Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices 65831

1Petitioners are Bethlehem Steel Corporation,

Geneva Steel, Gulf Lakes Steel, Inc. of Alabama,

Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Lukens Steel

Company, Sharon Steel Corporation, and U.S. Steel

Group (a unit of USX Corporation).

2Respondent is Altos Hornos de Mexico S.A. de

C.V. (AHMSA).

On March 9, 2000, the petitioners 1

and the respondent 2 submitted

allegations of ministerial errors. We

agreed with all of AHMSA’s allegations

concerning clerical errors, and we

agreed with all of petitioners’

allegations except one; we disagreed

that our omission of the arm’s-length

test was a clerical error.

The allegations are addressed in the

Issues and Decision Memorandum from

Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration, to

Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

dated October 19, 2000, on file in room

B–099 of the main Commerce building.

The Issues and Decisions Memorandum

is hereby adopted by this notice; it can

be accessed directly on the World Wide

Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.

As a result of our analysis of the

parties’ allegations, we are amending

our final results of review to revise the

antidumping rate for AHMSA in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), as

shown below.

Manufacturer/exporter

Weighted average margin,

percentage

AHMSA ................................. 21.75

Accordingly, the Department will

determine, and the Customs Service will

assess, antidumping duties on all entries

of subject merchandise from AHMSA in

accordance with these amended final

results. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.224.

Dated: October 19, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28192 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–812, A–570–863]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Honey From Argentina

and the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Rast, Angelica Mendoza,

Melissa Blackledge, or Donna Kinsella

at, (202) 482–1324, (202) 482–3019,

(202) 482–3518, and (202) 482–0194

respectively; Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are

references to the provisions codified at

19 CFR part 351 (1999).

The Petition

On September 29, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) received a petition on

honey from Argentina and the People’s

Republic of China filed in proper form

by the American Honey Producers

Association (‘‘AHPA’’) and the Sioux

Honey Association (‘‘SHA’’)

(collectively ‘‘petitioners’’). On October

4, 2000, the Department requested

clarification of certain areas of the

petition, and on October 6 and 10, 2000,

petitioners responded to the

Department’s request for additional

information. In addition, we received

submissions from the parties with

regard to industry support on October

16, 18, and 24.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, petitioners allege that imports

of honey from Argentina and the

People’s Republic of China (‘‘China’’)

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

within the meaning of section 731 of the

Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States.

Pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) the

Department extended the deadline for

initiation to no later than October 27,

2000.

The Department finds that petitioners

filed these petitions on behalf of the

domestic industry because they are

interested parties as defined in sections

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they

have demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to each of the

antidumping investigations they are

requesting the Department to initiate

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support

for the Petitions’’ below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

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 subject to these

investigations 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 Service

(‘‘U.S. Customs’’) purposes, the

Department’s written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioners

to ensure that the scope in the petition

accurately reflects the product for which

the domestic industry is seeking relief.

Moreover, as discussed in the preamble

to the Department’s regulations

(Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323

(May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a

period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments by November 9,

2000. Comments should be addressed to

Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The period of

scope consultations is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determination.

65832 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petitions

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

In addition, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the

Act provides that if the petition does not

establish support of domestic producers

or workers accounting for more than 50

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product, the

administering authority shall poll the

industry or rely on other information in

order to determine if there is support for

the petition as required by subparagraph

(A). Because the petitions at issue did

not establish support of domestic

producers or workers accounting for

more than 50 percent of the total

production of the domestic like product,

the Department has relied on other

information in order to determine

whether they meet the statutory

requirements for industry support.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘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.’’ Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who produce the

domestic like product. The International

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is

responsible for determining whether

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been

injured, must also determine what

constitutes a domestic like product in

order to define the industry. While both

the Department and the ITC must apply

the same statutory definition regarding

the domestic like product (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authority. In

addition, the Department’s

determination is subject to limitations of

time and information. Although this

may result in different definitions of the

like product, such differences do not

render the decision of either agency

contrary to the law. (See Algoma Steel

Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp.

639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays

and Display Glass from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of

Investigation and Partial Dismissal of

Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–81 (July

16, 1991)).

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product that

is like, or in the absence of like, most

similar in characteristics and uses with,

the article subject to an investigation

under this title.’’ Thus, the reference

point from which the domestic like

product analysis begins is ‘‘the article

subject to an investigation,’’ i.e., the

class or kind of merchandise to be

investigated, which normally will be the

scope as defined in the petition.

The domestic like product referred to

in the petitions is the single domestic

like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section above. The

Department has no basis on the record

to find the petitioners’ definition of the

domestic like product to be inaccurate.

The Department, therefore, has adopted

the domestic like product definition set

forth in the petition.

Moreover, the Department has

determined that the petition (and

subsequent amendments) and

supplemental information obtained

through the Department’s research

contain adequate evidence of industry

support; therefore, polling is

unnecessary. It is undisputed that

parties expressing support for the

petition represent more than 25 percent

of domestic production, and thus meet

the requirements of section

732(c)(4)(A)(i). Moreover, knowing the

1999 total production of the domestic

like product, and the portion of

production represented by those

supporting the petition, as well as those

who have explicitly declined to take a

position, the Department is able to

conclude that, even if all parties whose

production is not accounted for were to

oppose the petition, parties expressing

support for the petition would represent

more than 50 percent of those

expressing support or opposition.

Therefore, the petition meets the

requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii).

For a detailed discussion of this

analysis, see Attachment to the

Initiation Checklist re: Industry

Support, dated October 26, 2000.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that these petitions are filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)

of the Act.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of honey from Argentina

and China are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value.

The following are descriptions of the

allegations of sales at less than fair value

upon which the Department based its

decision to initiate these investigations.

A more detailed description of these

allegations is provided in the respective

IA Initiation Checklists. Should the

need arise to use any of this information

in our preliminary or final

determinations for purposes of facts

available under section 776 of the Act,

we may re-examine the information and

revise the margin calculations, if

appropriate.

Argentina

Petitioners identified four export

trading companies which accounted for

the majority of the natural honey

exported to the United States during

1999: Conagra, CEASA, Honeymax, and

ACA. Petitioners provided export prices

on the average F.O.B. Buenos Aires

prices for natural honey exported to the

United States from Argentina during

1999 by each of the four principal

export trading companies. Petitioners

used information obtained through

foreign market research to demonstrate

that the prices charged by Argentina’s

exporting trading companies are the

prices that should be used to determine

dumping margins for honey exported

from Argentina. (See Confidential

Statement of {Foreign Market

Researcher}, Attachment 1 of

petitioners’ October 6, 2000

submission.) Section 772(a) of the Tariff

Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 19

U.S.C. 1677a(a), defines the U.S. price

as the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold by a producer

or exporter to an unaffiliated U.S.

customer. In addition, to the best of

petitioners’ knowledge, the export

trading companies are the first party in

the chain of distribution that have

knowledge of the ultimate destination of

the merchandise and, therefore, set

prices for U.S. sales. The average FOB

Buenos Aires prices obtained through

foreign market research are consistent

with the average FOB values in the

official U.S. import statistics. (See

Exhibit A–2 of the petition.)

With respect to normal value (‘‘NV’’),

the petitioners provided home market

prices based on foreign market research.

Information contained in the petition

does not definitively establish whether

or not the home market is viable. The

issue of home market viability will be

further addressed during the course of

the investigation. For purposes of

initiation, NV will be based on home

market prices. These products are

comparable to the products exported to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices 65833

the United States which serve as the

basis for Export Price.

On October 10, 2000, the petitioner

provided information demonstrating

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of honey in the home market

were made at prices below the cost of

production (‘‘COP’’), in accordance with

section 773(b) of the Act, and requested

that the Department conduct a countrywide sales-below-cost investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the

Act, COP consists of the cost of

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’), sales, general,

and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses,

and packing. To calculate the foreign

producers’ COP at the grower level, the

petitioners used publicly available cost

data obtained from Argentine honey

producer bi-monthly trade journal

articles. Based upon the comparison of

the prices of the foreign like product in

the home market to the calculated COP

of the product at the grower level, we

find reasonable grounds to believe that

sales of the foreign like product were

made below the COP, within the

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Accordingly, the Department is

initiating a country-wide cost

investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(4) and

773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also

based NV for sales in Argentina on

constructed value (‘‘CV’’). Petitioners

calculated CV using the same COM and

SG&A expenses used to compute home

market COP. In addition to these costs,

petitioners added the SG&A expenses

incurred by the exporters because the

honey growers sell their merchandise to

exporters who in turn sell to customers

in the United States. These costs are

more appropriately classified as selling

expenses incurred for U.S. sales.

Therefore, we have included them as an

adjustment to the U.S. sales price.

Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the

Act, the petitioners also added to CV an

amount for profit which was based upon

CEASA and Conagra’s financial

statements. Because the product sold in

the home market was produced by the

growers and not by the exporters, we

have included a profit rate of zero.

However, if we need to resort to the use

of facts otherwise available in the

future, we will then pursue the growers’

profit rates.

The estimated dumping margins,

based on a comparison between U.S.

price, as adjusted above, and CV, range

from 28.84 to 30.17 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigation

As noted above, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, petitioners provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of honey in Argentina were made at

prices below the average COP of the

honey producers in Argentina and,

accordingly, requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales-below-COP investigation in

connection with the requested

antidumping investigation for

Argentina. The Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’),

submitted to the U.S. Congress in

connection with the interpretation and

application of the URAA, states that an

allegation of sales below COP need not

be specific to individual exporters or

producers. SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316,

vol. 1, at 833 (1994). The SAA goes on

to state that ‘‘Commerce will consider

allegations of below-cost sales in the

aggregate for a foreign country, just as

Commerce currently considers

allegations of sales at less than fair value

on a country-wide basis for purposes of

initiating an antidumping

investigation.’’ Id.

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘new

section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current

requirement that Commerce have

’reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’ that below cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. ‘Reasonable grounds’

* * * exist when an interested party

provides specific factual information on

costs and prices, observed or

constructed, indicating that sales in the

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ Id. Based upon the

comparison of the prices from the

petition for the representative foreign

like products to their costs of

production, we find ‘‘reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect’’ that sales

of these foreign like products in

Argentina were made below their

respective COPs within the meaning of

section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Department is

initiating the requested country-wide

cost investigations.

China

Petitioners based EP on two

comparison methodologies. First,

petitioners calculated EP on an August

17, 2000 offer for the sale of subject

merchandise produced in China to a

customer in the United States. The offer

for sale represents a quotation for

natural honey to be sold to an

unaffiliated U.S. purchaser prior to the

date of importation. The price quote

provides per-unit prices in U.S. dollars

for six different grades of natural honey

produced in China. The terms of sale are

delivered and duty paid. Petitioners

adjusted the quoted prices for freight

and insurance incurred to transport the

honey from the port in China to the U.S.

port, U.S. import duties, and insurance

charges. Petitioners made an additional

deduction for brokerage and handling

charges incurred in China. Second,

petitioners calculated EP based on

average unit values (‘‘AUVs’’) for

natural honey reported in the U.S.

Import Statistics for the period January

through June 2000. Petitioners

calculated the AUVs using import data

from January 1, 2000, through June 30,

2000, based on HTSUS numbers

0409.00.0042, 0409.00.0044,

0409.00.0062, and 0409.00.0064. The

terms of delivery are CIF. Petitioners

adjusted the AUVs for brokerage and

handling charges incurred in China and

freight and insurance charges incurred

to transport the honey from the port in

China to the U.S. port.

Petitioners asserted that China is a

non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) country

to the extent that available information

does not permit the calculation of

normal value using Chinese producers’

own prices or costs for the subject

merchandise or comparable

merchandise. Petitioners, therefore,

constructed a normal value based on the

factors of production methodology

pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act. In

previous investigations, the Department

has determined that China is an NME.

See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished or Unfinished, With or Without

Handles, From the People’s Republic of

China, 64 FR 5770, 5773 (Feb. 5, 1999).

In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i)

of the Act, the presumption of NME

status remains in effect until revoked by

the Department. The presumption of

NME status for China has not been

revoked by the Department and,

therefore, remains in effect for purposes

of this investigation. Accordingly, the

normal value of the product is based on

factors of production valued in a

surrogate market economy country in

accordance with section 773(c) of the

Act. In the course of this investigation,

all parties will have the opportunity to

provide relevant information related to

the issues of China’s NME status and the

granting of separate rates to individual

exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon

Carbide from the People’s Republic of

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).

Petitioners selected India as the

appropriate surrogate country.

Petitioners stated that India is the most

suitable surrogate, because: (1) It is

comparable in terms of overall

economic development, per capita gross

national product (‘‘GNP’’), the national

distribution of labor, and the growth

rate in per capita GNP; and (2) as the

seventh largest producer of honey in the

world in 1999, India is a significant

65834 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices

producer of the subject merchandise.

Petitioners also stated that the

Department selected India as the

preferred surrogate in the 1994–95

antidumping investigation of honey

from China. See Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Honey from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14729

(March 20, 1995) (‘‘Honey from China’’).

Based on the information provided by

petitioners and Department practice, we

believe that petitioners’ use of India as

a surrogate country is appropriate for

purposes of initiation of this

investigation.

In accordance with section 773(c)(4)

of the Act, petitioners valued factors of

production, where possible, on

reasonably available, public surrogate

country data. For the normal value

calculation, petitioners obtained

surrogate value information on the cost

of producing natural honey in India,

including direct costs (i.e., raw honey),

indirect costs (i.e., factory overhead and

SG&A), and profit. Raw honey was

valued using Indian domestic prices as

reported in the Mahabaleshwar Honey

Producers Cooperative Society Ltd.

(‘‘MHPC’’) 1998–99 Annual Report. The

number of labor hours was derived from

the Chinese producer’s February 28,

1995 questionnaire response in Honey

from China, and labor was valued using

the Department’s regression-based wage

rate in accordance with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(3). Factory overhead, SG&A,

and profit were valued using financial

data reported in MHPC’s 1998–99

Annual Report. Additional amounts for

export packing were based on an offer

for sale from an Indian manufacturer of

steel drums and on the consumption

rate for packing labor as reported by the

Chinese producers in Honey from

China. As necessary, petitioners inflated

non-contemporaneous surrogate values

to the period of investigation using IMF

International Financial Statistics.

Petitioners converted the Indian Rupee

prices to U.S. dollars using the exchange

rates published in the Federal Reserve

Statistical Release H.10 for the period

April 2000 through August 2000. Based

on the information provided by

petitioners, we believe that their

surrogate values represent information

reasonably available to petitioners and

are acceptable for purposes of initiation

of this investigation.

Based on comparisons of EP to NV,

the calculated dumping margins for

natural honey from China range from

169.40 to 183.80 percent.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. Petitioners explained

that the industry’s injured condition is

evident in the declining trends in (1)

U.S. market share, (2) average unit sales

values, (3) share of domestic

consumption, (4) operating income, (5)

output, and (6) sales.

The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

The Department assessed the allegations

and supporting evidence regarding

material injury and causation and

determined that these allegations are

supported by accurate and adequate

evidence and meet the statutory

requirements for initiation (see

Attachments to Initiation Checklist, Re:

Material Injury, October 26, 2000).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petition, our discussions on October 12,

2000, with the author of the foreign

market research report supporting the

petition, measures to confirm the

information contained in this report (see

Memorandum to the File; Re: Foreign

Market Research, dated October 26,

2000), and all other information on the

record regarding industry support, we

have found that the petition meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of honey

from Argentina and China, are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value. Unless this

deadline is extended, we will make our

preliminary determinations no later

than 140 days after the date of this

initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of Argentina and China.

We will attempt to provide a copy of the

public version of each petition to each

exporter named in the petition, as

appropriate.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine, by no later

than November 20, 2000, whether there

is a reasonable indication that imports

of honey from Argentina and China are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

for any country will result in the

investigation being terminated with

respect to that country; otherwise, these

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28041 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil: Extension of

Time Limit for Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nova Daly or Ron Trentham, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

(202) 482–0989 and (202) 482–6320,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statutory Time Limits

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) to make a preliminary

determination within 245 days after the

last day of the anniversary month of an

order/finding for which a review is

requested and a final determination

within 120 days after the date on which

the preliminary determination is

published. However, if it is not

practicable to complete the review

within the time period, section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the

Department to extend the time limit for

the preliminary determination to a

maximum of 365 days and for the final

determination to 180 days (or 300 days