indicated that subject imports were frequently or sometimes interchangeable. Six of the 10 responding

importers (60 percent) indicated that they were at least “sometimes” interchangeable.

The Commission noted that there were some quality differences between the Argentine and

Chinese honey. Color and flavor are important factors and were frequently cited by independent packers

and purchasers as characteristics that are considered when determining the quality of a supplier’s honey.

Twelve of 20 independent packers sometimes, frequently, or always ordered honey from a particular

country for reasons which include quality. One of these packers preferred Chinese honey, one preferred

Argentine honey, and four preferred domestic honey, whereas others preferred honey from a combination

of countries. Purchasers, however, had limited knowledge about the country of origin of their honey and

no purchaser indicated that Argentine and Chinese honey were used for different applications. Moreover,

honey from both countries was often blended to ensure consistent color and taste, as well as for other

reasons. Based on the record as a whole, the Commission found there was general interchangeability

between subject imports and between subject imports and the domestic like product.

Channels of Distribution77

In the original investigations, the Commission found that there is at least a moderate level of

overlap in channels of distribution between domestic and imported honey and between subject imports. 

Beekeepers and beekeeper-packers often market their product unconventionally–from home, on the

Internet, door-to-door, at roadside stands, and at farmer’s markets. In some instances, beekeepers and

beekeeper-packers may rely on brokers or dealers to sell their honey. Beekeepers may also be members

of cooperatives that process, pack, and market honey. Cooperatives pool individual members’ honey and

then process, pack, and market the honey under the cooperative label and private labels in both bulk and

retail containers. SHA is the only large-scale cooperative operating in the United States. Independent

packers process, pack, and market both domestic and imported honey, including honey imported from

Argentina and China, in both bulk and retail containers. At the retail level, independent packers often

market consumer-recognized brands of honey and provide services such as private packing and labeling
 78 Consumer Uses and Attitudes Toward Honey, report prepared for the NHB, 1997.

 79 National Honey Board, Packer Tracking Survey, 2005.

I-20

for retail outfits. Brokers buy and sell honey from domestic and international sources and serve as agents

for independent packers.

The users of honey are manufacturers of food products; bakers and confectioners; tobacco

processors; and households that obtain the product from wholesale grocers, chain and retail stores, the

Internet, and local outlets such as farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and local restaurants. 

According to the NHB, the U.S. honey market consists of three market sectors: retail, industrial

(bulk or ingredient), and food service. Almost all food retail stores (e.g., chain stores and supermarkets)

market honey. A survey of consumer uses and attitudes toward honey conducted for the NHB reported

that 86 percent of all retail honey was purchased at grocery stores in 1997.78 The same survey showed

that retail consumers preferred lighter honeys. Data published by the NHB indicate that in 2005, 46

percent of U.S. packers’ sales of honey were marketed in bulk form to the industrial sector, while the

retail sector accounted for 40 percent of packers’ sales and the food service sector accounted for 14

percent.79 Presented in table I-8 are U.S. packers’ honey sales by market sector for 2004 and 2005. These

data were compiled from the Packer Tracking Survey conducted by the NHB. Data for 2001-03 are not

available.

In the Commission’s original investigations, beekeeper-packers and independent packers were

requested to provide data on channels of distribution by color of honey. These data are presented in

tables I-9 and I-10. Table I-11 shows similar data for imports of honey during 2000-05.

Table I-8

Honey: U.S. packers’ sales by market sector, 2004-05

Sector

Calendar year

2004 2005

Share of sales (percent)

Retail 44 40

Food service 15 14

Industrial/ingredient 41 46

 Total 100 100

Source: NHB, Packer Tracking Survey, 2005. The Packer Tracking Survey is based upon actual sales reported by

approximately 14 packers that accounted for 55 percent of the estimated honey market in 2005.

Table I-9

Honey: U.S. shipments of honey produced by reporting beekeeper-packers, by market sector and

by color, 1998-2000

* * * * * * *
I-21

Table I-10

Honey: U.S. shipments of honey produced by reporting independent packers, by market sector

and by color, 1998-2000

Item

Calendar year

1998 1999 2000

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Retail:

 White 37,524 40,192 45,790

 Extra light amber 17,743 18,743 17,975

 Light amber 5,738 9,402 9,699

 Amber or darker 4 98 105

 Subtotal, retail 61,009 68,435 73,569

Food service: 

 White 6,160 6,778 6,442

 Extra light amber 15,682 16,260 15,312

 Light amber 1,143 1,428 1,706

 Amber or darker 0 0 0

 Subtotal, food service 22,985 24,466 23,460

Industrial or ingredient:

 White 6,676 7,532 6,876

 Extra light amber 15,278 17,225 17,797

 Light amber 39,632 43,117 42,156

 Amber or darker 1,939 2,149 2,074

 Subtotal, industrial or ingredient 63,525 70,023 68,903

Total, all U.S. markets 147,519 162,924 165,932

Note.-- Data are from packers accounting for *** percent of reported packer shipments in 2000.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
I-22

Table I-11

Honey: U.S. imports of honey, by market sector and by color, 2000-05

Item

Calendar year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Argentina:

 Packaged for retail sale: 1,034 45 0 0 2 463

 Other:1

 White 64,701 32,179 13,060 7,815 6,124 26,567

 Extra light amber 15,778 8,685 1,937 1,287 825 10,323

 Light amber 15,452 2,699 3,525 620 978 12,420

 Amber or darker 2,262 1,524 640 32 51 145

 Subtotal 98,193 45,088 19,162 9,755 7,978 49,455

Total, Argentina 99,227 45,133 19,162 9,755 7,980 49,918

China:

 Packaged for retail sale: 260 268 15 5 2,124 197

 Other:1

 White 6,693 5,959 3,757 17,007 31,805 37,279

 Extra light amber 9,456 9,386 2,611 9,923 9,826 13,569

 Light amber 41,954 22,178 10,203 23,172 15,034 13,574

 Amber or darker 353 1,506 130 217 549 121

 Subtotal 58,455 39,029 16,702 50,320 57,215 64,543

Total, China 58,715 39,297 16,717 50,325 59,339 64,740

Nonsubject sources:2

 Packaged for retail sale: 3,699 5,032 6,487 11,388 13,172 15,522

 Other:1

 White 26,433 24,687 49,707 39,116 33,707 34,759

 Extra light amber 556 5,571 21,697 12,235 12,319 12,497

 Light amber 6,931 21,118 77,226 67,595 48,700 49,883

 Amber or darker 2,593 4,115 11,506 9,888 3,584 5,363

 Subtotal 36,512 55,490 160,136 128,834 98,311 102,502

Total, nonsubject sources 40,212 60,522 166,623 140,223 111,483 118,024

 1 Consists of honey imported in bulk which will be processed/packed and ultimately sold to either the retail, food service, or

industrial (ingredient) markets.

 2

 The largest nonsubject sources of imported honey during 2001-06 were Vietnam, Canada, India, Brazil, and Mexico.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the Department of Commerce.
 80 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information from the following sources:

Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), section V; and Honey from Argentina and China, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, section V.

 81 The prices from all sources decreased from 1998 to 1999, were generally more steady from 1999 to 2000, and

rebounded somewhat in the first half of 2001 to levels well below those of the first quarter of 1998.

I-23

Pricing80

The Commission’s questionnaire during the original investigations asked industry participants a

number of questions regarding honey prices. Most responding independent packers and purchasers

indicated that color and USDA grading affected the price of honey. Purchasers reported that there were

price differences for color range from two cents per pound up to a 14-cent premium, and that there was a

14- to 20-percent premium for a higher USDA grade of honey. Independent packers indicated that lighter

grades of honey received a 5- to 15-cent per pound premium. Pricing data collected by the Commission

in the original investigations indicated that white, extra light amber, and light amber honey sold at

average premiums of 20 percent, 14 percent, and 8 percent, respectively, compared to amber honey

during 1998 through the first half of 2001.

Most beekeepers reported that prices were determined through transaction-by-transaction

negotiations on a spot basis. Many beekeepers indicated that they were price takers and had to accept the

price offered by the independent packers. Importers reported that most negotiations were on a contract

basis. Most independent packers, however, indicated that their terms of purchase were negotiable.

During the final phase of the original investigations, the Commission requested quarterly quantity

and value data from U.S. beekeeper-packers and independent packers concerning the U.S., Argentine, and

Chinese honey they purchased in the U.S. market for the following four honey products: (1) white honey,

(2) extra light or amber honey, (3) light amber honey, and (4) amber honey. The Commission reported

that, for all four pricing products with available data, prices for U.S.-produced honey and imported honey

from Argentina and China fell by 17 to 26 percent between the first quarter of 1998 and the second

quarter of 2001.81 There were 97 instances where price data for domestic honey and subject imported

honey were compared. Of these 97 comparisons, there were 70 instances where the imported subject

product was priced below the domestic product (31 instances for the product from Argentina and 39

instances for the product from China). Margins of underselling ranged from 0.4 to 13.1 percent for the

product from Argentina and from 0.6 to 20.8 percent for the product from China. In the remaining 27

instances, the imported product was priced above the comparable domestic product; margins of

overselling ranged from less than 0.05 to 11.8 percent for the product from Argentina and from 0.1 to

42.5 percent for the product from China.

Bee Culture magazine publishes monthly prices for unprocessed light and amber honey purchased

from U.S. beekeepers by independent packers. These monthly pricing data along with the unit values for

comparable imported products from Argentina and China are shown in figures I-1 and I-2. 

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (“NASS”) publishes yearly national average

prices in the retail and co-op/private market sectors for four color classes of honey: (1) water white, extra

white, white; (2) extra light amber; (3) light amber, amber, dark amber; and (4) all other, area specialties. 

Prices are based on retail sales by domestic producers and sales to private processors and cooperatives. 

These data for 2000-06 are presented in table I-12. During 2001 to 2006, the annual average price in the

United States, as reported by the USDA, reached a historical high of 138.7 cents per pound in 2003, up

23 percent over 2001. However, by 2005, the price dropped to 90.4 cents per pound, up only 4 percent

over 2001.
I-24

Figure I-1

Unprocessed light honey: Average U.S. prices per pound of extracted, unprocessed product sold

to packers in 55-gallon drums and average landed, duty-paid unit values of imports from Argentina

and China, by month, September 2001-February 2007

Source: Compiled from data published in Bee Culture magazine and the Department of Commerce.

Figure I-2

Unprocessed amber honey: Average U.S. prices per pound of extracted, unprocessed product

sold to packers in 55-gallon drums and average landed, duty-paid unit values of imports from

Argentina and China, by month, September 2001-February 2007

Source: Compiled from data published in Bee Culture magazine and the Department of Commerce.
 82 The domestic interested parties noted that honey imports from China began to increase significantly in 2003, a

time at which Commerce began initiating its first new shipper administrative reviews. They argued that, from

August 2002 to August 2006, the new-shipper exporters in China “exploited an unfortunate loophole in the

antidumping law that allowed the duty deposit requirement on any entry from an exporter that was undergoing a new

shipper review to be satisfied with a bond as opposed to cash.” They further argued that “this had the effect of

allowing a massive surge of honey shipments from ‘new shipper’ exporters to enter this country over the past four

years as if the China honey antidumping duty order did not exist.” They reported that Congress suspended the newshipper bonding option in August 2006 for a three-year period through July 2009. Response of AHPA and SHA,

December 21, 2006, pp. 5-9 and 18-19.

I-25

Table I-12

Honey: U.S. prices by market sector and by color, 2000-05

Item

Calendar year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Price (cents per pound)

Water white, extra white, white:

 Co-op and private 56.3 68.7 139.6 141.1 104.4 82.4

 Retail 114.5 133.6 153.8 185.8 177.0 186.7

 Total 58.2 70.6 140.2 143.5 107.5 86.2

Extra light amber:

 Co-op and private 56.0 66.9 127.2 132.6 95.9 79.4

 Retail 121.7 132.0 142.0 180.8 150.6 178.0

 Total 60.7 70.5 128.3 136.5 102.0 88.3

Light amber, amber, dark amber:

 Co-op and private 49.8 62.3 119.0 124.9 85.9 80.1

 Retail 141.9 150.8 154.3 192.6 196.0 178.9

 Total 60.1 69.5 122.8 131.8 105.1 99.1

All other honey, area specialties:

 Co-op and private 63.2 64.5 109.8 111.2 113.9 91.6

 Retail 175.2 160.4 194.9 246.6 231.5 279.2

 Total 92.9 80.9 121.9 133.5 161.5 108.4

All honey:

 Co-op and private 55.1 66.6 131.3 134.7 99.2 81.6

 Retail 130.4 142.0 152.2 188.5 182.6 183.3

 Total 59.7 70.4 132.7 138.7 106.9 90.4

Source: USDA, NASS, Agricultural Statistics Board, Honey, February 28, 2001-06.

The domestic interested parties stated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution

in these reviews that an increase in low-priced subject imports coincided with the downturn in honey

prices after 2003. They argued that imports from China have undersold the domestic product by evading

the Chinese honey antidumping duty order through new shipper reviews.82 Additionally, they argued that

the Argentine exporters were forced to “follow suit” as evidenced by the declining average unit values of

honey imports from Argentina. The domestic honey producers added that if the price of honey remains at
 83 Ibid., pp. 8-9.

 84 Canada, Carol and Jasper Womach, CRS Report for Congress, Farm Commodity Programs: Honey, October

4, 2006, p. CRS-3.

 85 Hoff, F., Honey: Background for 1995 Farm Legislation, ERS, USDA, April 1995, p. 2.

 86 Ibid.

 87 Canada, Carol and Jasper Womach, CRS Report for Congress, Farm Commodity Programs: Honey, October

4, 2006, p. CRS-1.

 88 FAOSTAT, http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx.

 89 Canada, Carol and Jasper Womach, CRS Report for Congress, Farm Commodity Programs: Honey, October

4, 2006, p. CRS-1.

 90 NASS, USDA, Agriculture Statistics Board, “Honey,” February 2006.

 91 Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, p. 11 and exh. 5.

I-26

the current low levels, they will be unable to cover their cost of production and the future of their

businesses will be in “serious jeopardy.”83

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Beekeepers

The USDA classifies beekeepers as hobbyists (fewer than 25 colonies), part-time beekeepers (25

to 299 colonies), and full-time or commercial producers of honey (300 colonies or more). Hobbyists

generally consume most of the honey they produce, give it to friends and family, or distribute the honey

through local outlets. Part-time beekeepers sell the majority of their honey, but beekeeping is not

generally their major source of income. They market their honey either through direct sales to consumers

or retail outlets, or through bulk sales to honey processors. Full-time beekeepers are those that rely on

sales of honey as their primary source of income. According to the USDA, full-time beekeepers are

responsible for about 60 percent of the extracted honey produced in the United States. Full-time

beekeepers also provide pollination services to supplement their incomes and to gain access to other

sources of nectar for honey production. In addition, some full-time beekeepers specialize in the

production of queen bees and packaged bees and may even focus on the production of beeswax to further

augment their income.84 The Commission reported in the original investigations that most of the honey

extracted in the United States is done by commercial beekeepers, even though the commercial beekeeper

population comprised only about 1 percent of the total beekeeping population.85 Hobbyists comprised

about 90-95 percent of the beekeeping population, and part-time beekeepers the remainder.86

As was the case in the original investigations, beekeepers operate in virtually every state in the

United States, although the domestic beekeeping industry is heavily concentrated along the U.S. northern

border from Washington to Michigan and in Florida, California, and Texas. Nearly one-half of all

domestically produced honey is produced in the four leading honey-producing states of North Dakota,

South Dakota, Florida, and California.87

During 2005, the United States was ranked as the world’s third-largest producer of honey.88

According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, there were 12,029 beekeepers in the United States during

2002.89 The USDA reported that, during 2005, there were 2.41 million commercial bee colonies in the

United States.90 The domestic interested parties identified over 650 current domestic producers of honey

in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, many of which were

characterized as small beekeepers or hobbyists.91
 92 Honey from Argentina and China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC

Publication 3470, November 2001, p. III-2.

 93 Ibid.

 94 Ibid., p. 11.

 95 Supplemental Response of AHPA and SHA, January 3, 2007, p. 1.

I-27

U.S. Packers

In the original investigations, 116 of the 119 beekeepers that responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire with usable data indicated that they supported the petition. Many of these beekeepers cited

low honey prices of imports from China and Argentina driving down the price which they receive for

their honey as the reason for their support.92 U.S. honey packers are either beekeeper-packers or

independent packers. For purposes of this report, a beekeeper-packer is defined as a beekeeper that both

extracts honey from its own colonies and packs the honey. An independent packer is defined as a firm

engaged in the processing or packaging of purchased honey. Such honey may be purchased from

domestic and/or foreign sources. 

The Commission reported in the original investigations that, during 2000, there were

approximately 350 beekeeper-packers and 110 independent packers in the United States. Based on

assessments paid to the NHB during 1999, it was estimated that beekeeper-packers and other packers

accounted for *** and *** percent of the U.S. packing of honey in 1999, respectively, with the largest 10

packers having accounted for about *** of all domestically packed honey. The SHA, a non-profit

cooperative organization, accounted for *** percent of the U.S. packing of honey in 2000. It collectively

produced approximately *** pounds of raw honey during 2000.

In the original investigations, *** of the reporting beekeeper-packers supported the petition; ***. 

Of the reporting independent packers, 5 firms accounting for 17 percent of reported packing in 2000

supported the petition, 10 firms accounting for 53 percent of reported packing opposed the petition, and 6

firms accounting for 4 percent of reported packing took no position on the petition. In addition, Sioux

Honey, the largest U.S. packer in 2000, was a petitioner.93

Related Parties

The Commission reported in the final phase of the original investigations that at least four firms

that packed honey in the United States imported honey directly from Argentina and/or China and at least

16 firms that packed honey in the United States purchased Argentine and/or Chinese honey domestically. 

In its final determinations, the Commission excluded two domestic packers (***) and one domestic

beekeeper/packer (***) from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision.94 The

domestic interested parties in these current reviews stated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution that none of the individual members of the AHPA and the SHA are importers of the subject

merchandise and none are related to a foreign producer, exporter, or to an importer of the subject

merchandise.95 ***.

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Domestic production of honey varies widely among regions and from year to year depending on

rainfall, soil conditions, temperature, cropping patterns, management, and various other factors. Cold and
 96 The U.S. Beekeeping Industry, ERS, USDA, May 1994, p. 3.

 97 Roach, Jim, “Bee Decline May Spell End of Some Fruits, Vegetables,” Pulse of the Planet, National

Geographic, October 5, 2004, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1005_041005_honeybees.html.

 98 Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, p. 13.

 99 Ibid., pp. 13-14.

 100 Ibid., p. 10.

I-28

rainy weather can prevent bees from collecting nectar, which reduces honey production. Rain, drought,

or freezing temperatures can also cut honey production by damaging nectar sources.96

About one-third of the 119 U.S. beekeepers responding to the Commission’s questionnaire in the

original investigations reported that they had experienced negative changes in the character of their honey

operations since 1998 owing to bee diseases, adverse weather conditions, low honey prices, and/or lowpriced imports of Argentine and Chinese honey. In fact, bee populations in the United States have

declined over the past 50 years by an estimated 40 to 50 percent. The major cause of this decline has

been disease and the use of pesticides. Varroa mites (also known as “vampire mites”) are the greatest

known long-term threat to domestic honeybees. These mites feed on the honeybees’ blood, often leaving

the honeybees with deformed wings and/or abdomens and a reduced life span. The mites are also carriers

for many honeybee diseases, especially viral diseases, that have also contributed to the population

decline. In addition, honeybee populations have experienced more dramatic temporary declines in

population due to reasons largely not understood by scientists.97

Data concerning U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial indicators for calendar years

1998-2005 are presented in table I-13. As the data illustrate, U.S. honey production in 2005 totaled

174.6 million pounds, a decline of 21 percent from the level reported during the final annual period for

which data were collected in the original investigations (2000). The domestic interested parties in these

current reviews indicated that this decline was due primarily to “unfavorable climatic conditions beyond

the control of the domestic producers.”98 Despite the decline, however, information obtained by the

domestic interested parties from U.S. beekeepers and packers indicated that there has been no shortage of

domestic honey during the past five years. The domestic interested parties argued that the U.S. producers

have “dramatically increased their carryover stocks in the face of the surge of imports from China’s ‘new

shipper’ exporters.”99 In fact, ending honey stocks fell from a period high of 86.2 million pounds in 2000

to a period low of 39.4 million pounds in 2002 before climbing to 62.4 million pounds in 2005. After the

imposition of the orders, domestic yield per colony remained below levels reported in the original

investigations.

The AHPA reported that, even with the orders in effect, the domestic honey producers have

experienced declines in production, shipments, sales, and profitability during the past several years. The 

domestic industry stated further that it has experienced *** and has not seen significant investment or

expansion in recent years. The honey producers projected that further erosion of sales and profitability

would lead to a reduction of their employment base, and a number of producers indicated that they would 

be forced to exit the business completely if the orders against China and Argentina were revoked. The

domestic interested parties also pointed out that the SHA showed significant declines in net sales,

proceeds, and prices during recent years.100 Price trends are discussed in the section entitled “Pricing”

earlier in this report.
Table I-13

Honey: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1998-2000, January-June 2000, January-June 2001, and 2001-05

Item 1998 1999 2000

Jan.-June

2000 2001 2001 2002 200

U.S. beekeepers’: Colonies (1,000) 2,633 2,688 2,634 (2) (2) 2,506 2,574 2,

 Production: Quantity (1,000 pounds) 220,316 205,228 221,005 (2) (2) 185,461 171,718 181,

 Value ($1,000) 147,254 125,422 132,205 (2) (2) 132,225 228,338 253, Unit value ($/pound) 0.66 0.61 0.59 (2) (2) 0.70 1.33 1

 Yield per colony (pounds) 83.7 76.3 83.9 (2) (2) 74.0 66.7 7 Ending stocks (1,000 pounds) 80,808 79,361 86,158 (2) (2) 64,556 39,393 40,

 EOP3 stocks/production (percent) 36.7 38.7 39.0 (2) (2) 34.8 22.9 2

 PRWs4 (number)5 *** *** *** (2) (2) 1,418 1,321 1, Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Wages paid ($1,000)5 *** *** *** (2) (2) 30,281 31,201 35,

 Hourly wages5 $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) $10.28 $11.35 $11

 Productivity (pounds per hour) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Unit labor costs (per pound)5 $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) $0.16 $0.18 $0Table continued on following page.

I-29
Table I-13--Continued

Honey: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1998-2000, January-June 2000, January-June 2001, and 2001-05

Item 1998 1999 2000

Jan.-June

2000 2001 2001 2002 200

U.S. beekeepers’: Net sales: Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) 

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Unit value (per pound) $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Operating expenses ($1,000) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) 

 Net income before taxes ($1,000) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Capital expenditures ($1,000) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Unit operating expenses (per pound) $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Unit net income before taxes (per pound) $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) (2) (2)  Net income before taxes/ total revenues (percent) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) Table continued on following page.

I-30
Table I-13--Continued

Honey: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1998-2000, January-June 2000, January-June 2001, and 2001-05

Item 1998 1999 2000

Jan.-June

2000 2001 2001 2002 200

U.S. independent packers’:7

 Capacity quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) 

 Packing quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  U.S. shipments: Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Unit value (per pound) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Export shipments: Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** 7,363 6,885 6, Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** 6,247 6,171 5,

 Unit value (per pound) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $0.85 $0.90 $0

 Ending stocks (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) 

 EOP3 stocks/total shipments (percent) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  PRWs4 (number) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Hourly wages $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (2) (2)  Productivity (pounds per hour) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Unit labor costs (per pound) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) Table continued on following page.

I-31
Table I-13--Continued

Honey: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1998-2000, January-June 2000, January-June 2001, and 2001-05

Item 1998 1999 2000

Jan.-June

2000 2001 2001 2002 200

U.S. independent packers’(excluding SHA): Net sales: Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) 

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  COGS8 ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Gross profit (or loss)($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  SG&A expenses ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Operating income ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Capital expenditures ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  COGS8/sales (percent) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Operating income (loss)/sales (percent) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) Table continued on following page.

I-32
Table I-13--Continued

Honey: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1998-2000, January-June 2000, January-June 2001, and 2001-05

Item 1998 1999 2000

Jan.-June

2000 2001 2001 2002 200

SHA’s: Net sales: Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) 

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  COGS8 ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) 

 Net proceeds ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2)  Capital expenditures ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) 

1 Questionnaire data presented for calendar years 1998-2000, January-June 2000, and January-June 2001 do not include data from ***. These dome

from the domestic industry under the related parties provision by the Commission in its original determinations.

2 Not available.3 End of period.4 Production and related workers.5 U.S. beekeeper employment data presented for 2001-05 were collected by the U.S. Census Bureau (“Industry NAICS 112920 Apiculture”). These d

comprised of establishments engaged in raising bees, collecting and gathering honey, and selling queen bees, packages of bees, royal jelly, beeswax, p

bee products. Hourly wages for 2001-05 were calculated from average weekly wages based on a 40-hour work week.

6 Data presented are commercial shipment quantity and value data estimated for AHPA members. The Commission’s report in its original investigatio

data presented were compiled from the questionnaire responses of 120 U.S. beekeepers. In its response in these current five-year reviews, beekeepers

were provided by the AHPA, which is currently comprised of 182 beekeeping members.

7 SHA is included in these data. Reported data from beekeeper-packers are a small fraction of total U.S. packing operations and are not presented in 8 Cost of goods sold.9 SHA’s commercial shipments of packed honey.

Source: Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), table C-2 (data for 1998-2000, January-June 2000, and January-June 2001); NASS, USDA, Agricu

“Honey,” February 2003-06 (data for 2001-05); Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, p. 13 (commercial shipment data for 2005); U.S. Depa

Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate (U.S. beekeeper employ

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service: Total U.S. Honey Exports to All Countries (Bulk and Retail Combined), www.honey.com/honeyindustry/stats/CY2005

independent packers’ export shipments for 2001-05).

I-33
 101 Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), p. IV-1.

 102 Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, exh. 6.

 103 Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), p. IV-3.

 104 As previously discussed, the domestic interested parties in these reviews attributed this increase to the

circumvention of the orders by Chinese exporters through new shipper reviews, which allowed the duty deposit

requirement on any entry from an exporter that was undergoing a new shipper review to be satisfied with a bond as

opposed to cash. Congress suspended the new-shipper bonding option in August 2006 for a three-year period, an

action which immediately halted nearly all honey imports from China. Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21,

2006, pp. 5-9 and 18-19.

 105 Nonsubject imports of honey increased by 314 percent from 40 million pounds in 2000 to 167 million pounds

in 2002 before falling by 33 percent from 2002 to 2004. Nonsubject honey imports increased by 5.9 percent from

111 million pounds in 2004 to 118 million pounds in 2005.

I-34

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

In the Commission’s original investigations, questionnaire responses with usable data were

received from 18 U.S. importers of honey, whose subject imports accounted for about 76 percent of total 

imports of honey from Argentina, 84 percent of total imports of honey from China, and 26 percent of total

imports of honey from other countries during 2000. *** was the largest known U.S. importer of honey

*** in 2000.101 In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these current reviews, the

domestic interested parties identified over 100 U.S. importers of honey from Argentina and China.102

Data concerning U.S. imports were compiled from official statistics of Commerce and are

presented in figure I-3 and table I-14. The Commission’s report in the original investigations noted that

U.S. imports of honey from China from August 1995 to July 2000 were subject to the volume and price

restrictions of the suspension agreement that resulted from the 1994-95 antidumping investigation on

honey from China. The volume and price restrictions pursuant to the suspension agreement were

terminated in July 2000, although at the time of the original investigations the Commission was informed

that China continued to maintain a minimum price and export licensing system on honey.103

The total quantity of U.S. imports of honey from Argentina and China increased throughout the

period examined during the Commission’s original investigations (1998-2000), as did U.S. imports of

honey from all other countries combined. The unit values of U.S. imports of honey from all import

sources declined throughout 1998-2000. By quantity, imports from China and from all other sources

(other than Argentina) combined as a share of total imports were higher in 2000 than in 1998 but imports

from Argentina were slightly lower.

The original petition filed in September 2000 and the imposition of the antidumping duty orders

on honey from Argentina and China and the countervailing duty order on honey from Argentina in

December 2001 had an immediate impact on the volume of the subject imports. The quantity of honey

imported into the United States from Argentina and China combined fell by 46.5 percent from 157.9

million pounds in 2000 to 84.4 million pounds in 2001 and fell further to 35.9 million pounds in 2002. In

2003 and 2004, imports from Argentina continued to fall while U.S. imports from China rose and by 2004

were at a level higher than any reported during the original investigations.104 From 2003 to 2005, total

subject imports consistently increased to 114.7 million pounds in 2005, a level 27.4 percent lower than

reported in the final year for which the Commission examined data in the original investigations (2000). 

Argentina and China were the top foreign suppliers of honey in the United States during 2005. The

largest nonsubject sources of imported honey during 2005 were Vietnam, Canada, India, Uruguay, Brazil,

and Taiwan.105
I-35

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS subheading 0409.00.

Figure I-3

Honey: U.S. imports from Argentina and China, by quantity, 1998-2005
I-36

Table I-14

Honey: U.S. imports,1

 by sources, 1998-2005

Source

Calendar year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Argentina 69,500 91,588 99,229 45,133 19,162 9,755 7,980 49,918

China 30,485 50,990 58,716 39,297 16,717 50,325 59,339 64,740

Subtotal 99,985 142,578 157,945 84,430 35,879 60,080 67,319 114,659

Other sources 32,377 39,943 40,212 60,522 166,623 140,223 111,483 118,024

Total 132,362 182,521 198,158 144,952 202,501 200,302 178,803 232,683

Value (1,000 dollars)

2

Argentina 41,139 43,499 46,728 20,767 18,755 11,553 7,547 32,791

China 18,089 24,012 25,528 17,660 8,560 36,499 34,228 26,349

Subtotal 59,228 67,511 72,256 38,427 27,315 48,052 41,775 59,140

Other sources 22,917 25,589 25,251 39,161 146,053 170,300 109,236 81,167

Total 82,145 93,100 97,507 77,587 173,368 218,352 151,011 140,307

Unit value (per pound)

2

Argentina $0.59 $0.47 $0.47 $0.46 $0.98 $1.18 $0.95 $0.66

China 0.59 0.47 0.43 0.45 0.51 0.73 0.58 0.41

Average 0.59 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.76 0.80 0.62 0.52

Other sources 0.71 0.64 0.63 0.65 0.88 1.21 0.98 0.69

Average 0.62 0.51 0.49 0.54 0.86 1.09 0.84 0.60

Share of quantity (percent)

Argentina 52.5 50.2 50.1 31.1 9.5 4.9 4.5 21.5

China 23.0 27.9 29.6 27.1 8.3 25.1 33.2 27.8

Subtotal 75.5 78.1 79.7 58.2 17.7 30.0 37.7 49.3

Other sources 24.5 21.9 20.3 41.8 82.3 70.0 62.4 50.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Argentina 50.1 46.7 47.9 26.8 10.8 5.3 5.0 23.4

China 22.0 25.8 26.2 22.8 4.9 16.7 22.7 18.8

Subtotal 72.1 72.5 74.1 49.5 15.8 22.0 27.7 42.2

Other sources 27.9 27.5 25.9 50.5 84.2 78.0 72.3 57.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 The import data presented in this table are for natural honey imported under HTS subheading 0409.00.00, and consist of

virtually all, if not all, U.S. imports of honey. 2

 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 106 Honey From Argentina and China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC

Publication 3470, November 2001, p. 15.

 107 Staff Report, October 24, 2001 (INV-Y-220), p. IV-3.

I-37

The unit values of subject imports of honey have generally been higher during the annual periods

following the imposition of the orders than during the final annual period examined in the original

investigations. The unit value for honey imported from Argentina was lowest in 2001, prior to the

imposition of the antidumping duty order in December of that same year. With one exception, the unit

value for honey imported from China was lowest in 2000 prior to the order.

Cumulation Considerations

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets; (3) common channels

of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. In the original investigations, the

Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition and, for purposes of their present injury analysis,

cumulated imports from the subject countries.106

Available information concerning fungibility and channels of distribution is presented in the

sections of this report entitled “Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions” and

“Channels of Distribution,” respectively. Additional information concerning geographical markets and

simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.

During the original investigations, the Commission noted that imports were present in the same

geographical areas throughout the period examined.107 According to official import statistics, by customs

district, U.S. imports from Argentina and China entered the United States through many of the same

customs districts during 2001-05 (table I-15). During 2005, major entry points for the honey from both

Argentina and China were Baltimore, MD; Detroit, MI; Houston-Galveston, TX; Philadelphia, PA; and

Tampa, FL. Other major entry points for Chinese honey were Chicago, IL; Columbia-Snake, OR; Los

Angeles, CA; Minneapolis, MN; San Francisco, CA; and Savannah, GA. 

A review of monthly import data for January 2001 through November 2006 indicates that imports

of honey from both Argentina and China entered the United States in a majority of the months during that

time period. There were two months in 2001 and 6 months in 2004 in which there were no imports of

honey from Argentina and there was one month in 2001 and one month in 2002 in which there were no

imports of honey from China (table I-16).
I-38

Table I-15

Honey: U.S. imports from Argentina and China, by customs district, 2001-05

District Source

Calendar year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Baltimore, MD Argentina 367 666 178 547 4,521

China 2,310 1,420 4,360 4,207 1,378

Buffalo, NY Argentina (1

)0000

China 350 282 3,544 4,086 0

Charleston, SC Argentina 420000

Chicago, IL Argentina 0 0 0 51 846

China 2,786 1,667 11,210 8,034 10,208

Cleveland, OH China 0 217 0 0 0

Columbia-Snake, OR Argentina 168 0 0 0 330

China 1,431 652 767 859 1,023

Detroit, MI Argentina 0 251 752 1,425 2,343

China 217 553 2,174 1,775 2,386

Honolulu, HI China 0 0 43 0 0

Houston-Galveston, TX Argentina 5,582 2,466 819 212 7,993

China 3,515 1,438 1,563 4,305 7,158

Los Angeles, CA Argentina 746 0 42 301 724

China 15,973 4,580 14,370 16,829 16,141

Miami, FL Argentina 342 45 6 181 432

China 127 0 0 0 0

Minneapolis, MN Argentina 0 0 0 421 524

China 1,343 670 335 878 1,105

New Orleans, LA Argentina 2140000

New York, NY Argentina 342 1,472 278 0 468

China 321 100 2,035 3,678 999

Norfolk, VA Argentina 35 0 0 0 125

China 0 0 286 2,234 0

Ogdensburg, NY China 200000

Philadelphia, PA Argentina 35,934 12,969 7,409 4,674 29,779

China 4,053 3,479 3,888 3,433 9,580

San Francisco, CA Argentina 242 0 0 0 85

China 1,001 746 3,368 4,494 2,256

Savannah, GA China 217 0 79 739 2,046

Seattle, WA Argentina 307 268 44 169 268

China 4,319 870 865 1,817 491

St. Albans, VT Argentina 00400

China 0 42 0 0 0

St. Louis, MO China 0 0 87 0 0

Tampa, FL Argentina 811 1,024 221 0 1,480

China 1,312 0 1,350 1,969 9,971

 1

 Less than 500 pounds.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. 
I-39

Table I-16

Honey: U.S. imports, by source and by month, January 2001-November 2006

Period Argentina China

Subtotal,

subject

countries

All other

countries

Total, all

countries

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

2001:

 January 7,097 5,639 12,735 1,523 14,258

 February 16,154 7,020 23,175 1,308 24,482

 March 9,220 7,474 16,694 1,635 18,329

 April 10,686 10,454 21,140 2,877 24,016

 May 1,302 2,878 4,180 4,896 9,076

 June 0 0 0 6,997 6,997

 July 47 222 269 7,600 7,869

 August 0 562 562 6,075 6,636

 September 45 1,695 1,740 5,639 7,379

 October 132 1,348 1,479 8,767 10,246

 November 385 1,130 1,515 7,107 8,622

 December 65 876 941 6,100 7,040

 Total 45,133 39,298 84,430 60,524 144,950

2002:

 January 345 3,213 3,558 10,770 14,328

 February 134 4,037 4,171 13,403 17,574

 March 1,218 4,674 5,892 17,491 23,383

 April 1,419 2,619 4,038 17,690 21,728

 May 1,699 439 2,138 18,751 20,889

 June 45 (1

) 45 15,204 15,249

 July 225 0 225 11,397 11,622

 August 370 130 500 10,272 10,772

 September 179 99 278 10,324 10,602

 October 5,736 45 5,781 16,961 22,741

 November 4,569 22 4,591 14,449 19,040

 December 3,225 1,437 4,662 9,911 14,573

 Total 19,164 16,715 35,879 166,623 202,501

Table continued on following page.
I-40

Table I-16--Continued

Honey: U.S. imports, by source and by month, January 2001-November 2006

Period Argentina China

Subtotal,

subject

countries

All other

countries

Total, all

countries

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

2003:

 January 1,024 389 1,413 8,270 9,683

 February 519 1,918 2,437 9,575 12,012

 March 1,333 2,762 4,095 15,368 19,464

 April 2,388 4,612 7,000 18,264 25,264

 May 2,071 2,253 4,324 17,731 22,055

 June 903 2,788 3,691 10,925 14,617

 July 1,125 2,868 3,993 12,757 16,750

 August 86 4,380 4,466 10,223 14,690

 September 127 6,840 6,967 12,304 19,272

 October 91 10,383 10,474 10,550 21,023

 November 45 5,005 5,049 7,493 12,543

 December 42 6,128 6,169 6,762 12,932

 Total 9,754 50,326 60,078 140,222 200,305

2004:

 January 0 5,868 5,868 10,847 16,715

 February 0 4,974 4,974 10,723 15,697

 March 0 5,280 5,280 7,748 13,028

 April 2 1,851 1,854 8,284 10,138

 May 0 1,291 1,291 6,565 7,856

 June 0 4,444 4,444 9,036 13,480

 July 0 5,413 5,413 6,927 12,340

 August 835 3,097 3,932 10,062 13,995

 September 804 5,315 6,119 10,965 17,084

 October 1,517 8,479 9,996 11,530 21,526

 November 2,746 8,873 11,619 11,615 23,235

 December 2,075 4,454 6,529 7,180 13,709

 Total 7,979 59,339 67,319 111,482 178,803

Table continued on following page.
I-41

Table I-16--Continued

Honey: U.S. imports, by source and by month, January 2001-November 2006

Period Argentina China

Subtotal,

subject

countries

All other

countries

Total, all

countries

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

2005:

 January 1,679 6,475 8,154 6,361 14,516

 February 887 5,193 6,080 6,695 12,775

 March 2,735 2,637 5,373 7,797 13,170

 April 5,073 2,355 7,427 10,156 17,584

 May 4,157 4,073 8,230 16,474 24,704

 June 4,224 6,407 10,631 16,821 27,452

 July 5,029 3,579 8,608 10,615 19,223

 August 5,521 8,264 13,786 11,660 25,445

 September 5,670 4,340 10,010 8,228 18,238

 October 5,949 8,037 13,986 9,873 23,859

 November 4,373 7,116 11,489 5,399 16,888

 December 4,620 6,264 10,885 7,944 18,828

 Total 49,917 64,740 114,659 118,023 232,682

2006:

 January 3,298 8,016 11,314 7,264 18,578

 February 2,685 8,695 11,380 10,769 22,149

 March 4,925 3,704 8,629 9,514 18,143

 April 7,117 4,847 11,964 12,254 24,217

 May 6,515 10,229 16,744 16,990 33,734

 June 6,482 10,981 17,463 16,534 33,997

 July 6,130 8,211 14,341 13,936 28,277

 August 4,264 3,740 8,004 9,543 17,547

 September 6,574 205 6,779 10,263 17,042

 October 5,697 3,846 9,543 12,541 22,084

 November 7,166 3,696 10,862 12,165 23,027

 Total (11 months) 60,853 66,170 127,023 131,773 258,795

 (1) Less than 500 pounds.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 108 Although the USDA discontinued the issuance of the annual honey updates, which contained published data

on U.S. honey consumption, the domestic interested parties noted in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these reviews that the trends in demand as calculated based on adding domestic production and imports

generally track the per capita consumption trends as reported by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion for

honey and edible sugars. Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, p. 14.

 109 Apparent U.S. consumption data for 2006 cannot be calculated as the domestic industry data compiled by the

USDA were not available by the date the record closed in these reviews.

I-42

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Demand for honey depends on the demand for downstream food products that use honey as an

ingredient and the demand for honey in the retail and food service sectors. Honey has many end uses as

an ingredient, such as for making cereals, drinks, candy, and bakery goods. During the original

investigations, the Commission reported that, in 2000, 48 percent of U.S. packers’ sales of honey were in

bulk for use as an ingredient, 40 percent were to the retail market, and 12 percent were to the food service

sector.

Normally, apparent U.S. consumption data presented in Commission reports consist of domestic

producers’ U.S. shipments as reported in responses to Commission questionnaires plus either imports or

importers’ shipments as reported in responses to Commission questionnaires or imports from official

statistics. In the Commission’s report in the original investigations and in this review report, apparent 

U.S. consumption consists of beekeepers’ production plus U.S. imports, because no complete data on 

U.S. producers’ shipments or U.S. importers’ shipments are available either from questionnaire responses

or from USDA or other official data. The use of production plus imports to calculate consumption is

somewhat inexact because, for example, it does not take into account inventory fluctuations, but it is an

adequate proxy for actual consumption and likely does not distort market share trends.108

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares of honey for 1998-2005 are presented in table 

I-17.109 Apparent U.S. consumption of honey, in terms of quantity, increased from 1998 to 2000 but fell

by 21.2 percent in 2001 to a level below that reported in 1998. Since 2001, apparent consumption has

increased in all but one annual period, although the levels of apparent consumption since 2001 remain

within the same range as those reported during the original investigations. 

The share of apparent consumption held by subject imports increased during the period examined

in the original investigations but fell by 28.1 percentage points from 2000 to 2002. The share held by

imports from Argentina continued to fall into 2003 and 2004 before rising in 2005 almost to the level

reported in 2001. The share held by imports from China increased subsequent to 2002, although it

decreased slightly in 2005. The share of apparent consumption held by domestic beekeepers during

2002-05 remained at levels below those reported during the original investigations, while the share held

by importers of honey from nonsubject countries combined was at a level well above those reported

during the original investigations.

BARRIERS TO ENTRY IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no outstanding antidumping and/or countervailing duty measures against honey

produced in Argentina or China in countries other than the United States. However, the domestic

interested parties in these current reviews point out that there are other barriers to entry in certain thirdcountry markets for both Argentine and Chinese honey based on phytosanitary concerns. They explained

in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution that the European and Canadian markets in

particular require that honey imports undergo much more rigorous laboratory testing for certain

antibiotics and other undesirable chemicals, such as hydromethyll furfural (“HMF”) and phenol, than are

tested for in the United States, which has no (or lower) standards for these contaminants. Therefore, they

argued that the European and Canadian markets are more restrictive and expensive for Argentine and

Chinese honey exporters than is the U.S. market. In addition, the domestic interested parties pointed out

that the European Union placed a ban on imports of honey from China beginning in 2002 through mid-
 110 Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, pp. 30-32.

I-43

Table I-17

Honey: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, 1998-05

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. beekeepers’ production 220,316 205,228 221,005 185,461 171,718 181,727 183,582 174,643

U.S. imports:

 Argentina 69,500 91,588 99,229 45,133 19,162 9,755 7,980 49,918

 China 30,485 50,990 58,716 39,297 16,717 50,325 59,339 64,740

 Subtotal 99,985 142,578 157,945 84,430 35,879 60,080 67,319 114,659

 Other sources 32,377 39,943 40,212 60,522 166,623 140,223 111,483 118,024

 Total imports 132,362 182,521 198,158 144,952 202,501 200,302 178,803 232,683

Apparent U.S. consumption 352,678 387,749 419,161 330,413 374,219 382,029 362,385 407,326

Value ($1,000)

U.S. beekeepers’ production 147,254 125,422 132,205 132,225 228,338 253,106 196,259 157,795

U.S. imports:

 Argentina 41,139 43,499 46,728 20,767 18,755 11,553 7,547 32,791

 China 18,089 24,012 25,528 17,660 8,560 36,499 34,228 26,349

 Subtotal 59,228 67,511 72,256 38,427 27,315 48,052 41,775 59,140

 Other sources 22,917 25,589 25,251 39,161 146,053 170,300 109,236 81,167

 Total imports 82,145 93,100 97,507 77,587 173,368 218,352 151,011 140,307

Apparent U.S. consumption 229,399 218,522 229,712 209,812 401,706 471,458 347,270 298,102

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. beekeepers’ production 62.5 52.9 52.7 56.1 45.9 47.6 50.7 42.9

U.S. imports:

 Argentina 19.7 23.6 23.7 13.7 5.1 2.6 2.2 12.3

 China 8.6 13.2 14.0 11.9 4.5 13.2 16.4 15.9

 Subtotal 28.4 36.8 37.7 25.6 9.6 15.7 18.6 28.1

 Other sources 9.2 10.3 9.6 18.3 44.5 36.7 30.8 29.0

 Total imports 37.5 47.1 47.3 43.9 54.1 52.4 49.3 57.1

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producer’s U.S.

shipments 64.2 57.4 57.6 63.0 56.8 53.7 56.5 52.9

U.S. imports:

 Argentina 17.9 19.9 20.3 9.9 4.7 2.5 2.2 11.0

 China 7.9 11.0 11.1 8.4 2.1 7.7 9.9 8.8

 Subtotal 25.8 30.9 31.5 18.3 6.8 10.2 12.0 19.8

 Other sources 10.0 11.7 11.0 18.7 36.4 36.1 31.5 27.2

 Total imports 35.8 42.6 42.4 37.0 43.2 46.3 43.5 47.1

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and NASS, USDA, Agriculture Statistics Board, “Honey,” February 2001-06.

2005 related to the finding of antibiotics and hormone growth promoters in Chinese honey, which is a

continuing concern with regard to such honey produced in China.110
I-44

THE WORLD MARKET

During 2005, China was ranked as the world’s largest producer and consumer of honey. 

Argentina, the world’s second-largest producer of honey, consumed domestically a relatively small

amount of its annual honey production in 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available). The

United States is the world’s third-largest producer of honey and the second-largest consumer. Data on

honey production, supply, and distribution for selected countries during 1998-2005 are presented in table

I-18.

Table I-18

Honey: Production, supply, and distribution for selected countries, 1998-2005

Country Year

Total

colonies1

(1,000)

Yield/

colony

(lbs.)

Honey

production

Beginning

stocks Imports

Total

supply/

distribution Exports

Domestic

consumptionEnding

stocks

(1,000 pounds)

Argentina

1998 2,100 78.7 165,347 0 46 165,347 152,119 12,566 0

1999 2,700 80.0 216,053 0 44 216,053 199,959 16,093 0

2000 2,800 66.9 198,416 0 44 198,416 193,125 5,291 0

2001 2,800 63.0 176,368 0 44 187,435 161,729 13,161 0

2002 (2

) (2) 182,982 (2)4(2) 177,294 13,999 (2)

2003 (2

) (2) 165,345 (2) 144 (2) 155,931 14,881 (2)

2004 (2

) (2) 176,368 (2) 91 (2) 138,449 15,829 (2)

2005 (2

) (2) 176,368 (2) 235 (2) 236,024 15,168 (2)

Canada

1998 517 181.0 93,598 8,818 5,311 107,728 24,709 67,586 15,432

1999 515 145.5 74,956 15,432 5,732 96,121 33,069 58,642 4,409

2000 604 114.2 68,994 13,158 5,044 87,196 33,992 51,011 2,193

2001 602 129.6 78,021 (2

) 11,486 (2) 32,209 53,021 (2)

2002 588 139.0 81,725 (2

) 17,965 (2) 54,983 54,498 (2)

2003 577 128.2 74,000 (2

) 19,467 (2) 35,516 57,893 (2)

2004 598 126.2 75,486 (2

) 19,608 (2) 32,187 61,486 (2)

2005 610 130.5 79,608 (2

) 18,087 (2) 27,624 65,278 (2)

China

1998 6,300 54.2 341,713 110,230 1,089 453,032 173,454 230,198 49,380

1999 6,300 80.1 504,390 49,380 1,864 555,634 191,203 241,520 122,911

2000 6,300 69.6 438,600 122,911 816 562,327 225,633 253,597 83,097

2001 (2

) (2) 560,762 (2) 537 (2) 237,017 350,796 (2)

2002 (2

) (2) 590,458 (2) 1,804 (2) 170,768 372,159 (2)

2003 (2

) (2) 649,740 (2) 1,330 (2) 193,277 394,645 (2)

2004 (2

) (2) 656,749 (2) 2,047 (2) 190,544 418,323 (2)

2005 (2

) (2) 656,971 (2) 797 (2) 206,527 443,323 (2)

Continued on following page.
I-45

Table I-18–Continued

Honey: Production, supply, and distribution for selected countries, 1998-2005

Country Year

Total

colonies1

(1,000)

Yield/

colony

(lbs.)

Honey

production

Beginning

stocks Imports

Total

supply/

distribution Exports

Domestic

consumptionEnding

stocks

(1,000 pounds)

Germany

1998 917 39.2 35,948 0 206,223 242,171 29,910 205,647 6,614

1999 910 31.5 28,660 6,614 191,800 227,074 26,455 200,619 0

2000 896 36.7 32,895 0 199,124 232,019 39,474 192,545 0

2001 (2

) (2) 57,209 (2) 206,957 (2) 45,745 205,336 (2)

2002 (2

) (2) 32,231 (2) 100,317 (2) 50,419 204,609 (2)

2003 (2

) (2) 52,227 (2) 206,326 (2) 48,678 203,771 (2)

2004 (2

) (2) 56,394 (2) 195,636 (2) 50,816 202,867 (2)

2005 (2

) (2) 46,804 (2) 210,861 (2) 54,277 201,919 (2)

Mexico

1998 2,100 58.9 123,592 0 0 123,592 58,029 65,563 6,614

1999 2,000 63.5 126,765 0 0 126,765 63,933 62,831 0

2000 1,800 69.3 124,659 0 79 124,738 48,246 76,492 0

2001 2,000 65.1 130,226 0 320 130,543 50,926 70,150 0

2002 1,800 72.1 129,829 0 474 130,303 76,015 69,593 0

2003 2,000 62.9 125,772 0 220 136,771 55,159 67,659 0

2004 (2

) (2) 125,243 (2) 19 (2) 51,544 68,806 (2)

2005 (2

) (2) 111,619 (2)5(2) 42,284 71,032 (2)

United

States

1998 2,633 83.7 220,316 70,695 132,362 423,373 10,444 352,678 80,808

1999 2,688 76.4 205,250 80,808 182,521 468,579 11,073 387,749 79,375

2000 2,620 84.1 220,339 79,375 198,156 497,870 9,168 419,161 85,328

2001 2,506 74.0 185,461 85,328 144,952 415,741 7,363 361,907 64,556

2002 2,574 66.7 171,718 64,556 202,501 438,775 6,885 357,498 39,393

2003 2,599 70.0 181,727 39,393 200,302 421,422 6,867 357,145 40,785

2004 2,556 71.8 183,582 40,785 178,803 403,170 7,811 359,592 61,222

2005 2,410 72.5 174,643 61,222 232,683 468,548 7,641 360,893 62,406

 1

 For the United States, only colonies with 5 or more hives are included.

 2

 Not available.

Source: Data presented for 1998-2000 were obtained from Honey From Argentina and China, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, p. VII-8, and were compiled

from the following sources: Sugar: World Markets and Trade, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, November

1999, p. 46 (publication discontinued after 1999); Honey, NASS, USDA, February 2001; FAS, USDA, Gain Report

Nos. CH1017 (April 2001), GM0030 (August 2000) CA0185 (November 2000), and AR1067 (October 2001); and

official U.S. import and export statistics. Data presented for 2001-05 were compiled from the following sources: 

FAS, USDA, Argentina Honey Update 2001, Gain Report #AR1067, October 29, 2001; FAS, USDA, Mexico Honey

Annual 2003, Gain Report #MX3148, October 30, 2003; FAS, USDA, Canada Honey Production and Trade Update

2003-05, Gain Report Nos. CA2140, CA3087, CA4090, and CA5083 (December 2002-05); FAOSTAT,

http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx; Honey, NASS, USDA, February 2002-06; Global Trade Atlas; and official U.S.

import statistics. 
 111 Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, p. 24.

 112 Ibid., pp. 24-25.

 113 Ibid., exh. 7.

 114 Ibid., p. 25.

I-46

THE SUBJECT FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

Argentina

At the time of the Commission’s original investigations, Argentina was the world’s secondlargest exporter of honey (after China) and the third-largest producer of honey (after China and the United

States). It was identified as the only major producing country in which the number of producing colonies

was increasing. Argentina consumed domestically only a small amount of its annual honey production in

1999; it was, by far, a net exporter of honey, with a large portion of its honey exports handled by a few

Argentine exporting firms. Traditionally, the most important markets for Argentina were identified as

Germany and the United States. Other key export markets at that time included Spain, Italy, the United

Kingdom, and Japan. In the Commission’s original final investigations, foreign producer/exporter

questionnaire responses were received from 13 represented Argentine exporters of honey, whose exports

to the United States accounted for 81 percent of total U.S. imports of Argentine honey during 2000.

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response in these current reviews that

Argentina’s prominence as a honey producer and exporter has continued to grow since the Commission’s

original investigations.111 According to UN data, Argentina was ranked as the third-largest producer of

honey during 2005 and the largest exporter of honey in the world. As was the case in the original

investigations, domestic honey consumption in Argentina is currently small and the Argentine honey

industry remains export-oriented. Control of Argentina’s honey exports remains in the hands of relatively

few exporters and the United States remains an important export market to these exporters.112 In their

response, the domestic interested parties identified 86 firms in Argentina that produce and/or export

honey;113 however, they indicated that there are currently about 25,000 honey producers in Argentina with

around 2.5 million beehives. Citing the World Bank Report, they estimated that the number of beehives

in Argentina could be expanded to 4.5 million without major changes.114

Data from public sources concerning Argentina’s capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of honey are presented in table I-19. As reported in the Commission’s original investigations,

exports of honey from Argentina to the United States increased from almost 70 million pounds in 1998 to

nearly 99 million pounds in 2000. Such exports subsequently fell to below 10 million pounds in 2003

and 2004, before rising to nearly 52 million pounds in 2005. In 2004, the United States accounted for

only about 6.6 percent of Argentina’s honey exports. By 2005, it accounted for 21.9 percent of

Argentina’s honey exports. Traditionally the most important markets for Argentina have been Germany

and the United States. Other key export markets include Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

China

During the Commission’s original final phase investigations, China was described as the world’s

largest producer and the second-largest consumer of honey. The Commission received questionnaire

responses during its investigations from 13 Chinese exporting firms concerning their shipments of honey

produced in China. Seven of these exporting firms indicated in their questionnaire responses that they

also owned honey production facilities in China and provided the Commission with data concerning their

honey production and capacity. The 13 Chinese companies’ exports of honey to the United States 
 115 Response of AHPA and SHA, December 21, 2006, exh. 7.

I-47

Table I-19

Honey: Data on the industry in Argentina, 1998-2005

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total colonies (number) 2,100 2,700 2,800 2,800 (1

) (1) (1) (1)

Yield/colony (pounds) 78.7 80.0 70.9 63.0 (1

) (1) (1) (1)

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Production 165,347 216,053 198,416 176,368 182,982 165,345 176,368 176,368

Ending stocks 0 0 0 0 (1

) (1) (1) (1)

Domestic consumption 12,599 16,093 5,291 13,161 13,999 14,881 15,829 15,168

Exports to--

 The United States 69,500 91,588 98,706 41,029 20,145 8,914 9,180 51,985

 All other markets 83,292 73,759 95,303 119,977 156,192 146,508 130,060 185,385

 Total exports 152,119 199,959 193,125 161,006 176,337 155,422 139,240 237,370

 Ratios (percent)

Ending stocks to production 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1

) (1) (1) (1)

Ratios to production:

 Domestic consumption 7.6 7.4 2.7 7.5 7.7 9.0 9.0 8.6

 Exports to the United States 42.0 42.4 49.7 23.3 11.0 5.4 5.2 29.5

 Exports to all other markets 50.4 34.1 48.0 68.0 85.4 88.6 73.7 105.1

 Total exports 92.4 92.6 97.3 91.3 96.4 94.0 78.9 134.6

 1 Not available.

Source: Data presented for 1998-2000 were obtained from Honey From Argentina and China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402

and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, p. VII-2, and were compiled from the following sources: 

USDA/FAS, Sugar: World Markets and Trade, November 1999; official Commerce statistics; USDA/FAS, World Trade Database,

and USDA, FAS, Gain Report # AR1067, October 29, 2001. Data presented for 2001-05 were compiled from the following

sources: FAS, USDA, Argentina Honey Update 2001, Gain Report #AR1067, October 29, 2001; FAOSTAT,

http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx; and Global Trade Atlas.

accounted for a substantial portion (68 percent) of total U.S. imports of Chinese honey during 2000. The

seven Chinese firms which were also honey producers accounted for only 16 percent of honey produced

in China during 2000. 

Today, China remains by far the world’s largest producer of honey. In their response, the

domestic interested parties identified 95 producers and/or exporters of honey in China.115 Table I-20

presents trade data for the Chinese honey industry during 1998-2005. These data show that since the

original investigation, honey production in China has continued to grow. From a production level of

438.6 million pounds in 2000, Chinese honey production has grown in each subsequent year, reaching

657.0 million pounds in 2005. 

Chinese honey exports have historically accounted for a significant share of total Chinese honey

production. In 2000, China exported over one-half its honey production and by 2005 Chinese honey

exports accounted for slightly less than one-third. About 13 percent of total Chinese honey production

was destined for the United States during 2000. After the imposition of the orders, the share of total

Chinese production held by exports to the United States fell to below 3 percent in 2002 before rising 
 116 Ibid., p. 17 and exh. 13.

I-48

Table I-20

Honey: Data on the industry in China, 1998-2005

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total colonies (number) 6,300 6,300 6,300 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Yield/colony (pounds) 54.2 80.1 69.6 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Production 341,713 504,390 438,600 560,762 590,458 649,740 656,749 656,971

Ending stocks 49,380 122,911 83,097 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Domestic consumption 230,198 241,520 253,597 350,796 372,159 394,645 418,323 443,323

Exports to--

 The United States 30,485 50,991 58,406 35,222 16,785 54,263 57,219 62,312

 All other markets 142,969 140,212 167,227 199,934 151,756 131,139 121,467 132,495

 Total exports 173,454 191,203 225,633 235,156 168,541 185,402 178,686 194,807

Ratios (percent)

Ending stocks to production 14.5 24.4 18.9 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Ratios to production:

 Domestic consumption 67.4 47.9 57.8 62.6 63.0 60.7 63.7 67.5

 Exports to the United States 8.9 10.1 13.3 6.3 2.8 8.4 8.7 9.5

 Exports to all other markets 41.8 27.8 38.1 35.7 25.7 20.2 18.5 20.2

 Total exports 50.8 37.9 51.4 41.9 28.5 28.5 27.2 29.7

 1 Not available.

Source: Data presented for 1998-2000 were obtained from Honey From Argentina and China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and

731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Publication 3470, November 2001, p. VII-2, and were compiled from the following sources: Sugar:

World Markets and Trade, USDA, FAS, November 1999, p. 46; USDA, FAS, Gain Report No. CH1017, April 9, 2001; and official U.S.

import statistics. Data presented for 2001-06 were compiled from the following sources: FAOSTAT, http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx;

Honey, NASS, USDA, February 2002-06; and Global Trade Atlas.

again to almost 10 percent in 2005. The United States is second only to Japan as the major export market

for Chinese honey. The domestic interested parties pointed out that the Chinese Government has

continued its policy of promoting exports of agricultural products, including honey. They stated that

China’s goal is to double its farm exports by 2013.116

The Industries in Argentina and China Combined

Combined data for the industries in Argentina and China are presented in table I-21. These data

show that since 2001, production and domestic consumption of honey in Argentina and China steadily

increased over the 5-year period, by 13.1 percent overall for production and by 26.0 percent overall for

domestic consumption. Combined honey exports to the United States fell by 51.6 percent from 2001 to

2002. However, such exports steadily increased from 2002 to 2005 to a level more than three times the

level reported in 2002. The two countries’ combined honey exports to markets other than the United

States fell in each annual period from 2001 to 2004, but increased in 2005.
I-49

Table I-21

Honey: Data on the combined industries in Argentina and China, 1998-2005

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total colonies (number) 8,400 9,000 9,100 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Yield/colony (pounds) 60.4 80.0 70.0 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Production 507,060 720,443 637,016 737,130 773,440 815,085 833,117 833,339

Ending stocks 49,380 122,911 83,097 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Domestic consumption 242,764 257,613 258,888 363,957 386,158 409,526 434,152 458,491

Exports to--

 The United States 99,985 142,579 157,112 76,251 36,930 63,177 66,399 114,297

 All other markets 226,261 213,971 262,530 319,911 307,948 277,647 251,527 317,880

 Total exports 325,573 391,162 418,758 396,162 344,878 340,824 317,926 432,177

Ratios (percent)

Ending stocks to production 9.7 17.1 13.0 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Ratios to production:

 Domestic consumption 47.9 35.8 40.6 49.4 49.9 50.2 52.1 55.0

 Exports to the United States 19.7 19.8 24.7 10.3 4.8 7.8 8.0 13.7

 Exports to all other markets 44.6 29.7 41.2 43.4 39.8 34.1 30.2 38.1

 Total exports 64.2 54.3 65.7 53.7 44.6 41.8 38.2 51.9

 1 Not available.

Source: Tables I-19 and I-20.
 
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

64292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 

1 1 No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 07–5–162, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

§ 303) mandates that each Special 

Resources Study (SRS) identify the 

alternative or combination of 

alternatives which would, in the 

professional judgment of the Director of 

the NPS, be ‘‘most effective and efficient 

in protecting significant resources and 

providing for public enjoyment.’’ The 

Study identifies Alternative B in the 

Study as the environmentally preferred 

alternative and most effective and 

efficient alternative because it preserves 

more of the site’s archeological 

resources in an undisturbed condition 

and minimizes capital expenditures and 

long-term operating costs. 

Under Alternative B, the historic 

significance of Fort King would be 

communicated to visitors primarily 

through self-guided interpretive trails, 

wayside exhibits, and brochures. The 

park would not have a permanent onsite staff. Guided tours and live 

interpretation programs for school 

groups and special events would be 

provided by volunteers on a case by 

case basis. The site’s existing wooded 

landscape would remain predominantly 

unchanged. Pedestrian trails would be 

cleared by vegetation and lightly graded. 

Trees and other woody vegetation 

immediately surrounding the fort 

location would be thinned or removed 

for interpretive purposes. 

The Federal government would not 

assume ownership of land, impose 

zoning or land use controls, or take 

responsibility for permanent funding. 

Likewise, there would be no direct NPS 

ownership or management of resources. 

As with other National Historic 

Landmarks, the NPS could provide 

technical assistance for general 

planning, resource management, and 

interpretation. However, overall 

management of the Fort King site would 

be administered by one or more local 

entities. 

The Study also presented in detail a 

No Action and two Action Alternatives 

that describe different ways of 

commemorating, interpreting, and 

preserving resources associated with 

Fort King. All alternatives are described 

in detail in the Study. 

Alternative B provides a broad range 

of public benefits such as improved 

public access, long-term preservation of 

archeological resources, and increased 

visitor awareness of the site’s national 

significance while minimizing capital 

expenditures and long-term operating 

costs. 

DATES: On September 14, 2006, the 

Regional Director, Southeast Region, 

NPS signed the ROD for the SRS and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for Fort King. 

ADDRESSES: Tim Bemisderfer, Planning 

and Compliance Division, Southeast 

Region, National Park Service, 100 

Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. An electronic 

copy of the Final EIS and ROD are 

available on the internet at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Bemisderfer, 404–562–3124, extension 

693. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of 

the ROD can be obtained via the Internet 

by visiting the NPS Planning 

Environmental and Public Comment 

System Web site at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov or by calling 404–

562–3124, extension 693. 

The responsible official for the FEIS is 

Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, 

Southeast Region, National Park 

Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 

Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

Dated: September 29, 2006. 

Patricia A. Hooks, 

Regional Director, Southeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 06–9002 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–402 and 731–

TA–892 and 893 (Review)] 

Honey From Argentina and China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

order on honey from Argentina and the 

antidumping duty orders on honey from 

Argentina and China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty order on honey 

from Argentina and the antidumping 

duty orders on honey from Argentina 

and China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is December 21, 2006. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

January 16, 2007. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On December 10, 2001, the 

Department of Commerce issued a 

countervailing duty order on imports of 

honey from Argentina (66 FR 63673) 

and antidumping duty orders on 

imports of honey from Argentina and 

China (66 FR 63672, 63670). The 

Commission is conducting reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 64293 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Argentina and China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission found 

that there was one Domestic Like 

Product consisting of all honey, 

consistent with Commerce’s scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission found a single 

Domestic Industry consisting of the U.S. 

producers of honey, both raw and 

processed. The Commission found that 

packers, who produce processed honey, 

as well as beekeepers, who produce raw 

honey, should be treated as U.S. 

producers. However, the Commission 

excluded two packers and one 

beekeeper/packer from the Domestic 

Industry pursuant to the related parties 

provision. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

duty orders under review became 

effective. In these reviews, the Order 

Date is December 10, 2001. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission’s 

designated agency ethics official has 

advised that a five-year review is the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 

U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute 

for Federal employees. Former 

employees may seek informal advice 

from Commission ethics officials with 

respect to this and the related issue of 

whether the employee’s participation 

was ‘‘personal and substantial.’’

However, any informal consultation will 

not relieve former employees of the 

obligation to seek approval to appear 

from the Commission under its rule 

201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol 

McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics 

Official, at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 

3. Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is December 21, 2006. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is January 16, 2007. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
64294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty orders on 

the Domestic Industry in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Number of domestic honeyproducing colonies, production and/or 

packing (quantity) and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

production and/or packing of the 

Domestic Like Product accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production and/or 

packing; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2005 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country(ies); and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from the 

Subject Country(ies). 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

or countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in each Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 25, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–18309 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–919 and 920 

(Review)] 

Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From 

Japan and Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on welded large diameter line pipe from 

Japan and Mexico. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on welded 

large diameter line pipe from Japan and 

Mexico would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

64242 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 

Suspended Investigations 

No suspended investigations are 

scheduled for initiation in December 

2006. 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy 

Bulletin’’). The Notice of Initiation of 

Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews provides 

further information regarding what is 

required of all parties to participate in 

Sunset Reviews. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 15 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Please note that if the Department 

receives a Notice of Intent to Participate 

from a member of the domestic industry 

within 15 days of the date of initiation, 

the review will continue. Thereafter, 

any interested party wishing to 

participate in the Sunset Review must 

provide substantive comments in 

response to the notice of initiation no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

initiation. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: October 25, 2006. 

Thomas F. Futtner, 

Acting Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–18440 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

(‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders listed 

below. The International Trade 

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is 

publishing concurrently with this notice 

its notice of Institution of Five-Year 

Review which covers these same order. 

Effective Date: November 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review(s) section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th & Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) 

(‘‘Sunset Policy Bulletin’’). 

Initiation of Reviews 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–357–812 ....... 731–TA–892 ..... Argentina .......... Honey .......................................................... Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–570–863 ....... 731–TA–893 ..... PRC .................. Honey .......................................................... Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–588–857 ....... 731–TA–919 ..... Japan ................ Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe .............. Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–201–828 ....... 731–TA–920 ..... Mexico .............. Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe .............. Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings 

C–357–813 ....... 701–TA–402 ..... Argentina .......... Honey .......................................................... Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

Suspended Investigations 

No suspended investigations are 

scheduled for initiation in November 

2006. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

Sunset Reviews (19 CFR 351.218) and 

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department’s 

schedule of Sunset Reviews, case 

history information (i.e., previous 

margins, duty absorption 

determinations, scope language, import 

volumes), and service lists available to 

the public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation.Because deadlines in 

Sunset Reviews can be very short, we 

urge interested parties to apply for 

access to proprietary information under 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register of the notice of 

initiation of the sunset review. The 

Department’s regulations on submission 

of proprietary information and 

eligibility to receive access to business 

proprietary information under APO can 

be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties (defined 

in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 64243 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests for 

extension of that five-day deadline based upon a 

showing of good cause. 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) 

wishing to participate in these Sunset 

Reviews must respond not later than 15 

days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of this notice of 

initiation by filing a notice of intent to 

participate. The required contents of the 

notice of intent to participate are set 

forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, if we do not receive a notice 

of intent to participate from at least one 

domestic interested party by the 15-day 

deadline, the Department will 

automatically revoke the orders without 

further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

For sunset reviews of countervailing 

duty orders, parties wishing the 

Department to consider arguments that 

countervailable subsidy programs have 

been terminated must include with their 

substantive responses information and 

documentation addressing whether the 

changes to the program were (1) limited 

to an individual firm or firms and (2) 

effected by an official act of the 

government. Further, a party claiming 

program termination is expected to 

document that there are no residual 

benefits under the program and that 

substitute programs have not been 

introduced. Cf. 19 CFR 351.526(b) and 

(d). If a party maintains that any of the 

subsidies countervailed by the 

Department were not conferred 

pursuant to a subsidy program, that 

party should nevertheless address the 

applicability of the factors set forth in 

19 CFR 351.526(b) and (d). Similarly, 

parties wishing the Department to 

consider whether a company’s change 

in ownership has extinguished the 

benefit from prior non-recurring, 

allocable, subsidies must include with 

their substantive responses information 

and documentation supporting their 

claim that all or almost all of the 

company’s shares or assets were sold in 

an arm’s length transaction, at a price 

representing fair market value, as 

described in the Notice of Final 

Modification of Agency Practice Under 

Section 123 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 

2003) (Modification Notice). See 

Modification Notice for a discussion of 

the types of information and 

documentation the Department requires. 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

Dated: October 26, 2006. 

Thomas F. Futtner, 

Acting Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–18441 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–707] 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

From Japan: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 11, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on granular polytetrafluoroethylene 

resin from Japan. The review covers one 

manufacturer/exporter. The period of 

review is August 1, 2004, through July 

31, 2005. 

We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have made changes in the margin 

calculations. Therefore, the final results 

differ from the preliminary results. The 

final weighted–average dumping margin 

for the reviewed firm is listed below in 

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the 

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cartsos or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1757 or (202) 482–

4477. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 11, 2006, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE) 

from Japan. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Japan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 27459 (May 11, 2006). 

The period of review is August 1, 2004, 

through July 31, 2005. The company for 

which we are conducting the 

administrative review is Asahi Glass 

Fluoropolymers, Ltd. (Asahi). 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the preliminary results. We 

received comments from Asahi. The 

petitioner in this case did not comment. 

Asahi also submitted an untimely 

request for a hearing which we denied. 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of Order 

The merchandise covered by the 

antidumping duty order is PTFE, filled 

or unfilled. The order excludes PTFE 

dispersions in water, fine powders, and 

reprocessed PTFE powder. PTFE is 

currently classifiable under subheading 

3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

This order covers all PTFE, regardless of 

its tariff classification. Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the order remains 

dispositive. 

Analysis of the Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case brief 

submitted by Asahi in the context of 

this administrative review are addressed 

in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (Decision Memo) from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary, dated October 23, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Notices 6745 

foreign supplier industries during the 

period 2003–05. Data and analysis will 

be provided for (1) Canned peaches, (2) 

canned pears, and (3) canned fruit 

mixtures, with any overlap among the 

industries clearly identified. In its 

report, the Commission will provide, to 

the extent possible, the following: 

• An overview of the canned peach, 

canned pear, and canned fruit mixtures 

industries in the United States and 

major supplier countries (such as China, 

Greece, Spain, and Thailand), including 

production of fresh peaches and pears 

for processing, planted acreage and new 

plantings, processing volumes, 

processing capacity, and consumption; 

• Information on U.S. and foreign 

supplier imports and exports of canned 

peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit 

mixtures, as well as the market 

segments in which U.S. imports are 

being sold (e.g., retail, food service 

sector, or other); 

• A description of principal trade 

practices and government programs and 

measures affecting production of the 

products (especially in China, Greece, 

and Spain); and, 

• A comparison of the strengths and 

weaknesses of these foreign competitor 

canned fruit industries and the U.S. 

industries (including industry structure, 

input cost and availability, processing 

technology, product innovation, 

government programs, exchange rates, 

and pricing and marketing regimes), and 

steps the respective industries are taking 

to increase their competitiveness. 

As requested, the Commission will 

transmit its report to the Committee by 

December 12, 2007. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing in 

connection with the investigation is 

scheduled to be held at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, 

DC beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 12, 

2007. All persons shall have the right to 

appear, by counsel or in person, to 

present information and to be heard. 

Requests to appear at the public hearing 

should be filed with the Secretary, 

United States International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, no later than 

5:15 p.m., June 28, 2007. Any prehearing briefs (original and 14 copies) 

should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., 

July 2, 2007. The deadline for filing 

post-hearing briefs or statements is 5:15 

p.m., July 26, 2007. In the event that, as 

of the close of business on June 28, 

2007, no witnesses are scheduled to 

appear at the hearing, the hearing will 

be canceled. Any person interested in 

attending the hearing as an observer or 

non-participant may call the Secretary 

(202–205–2000) after June 28, 2007, to 

determine whether the hearing will be 

held. 

Written Statements: In lieu of or in 

addition to participating in the hearing, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

written statements concerning the 

investigation. All submissions should be 

addressed to Secretary, United States 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, and 

should be received no later than the 

close of business on July 26, 2007. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 

of the rules require that a signed original 

(or a copy designated as an original) and 

fourteen (14) copies of each document 

be filed. In the event that confidential 

treatment of the document is requested, 

at least four (4) additional copies must 

be filed, in which the confidential 

information must be deleted (see the 

following paragraph for further 

information regarding confidential 

business information). The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except as 

permitted by section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s Rules (19 C.F.R. 201.8) 

(see Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf. 

Any submissions that contain 

confidential business information must 

also conform with the requirements of 

section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules 

requires that the cover of the document 

and the individual pages be clearly 

marked as to whether they are the 

‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential’’

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available in the Office of the 

Secretary to the Commission for 

inspection by interested parties. The 

Committee has asked that the report that 

the Commission transmits not contain 

any confidential business information. 

Any confidential business information 

received by the Commission in this 

investigation and used in preparing the 

report will not be published in a manner 

that would reveal the operations of the 

firm supplying the information. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 7, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–2363 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–402 and 731–

TA–892 and 893 (Review)] 

Honey From Argentina and China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of expedited fiveyear reviews concerning the 

countervailing duty order on honey 

from Argentina and the antidumping 

duty orders on honey from Argentina 

and China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty order on honey 

from Argentina and the antidumping 

duty orders on honey from Argentina 

and China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On February 5, 2007, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
6746 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by the American Honey Producers 

Association and the Sioux Honey Association to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

response to its notice of institution (71 

FR 64292, November 1, 2006) of the 

subject five-year reviews was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group responses were inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on May 15, 2007, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for these reviews. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

§ 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

§ 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, 

interested parties that are parties to the 

reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determinations 

the Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

May 22, 2007, and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year reviews 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the reviews by May 22, 

2007. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

reviews, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

§ 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as 

amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the rules, each document filed 

by a party to the reviews must be served 

on all other parties to the reviews (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determinations. The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 7, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–2455 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–919 and 920 

(Review)] 

Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From 

Japan And Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determinations to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on welded large diameter 

line pipe from Japan and Mexico. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on welded large diameter line 

pipe from Japan and Mexico would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the reviews will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 5, 2007, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that 

both the domestic and respondent 

interested party group responses to its 

notice of institution (71 FR 64294, 

November 1, 2006) were adequate. A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 7, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–2456 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, Justice. 

ACTION: Revisions of Notice of Privacy 

Act Systems of Records. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 

the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

notice is given that the Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is modifying all of its 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
8970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Notices 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. The request must 

include the name(s) of the exporter or 

producer for which the inquiry is 

requested. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

These initiations and this notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 USC 

1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: February 22, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3438 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–357–813 

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset 

Review: Countervailing Duty Order on 

Honey from Argentina 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

honey from Argentina, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and adequate substantive responses 

from respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct a 

full sunset review of this CVD order 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). As a result of 

our analysis, the Department 

preliminarily finds that revocation of 

the countervailing duty order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0197 or (202) 482–

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2006, the Department 

initiated the first sunset review of the 

CVD order on honey from Argentina, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 71 FR 64242 (November 1, 

2006). The Department received notices 

of intent to participate from the 

American Honey Producers Association 

(AHPA) and the Sioux Honey 

Association (SHA), the petitioners in the 

original investigation (collectively, 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within 

the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). AHPA and SHA 

claimed interested party status as trade 

or business associations a majority of 

whose members manufacture, produce 

or wholesale a domestic like product for 

the United States under section 

771(9)(E) of the Act; SHA also claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic 

producers of processed and raw honey 

in the United States engaged in the 

manufacture, production, or wholesale 

of honey in the United States. The 

Department received substantive 

responses from the domestic interested 

parties and the following respondent 

interested parties: the Government of 

Argentina (GOA), Nexco, S.A (Nexco), 

HoneyMax, S.A (HoneyMax), and the 

Asociacio ́n de Cooperativas Argentinas 

(ACA). 

On December 20, 2006, the 

Department determined that the 

participation of the respondent 

interested parties was adequate, and 

that it was appropriate to conduct a full 

sunset review. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Import Administration, Re: 

Adequacy Determination: Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Honey from Argentina dated 

December 20, 2006, and on file in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B–

099 of the main Commerce Building. 

Scope Of The Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is artificial honey containing more 

than 50 percent natural honeys by 

weight, preparations of natural honey 

containing more than 50 percent natural 

honeys by weight, and flavored honey. 

The subject merchandise includes all 

grades and colors of honey whether in 

liquid, creamed, combs, 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, and 2106.90.99 of 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise covered by this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis Of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Preliminary Issues and 

Decision Memorandum from Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration (Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum), dated concurrently with 

this notice and which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this review and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

CRU. In addition, a complete version of 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Preliminary Results Of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that revocation of the CVD 

order would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of a countervailable 

subsidy. The net countervailable 

subsidy likely to prevail if the order 

were revoked is 5.85 percent. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and hearing requests no later than 

50 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs, which must 

be limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be filed not later than five 

days from the filing of the case briefs, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

If a hearing is requested, parties will be 

notified of the date, time and location. 

The Department will issue a notice of 

final results of this sunset review, which 

will include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such briefs, no later 

than June 29, 2007. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 20, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3437 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10150 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

established in the 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 the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994). Under the separate–rates 

criteria, the Department assigns separate 

rates in NME cases only if the 

respondent can demonstrate the absence 

of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. 

By failing to allow the Department to 

verify the accuracy of their submissions, 

Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, and 

Shanghai Strong, have not demonstrated 

they are free of government control and 

are therefore not eligible to receive a 

separate rate. In the Notices of 

Initiation, the Department stated that an 

exporter unable to demonstrate the 

company’s eligibility for a separate rate 

does not meet the requirements of 19 

CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii) and its new 

shipper review will be rescinded. See 

May 5, 2006, Initiation Notice at 26454; 

see also May 31, 2006, Initiation Notice 

at 30866. Therefore, the Department is 

preliminarily rescinding the new 

shipper reviews of Leping Lotai, 

Nanjing Merry, and Shanghai Strong. 

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review and Rescission of New Shipper 

Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 

FR 53669 (September 2, 2004); see also 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Rescission of Second 

New Shipper Review and Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 

1999). 

Schedule for Final Results of Review 

Unless otherwise notified by the 

Department, interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 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. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice in 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 N.W., 

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 

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. If a hearing is 

held, an interested party must limit its 

presentation only to arguments raised in 

its briefs. Parties should confirm by 

telephone the time, date, and place of 

the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this new shipper review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in the briefs, 

within 90 days from the date of the 

preliminary results, unless the time 

limit is extended. 

Notification 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO material or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanctions. 

These new shipper reviews and this 

notice are published in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: February 22, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4068 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812, A–570–863] 

Honey From Argentina and the 

People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of the Expedited Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on honey 

from Argentina and the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). On the basis of 

notices of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, 

and no response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department 

conducted expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews of these antidumping duty 

orders. As a result of these sunset 

reviews, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the levels identified below in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Deborah 

Scott, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7 

(Argentina), Catherine Bertrand, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9 (PRC) or Dana 

Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2657, (202) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background 

On November 1, 2006, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on honey from 

Argentina and the PRC pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 71 FR 

64242 (November 1, 2006). The 

Department received notices of intent to 

participate from two domestic interested 

parties, American Honey Producers 

Association and Sioux Honey 

Association (collectively, domestic 

interested parties), within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. Domestic 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10151 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as U.S. producers of a domestic 

like product and under section 771(9)(E) 

as a trade association whose members 

produce the domestic like product in 

the United States. We received complete 

substantive responses from domestic 

interested parties within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not 

receive any responses from any 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

For purposes of these orders, the 

products covered are natural honey, 

artificial honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, 

preparations of natural honey 

containing more than 50 percent natural 

honey by weight, and flavored honey. 

The subject merchandise includes all 

grades and colors of honey whether in 

liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or 

chunk form, and whether packaged for 

retail or in bulk form. 

The merchandise covered by these 

orders is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, 

and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these cases are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ from Stephen Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated March 

1, 2007 (Decision Memorandum), which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these sunset 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Sunset Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on honey from 

Argentina and the PRC would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following percentage 

weighted-average margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(percent) 

Argentina: 

Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA) ..................................................................................................................... 37.44 

Radix S.R.L. (Radix) ............................................................................................................................................................... 32.56 

ConAgra Argentina ................................................................................................................................................................. 60.67 

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................ 35.76 

PRC: 

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation ................. 57.13 

Kunshan Foreign Trading Co ................................................................................................................................................. 49.60 

Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corp ......................................................................... 25.88 

High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp ........................................................................ 45.46 

Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... 45.46 

Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corporation .......................................................................................................... 45.46 

Henan Native Produce Import and Export Corporation ......................................................................................................... 45.46 

PRC-Wide rate ....................................................................................................................................................................... 183.80 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and this notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) 

of the Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4052 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–533–810) 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

stainless steel bar from India. The 

period of review is February 1, 2005, 

through January 31, 2006. This review 

covers imports of stainless steel bar 

from eight producers/exporters. 

We preliminarily find that sales of the 

subject merchandise have been made 

below normal value. In addition, based 

on the preliminary results for the 

respondents selected for individual 

review, we have preliminarily 

determined a weighted–average margin 

for those companies for which a review 

was requested, but that were not 

selected for individual review. 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to assess antidumping duties 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

B-1

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

 EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Honey from Argentina and China

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892 and 893 (Review)

On February 5, 2007, the Commission determined that it should proceed to expedited

reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received individually adequate responses from the American Honey

Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association in a joint response that indicated they

collectively account for the majority of U.S. production of honey. The Commission therefore

unanimously determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received no responses from any respondent interested party regarding

the orders on subject imports from Argentina or China. Thus, it unanimously determined that the 

respondent interested party group responses to the notice of institution were inadequate. In the

absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response, or any other circumstances

that would warrant a full review of any order, the Commission determined to conduct expedited

reviews of all orders.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and at

the Commission's web site (www.usitc.gov).