24108 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

dumping and the likelihood of material

injury with respect to imports of honey

from the PRC, and that there have been

massive imports of honey from High

Hope, Zhejiang, and the PRC-wide

entity over a relatively short period of

time. As a result, we preliminarily

determine that critical circumstances

exist for imports of honey from High

Hope, Zhejiang, and the PRC-wide

entity, in accordance with section

733(e)(2) of the Act. Because we did not

find that massive imports, within the

meaning of 19 CFR 351.206(h), existed

for Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, Shanghai

Eswell, Anhui, and Henan, we

preliminarily determine that critical

circumstances do not exist for imports

of honey from these companies. See CC

Memo.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify all

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

Final Critical Circumstances

Determination

We will make a final determination

concerning critical circumstances for

the PRC when we make our final

determination regarding sales at LTFV

in this investigation, which will be no

later than 135 days after the publication

of this notice in the Federal Register.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(e)(2)

of the Act, for High Hope, Zhejiang, and

the PRC-wide entity, the Department

will direct the Customs Service to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

subject merchandise from the PRC that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date which is 90 days prior to the

date of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register. For the remaining

companies (i.e., Inner Mongolia,

Kunshan, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui, and

Henan), the Department will direct the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all entries of subject merchandise

from the PRC that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated preliminary

dumping margin indicated in the chart

below. This suspension of liquidation

will remain in effect until further notice.

The margin in the preliminary

determination is as follows:

Exporter/

manufacturer

Margin

(percent)

Critical

circumstances

Inner Mongolia 44.00 No.

Kunshan .......... 37.51 No.

Zhejiang .......... 36.98 Yes.

High Hope ....... 39.76 Yes.

Shanghai

Eswell.

39.76 No.

Anhui ............... 39.76 No.

Henan .............. 39.76 No.

PRC-wide Entity.183.80 Yes.

Disclosure

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of this determination to the parties to

the proceeding in this investigation in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination, whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes. Further, we would

appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments on diskette.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

In the event that the Department

receives requests for hearings from

parties to more than one honey case, the

Department may schedule a single

hearing to encompass all those cases.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a

hearing, or participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. We will make our

final determination no later than 75

days after the date of publication of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: May 4, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11940 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–812]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey

From Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa Blackledge, Charlie Rast or

Donna Kinsella at (202) 482–3518, (202)

482–1324 or (202) 482–0194,

respectively; Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group

III, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230.

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 Department of

Commerce (Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

honey from Argentina is being sold, or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24109

is likely to be sold, in the United States

at less than fair value (LTFV), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

On October 26, 2000, the Department

initiated antidumping duty

investigations of imports of honey from

Argentina and the People’s Republic of

China (China). See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Honey from Argentina and the People’s

Republic of China. 65 FR 65831–65834

(November 2, 2000) (Initiation Notice).

The petitioners in these investigations

are the American Honey Producers

Association and the Sioux Honey

Association (petitioners). Since the

initiation of the investigations, the

following events have occurred with

respect to honey from Argentina.

On October 30, 2000, the Department

requested information from the U.S.

Embassy in Argentina to identify

producers/exporters of subject

merchandise. On November 13, 2000,

the United States International Trade

Commission (the Commission) notified

the Department of its affirmative

preliminary injury determination on

imports of subject merchandise from

Argentina and China. On November 17,

2000, the Commission published its

preliminary determination that there is

a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports from

Argentina (65 FR 69573).

On November 27, 2000, the

Department issued Section A, Question

1 of the antidumping questionnaire to

Radix, S.R.L. (Radix), HoneyMax, S.A.

(HoneyMax), ConAgra Argentina, S.A.

(ConAgra), Compania Europea

Americana, S.A. (CEASA), Foodway,

S.A. (Foodway), and Asociacion de

Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA),

requesting volume and value

information for the POI for each

exporter. We received the information

requested on December 8, 2000. Based

on this information, the Department

selected the three largest exporters/

producers by volume as respondents in

this investigation. See Memorandum to

Joseph A. Spetrini, Selection of

Respondents, dated December 19, 2000.

On December 19, 2000, the

Department issued its antidumping

questionnaire to Radix, ConAgra, and

ACA. We requested that respondents

respond to Section A (general

information, corporate structure, sales

practices, and merchandise produced),

Section B (home market or third-country

sales), and Section C (U.S. sales) of the

questionnaire.

On January 9, 2001, ConAgra

informed the Department that it would

not be submitting responses to Sections

A, B, or C of the Department’s

questionnaire. ACA and Radix

submitted responses to Section A of the

Department’s questionnaire on January

10, 2001, and January 16, 2001,

respectively. ACA filed corrections to its

Section A response on January 30, 2001,

January 31, 2001, and February 12,

2001.

In their Section A responses, ACA

and Radix indicated that they were both

exporters, not producers, of honey. On

January 11, 2001, the Department

requested comments from interested

parties on the Department’s proposed

methodology for selecting respondents

for cost purposes in the sales below cost

investigation, which was initiated by

the Department on October 26, 2000.

Because ACA and Radix stated that they

did not produce the honey sold during

the period of investigation (POI), the

Department indicated in its letter that it

intended to select at random 12 to 15

honey producers to serve as respondents

in the sales below cost investigation and

to use the selected producers’ costs to

derive an average country-wide cost of

production for use in the investigation.

Radix and ACA submitted comments on

January 11, 2001, and January 18, 2001.

Radix and ACA filed additional

comments on January 26, 2001, and

February 23, 2001, respectively.

Petitioners commented on January 17,

2001, January 18, 2001, January 23,

2001, January 26, 2001, March 30, 2001,

and April 11, 2001. The Argentine

embassy commented on January 29,

2001. On February 23, 2001, the

Department selected 12 cost

respondents and issued Section D of the

questionnaire to the selected honey

producers.

Additional comments were submitted

on behalf of the selected beekeepers on

March 29, 2001, and April 9, 2001.

ACA and Radix submitted responses

to sections B and C of the Department’s

questionnaire on February 9, 2001, and

February 16, 2001, respectively. ACA

filed corrections to its response on

February 12, 2001, February 14, 2001,

and February 20, 2001.

Petitioners submitted comments on

Radix’s questionnaire responses on

January 26, 2001, and February 20,

2001. Petitioners commented on ACA’s

original questionnaire responses on

January 26, 2001, and February 21,

2001. ACA responded to petitioners’

February 21, 2001, filing on February

23, 2001. Petitioners submitted

additional comments on February 23,

2001, and February 27, 2001.

We issued supplemental

questionnaires to Radix and ACA on

February 2, 2001, and February 23,

2001. Radix responded on February 16,

2001, and March 16, 2001. ACA

responded on February 16, 2001, and

March 26, 2001. We requested

additional information from Radix on

March 5, 2001 and from ACA on March

5, 2000, March 9, 2000, and March 16,

2000. Radix submitted its response on

March 16, 2001. ACA filed responses on

March 9, 2001, March 14, 2001, and

March 16, 2001. On April 3, 2001, ACA

filed corrections to its supplemental

questionnaire response for Sections B

through C. Petitioners submitted

comments on ACA’s and Radix’s

supplemental questionnaire responses

on February 27, 2001, and March 27,

2001, respectively.

On February 14, 2001, petitioners

made a timely request for a fifty-day

postponement of the preliminary

determination pursuant to section

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. On February 22,

2001, we postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than May 4,

2001. See Honey From Argentina and

the People’s Republic of China; Notice

of Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations in Antidumping Duty

Investigations, 66 FR 12924 (March 1,

2001).

On February 23, 2001, the Department

issued Section D of the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire to the

twelve selected beekeeper respondents.

After issuing several extensions to the

beekeepers to the deadline for

responding to Section D of the

Department’s questionnaire, on April

26, 2001, the Department received a

letter on behalf of the twelve Argentine

beekeepers, stating that they were

unable to obtain usable cost information

and would not be responding to the

Department’s Section D questionnaire.

Petitioners submitted comments on

April 30, 2001, regarding the failure of

the beekeepers to provide responses to

Section D of the Department’s

questionnaire. On May 1, 2001, Radix

submitted a letter to the Department

withdrawing from the investigation and

requesting that its business proprietary

data be removed from the record and

returned to Radix.

Period of Investigation

The POI is July 1, 1999 through June

30, 2000. This period corresponds to the

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the filing of the petition (i.e., September

2000), and is in accordance with section

351.204(b)(1) of the Department’s

regulations.

24110 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

1 In a letter of May 3, 2001, petitioners objected

to the removal of Radix’s information from the

record. We will be addressing this issue at a later

date.

Scope of Investigation

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.

Facts Available (FA)

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that

‘‘if any interested party or any other

person—(A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority, (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for the

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

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

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title, or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the administering authority and the

Commission shall, subject to section

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.’’ The

statute also requires that certain

conditions be met before the

Department may resort to the facts

otherwise available. Where the

Department determines that a response

to a request for information does not

comply with the request, section 782(d)

of the Act provides that the Department

will so inform the party submitting the

response and will, to the extent

practicable, provide that party the

opportunity to remedy or explain the

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy

the deficiency within the applicable

time limits, the Department may, subject

to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all

or part of the original and subsequent

responses, as appropriate. Briefly,

section 782(e) of the Act provides that

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary

to the determination but does not meet

all the applicable requirements

established by the administering

authority’’ if the information is timely,

can be verified, is not so incomplete that

it cannot be used, and if the interested

party acted to the best of its ability in

providing the information. Where all of

these conditions are met, and the

Department can use the information

without undue difficulties, the statute

requires it to do so.

ConAgra

As noted in the ‘‘Case History’’

section above, the Department issued its

antidumping questionnaire to ConAgra

on December 19, 2000. On January 9,

2001, ConAgra informed the Department

that it would not be submitting

responses to Sections A, B, or C of the

Department’s questionnaire. ConAgra

stated that, after reviewing the

questionnaire in detail, it determined

that it did not have sufficient available

resources in Argentina to complete the

questionnaire, as requested by the

Department. ConAgra indicated that its

books and records in Argentina are not

in a format easily translatable to the

computer data set required by the

Department, and that the personnel

necessary to convert its books and

records into the Department’s format is

not available.

Because ConAgra failed to respond to

the Department’s December 19, 2000,

request for information, sections 782(d)

and (e) of the Act are not applicable,

and the Department must resort to the

use of facts available for this

respondent, in accordance with section

776(a) of the Act. Moreover, we have

determined that ConAgra’s failure to

respond to any portions of the

Department’s December 19, 2000,

questionnaire demonstrates that the

company has not cooperated to the best

of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to

section 776(b) of the Act, we used an

adverse inference in selecting a margin

from among facts otherwise available.

See Memorandum from Donna Kinsella

to Richard O. Weible, Honey from

Argentina: Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value—The Use

of Facts Available for ConAgra

Argentina, S.A., and the Corroboration

of Secondary Information, dated May 4,

2001 (ConAgra Facts Available

Memorandum).

Radix

As also noted in the ‘‘Case History’’

section above, on May 1, 2001, the

Department received a letter from Radix

stating that it would not continue to

participate in the Department’s

investigation. Radix explained that it

was unable to file any usable cost

information from the Argentine

beekeepers despite the extensions

granted to it by the Department.

Therefore, Radix decided that it would

not be beneficial to it to continue

participating in the investigation, and it

requested that all business proprietary

data be removed from the record and

returned to Radix. Accordingly, for

purposes of our preliminary

calculations, we will not be relying on

Radix’s proprietary information.1

Because Radix withdrew from the

investigation and requested that its

submitted responses be removed from

the record, sections 782(d) and (e) of the

Act are not applicable, and the

Department must resort to the use of

facts available for this respondent, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act. Moreover, we have determined that

Radix’s withdrawal from the

investigation demonstrates that the

company has not cooperated to the best

of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to

section 776(b) of the Act, we used an

adverse inference in selecting a margin

from among facts otherwise available.

See Memorandum from Donna Kinsella

to Richard O. Weible, Honey from

Argentina: Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value—The Use

of Facts Available for Radix, S.R.L., and

the Corroboration of Secondary

Information, dated May 4, 2001 (Radix

Facts Available Memorandum).

As adverse facts available for ConAgra

and Radix, the Department has applied

a margin rate of 60.67 percent, the

highest alleged margin for Argentina in

the petition. This rate is the higher of

the highest margin in the petition or the

highest rate calculated for a respondent

in the proceeding. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in

Coils from Germany; 64 FR 30710,

30714 (June 8, 1999).

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

where the Department selects from

among the facts otherwise available and

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ such

as the petition, the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that

information from independent sources

reasonably at the Department’s disposal.

The Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994) ( SAA)

states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to

determine that the information used has

probative value. See SAA at 870. In this

proceeding, we considered information

contained in the petition as the most

appropriate record information to use to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24111

establish the dumping margins for these

uncooperative respondents because, in

the absence of verifiable data provided

by ConAgra and Radix, the petition

information is the best approximation,

using an adverse inference, available to

the Department of ConAgra’s and

Radix’s pricing and selling behavior in

the U.S. market. In accordance with

section 776(c) of the Act, we sought to

corroborate the data contained in the

petition. We reviewed the adequacy and

accuracy of the information in the

petition during our pre-initiation

analysis of the petition, to the extent

appropriate information was available

for this purpose (e.g., import statistics

and foreign market research reports).

See Initiation Notice. For purposes of

this preliminary determination, we

attempted to corroborate the

information in the petition with

information gathered since the

initiation. We compared the export

price (EP) and constructed value (CV)

data, which formed the basis for the

highest margin in the petition, to the

price and cost/expense data provided by

the honey producers and export trading

companies during the investigation and,

to the extent practicable, found that it

had probative value. (For a detailed

analysis see ConAgra’s and Radix’s

Facts Available Memoranda.)

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by ACA, covered by the

description in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ above, and sold in the

comparison market during the POI, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate comparisons to

U.S. sales.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of honey

from Argentina to the United States

were made at LTFV, we compared the

EP to the constructed value (CV), as

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Constructed Value’’ sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated weighted-average EPs for

comparison to CV.

Export Price

We calculated EP in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act because ACA

sold the merchandise directly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to the date of importation,

and because constructed export price

(CEP) methodology was not otherwise

appropriate. We based EP for ACA on

the C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers

in the United States. We made

deductions for billing adjustments and

‘‘reembolso’’ reimbursements, where

appropriate. We also made adjustments

for movement expenses in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act;

these included, where appropriate,

foreign brokerage and handling,

international freight, and additional

shipping costs.

Normal Value

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs

that NV be based on the price at which

the foreign like product is sold in the

home market, provided that the

merchandise is sold in sufficient

quantities (or value, if quantity is

inappropriate) and that there is no

particular market situation that prevents

a proper comparison with the EP. The

statute contemplates that quantities (or

value) will normally be considered

insufficient if they are less than five

percent of the aggregate quantity (or

value) of sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States.

Based on information submitted by

the Argentine exporting trading

company, we found that for the exporter

the aggregate volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product was less

than five percent of their aggregate

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise during the POI. (See the

December 8, 2000, Section A, Question

1, questionnaire responses from the

export trading company.) Consequently,

we determined that the Argentine home

market was not viable.

Where the home market is determined

not to be viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)

of the Act directs the Department to

employ the price of sales to a third

country as the basis for NV if (1) such

price is representative, (2) the aggregate

quantity (or value) of sales to that

country is at least 5 percent of the

quantity (or value) of total sales to the

United States, and (3) the Department

does not determine that the particular

market situation in that country

prevents proper comparison with the EP

or CEP price. In this case, we found the

price of sales to Germany to be

representative. Also, the volume and

value of ACA’s sales to Germany were

found to exceed 5 percent of the volume

and value of their sales to the United

States. (See the December 8, 2000,

February 9, 2001, and March 26, 2001,

submissions of ACA). Furthermore,

based on our examination of the record

information, we found no reason to

determine that the market situation in

Germany would somehow prevent

proper comparison between NV and EP

price. We therefore found Germany to

be the appropriate comparison market

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of

the Act. In deriving NV, we made

certain adjustments described in the

‘‘Price to CV’’ section below.

ACA originally reported invoice date

as the date of sale for both the U.S. and

third country markets. In its

questionnaire responses, ACA indicated

that invoices are generated after date of

shipment from the warehouse for sales

in both markets. Consequently, for ACA,

we have used date of shipment as the

date of sale in the U.S. and third

country markets.

ACA reported expenses attributable to

sales to the third country market

(Germany) incurred for sampling and/or

testing honey in order to meet the

standards of German customers.

According to ACA, German customers

require their purchases of honey to be

free of antibiotic residuals and phenol.

In its submission, these expenses were

reported as direct selling expenses. For

the reasons described below, we have

determined to treat these expenses as

indirect selling expenses for purposes of

our preliminary determination.

Direct expenses are typically expenses

that are incurred as a direct and

unavoidable consequence of the sale

(i.e., in the absence of the sale these

expenses would not be incurred). In

other words, while indirect expenses

generally consist of fixed expenses that

are incurred whether or not a sale is

made, direct selling expenses result

from, and bear a direct relationship to,

the particular sale in question. See 19

CFR 351.410(c); Oil Country Tubular

Goods From Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 66 FR 15832 (March 21, 2001);

and Canned Pineapple Fruit From

Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR

77851 (December 13, 2000).

In this case, we found that the

information provided by ACA with

respect to sampling and/or testing

honey, particularly at what point in

time and on which merchandise they

are conducted, is either contradictory or

non-conclusive. (See the January 10,

2001,February 9, 2001, and March 26,

2001, submissions from ACA.) In fact,

the evidence on the record indicates

that these expenses are more properly

classified as indirect selling expenses,

given that they appear to be incurred

whether or not a sale is made. For

example, in its Section B–C

questionnaire response, ACA states that

the tests in question were conducted on

all shipments to German customers that

require particular testing results.

However, in a later submission, on

March 26, 2001, ACA reports that since

October 1999 it has performed testing

according to German standards on all

24112 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

lots of honey darker than a certain color

(i.e., 34 mm on the pfund scale). It is

also unclear from the record evidence

whether honey, which is tested but

which does not meet German standards,

is shipped to other markets and how the

testing expenses associated with such

sales have been accounted for in ACA’s

testing expense calculations.

As a result of contradictory and

ambiguous statements made by ACA in

its submissions to date, we found that

the evidence of expenses in connection

with sampling and/or testing honey for

German customers does not

unequivocally demonstrate that these

expenses result from and bear a direct

relationship to the sales in question

within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.410(c) and the Department’s

practice. Rather, the evidence indicates

that these expenses appear to have the

characteristics of indirect selling

expenses. Accordingly, for purposes of

our preliminary determination, we have

determined to re-classify ACA’s

sampling and/or testing expenses as

indirect selling expenses. However, we

intend to fully examine this issue at

verification, and will incorporate our

findings, as appropriate, in our analysis

for the final determination.

ACA reported warranty expenses for

certain third country and U.S. sales on

a customer-specific basis. To calculate

these expenses, ACA allocated the total

warranty costs reimbursed to a

particular customer by the total tons of

honey sold to that customer during the

POI. Notwithstanding ACA’s ability to

report warranty expenses on a customerspecific basis, we have long recognized

that the nature of warranty expenses

(i.e., that claims made for specific sales

are often made after the close of a given

period of investigation or review)

necessitates the use of an appropriate

allocation methodology. (See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in

Coils from Germany, 64 FR 30710,

30736–30738 (June 8, 1999); Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper

Printing Presses and Components

Thereof, Whether Assembled or

Unassembled, From Germany, 61 FR

38166 (July 23, 1996); and Koenig &

Bauer-Albert, et al. v. United States, 15

Fed. Supp.2d 834, 854 (CIT 1998).) We

do not believe that ACA’s customerspecific allocation methodology takes

into account an important additional

characteristic of these expenses, namely,

that they are not predictable at the time

of the sale. Because warranty expenses

are normally incurred after the sale is

made, and are not incurred until a

warranty claim has been received from

a customer, we believe that in cases

where warranty services are provided by

the producer/exporter, all sales are

subject to warranty expenses. Therefore,

for purposes of the preliminary

determination in this case, in order to

derive a per-unit warranty expense for

all sales, we have recalculated ACA’s

warranty expenses by allocating the

total reported expenses for warranty

claims in each market over the total

quantity of sales made by ACA in each

market.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on our analysis of the cost

allegation submitted by petitioners on

September 29, 2000, the Department

found reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that sales of honey produced in

Argentina were made at prices below

the cost of production (COP), in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i)

of the Act. As a result, the Department

attempted to conduct an investigation to

determine whether respondents made

third country sales during the POI

below the honey producers’ COP,

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

Because the respondent participating

in this investigation is not a producer of

the merchandise under investigation,

we selected 12 honey producers to serve

as cost respondents in the sales-belowcost investigation. As stated in the

‘‘Case History’’ section of this notice,

the honey producers failed to respond to

the Department’s request for cost of

production information. Because the

selected honey producers did not

provide necessary information regarding

the cost of production of honey, we

calculated COP based on the only cost

data available on the record; i.e. cost

data obtained from Argentine honey

producer bi-monthly trade journal

articles submitted in the petition. The

Department used the average of the cost

studies for March, May, July,

September, November 1999, as provided

in the petition, to derive an average

country-wide honey producers’ COP to

use as the COP for the respondent.

B. Test of Third Country Market Prices

We compared the COP for ACA, as

calculated above, to the company’s third

country market sales of the foreign like

product, less any applicable movement

charges, billing adjustments, and selling

expenses as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP. In determining

whether to disregard third country

market sales below the COP, we

examined whether such sales were

made (1) within an extended period of

time in substantial quantities, and (2) at

prices which permitted the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time, in accordance with sections

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of

ACA’s sales were at prices less than the

COP, we did not disregard any belowcost sales because we determined that

the below-cost sales were not made in

substantial quantities. Where 20 percent

or more of ACA’s sales during the POI

were less than the COP, we determined

such sales to have been made in

substantial quantities within an

extended period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act.

Because we compared prices to average

costs, we also determined that such

sales were not made at prices which

would permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act. Therefore, we disregarded those

below-cost sales. Because all sales were

disregarded, we calculated NV based on

CV.

D. Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the COP as calculated above plus the

exporter’s SG&A expenses and an

amount for profit. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, and

as facts available, we based profit on the

September 1999 trade journal article.

Price to CV Comparisons

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we based NV on CV pursuant

to the criteria described in the ‘‘Cost of

Production’’ section above. Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to CV

in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of

the Act. For comparisons to EP, we

made COS adjustments by deducting

third country direct selling expenses

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on CV, that

of the sales from which we derive SG&A

expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S.

LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from the

exporter to the importer.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24113

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP, we examine

stages in the marketing process and

selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the exporter and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In implementing these principles in

this investigation, we examined

information from ACA regarding their

reported third country market and EP

sales, including a description of the

selling activities performed by ACA for

each channel of distribution. In

identifying LOT for EP and third

country market sales, we considered the

selling functions reflected in the starting

price before any adjustments.

ACA claimed one level of trade in

each market: One LOT representing

sales to unaffiliated packers in the third

country market; and one LOT

representing sales in the U.S. market to

unaffiliated importers, who resell to

packers. According to ACA, because all

customers in the third-country market

are packers and all customers in the

U.S. market are importers, the impact on

ACA’s pricing cannot be seen by

comparing its prices at different LOTs in

a single market. Instead, the difference

in the LOT can be measured by the

mark-up of ACA’s U.S. export prices by

its U.S. customers when the importers

resell ACA’s honey to their packer

customers. ACA claimed a LOT

adjustment equivalent to the estimated

price differential between sales to

importers and sales to packers.

In determining whether separate

LOTs existed in the third country and

U.S. market, we examined ACA’s selling

functions along the chain of distribution

between ACA and its unaffiliated

customers. In reviewing the chains of

distribution and customer categories, we

found that ACA made sales directly to

unaffiliated customers in both the third

country market and the U.S. market.

As indicated previously, ACA

reported different categories of

customers in the third country and U.S.

markets, packers and importers who

resell to packers, respectively. We note

that while the Department considers the

type of customer an important indicator

in identifying differences in the LOT,

the existence of different classes of

customers is not sufficient to establish

a difference in the LOTs. Whereas

certain titles used to describe classes of

customers (e.g., original equipment

manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler,

retailer) may actually describe LOTs, the

fact that two sales were made by entities

with titles suggesting different stages of

the marketing process is not sufficient to

establish that the two sales were made

at different LOTs. (See Antidumping

Duties: Countervailing Duties, Preamble

to 19 CFR, 351, FR 27296, 27371 (May

19, 1997).)

In further analyzing ACA’s LOT

claims, we reviewed information

available on the record regarding ACA’s

selling functions, in accordance with

our practice. In its Section A

questionnaire response, ACA stated that

it performs no selling activities and

offers no services in the U.S. or thirdcountry markets. In its February 16,

2001, Section A supplemental

questionnaire response, ACA stated that

in addition to arranging international

freight and delivery, the only selling

activities it performs on third country or

U.S. market sales is the provision of

warranty services. ACA indicated that it

performs activities relating to the

arrangement of international freight and

delivery for the third country and U.S.

markets to a medium degree. It

indicated that it performs activities

relating to warranty services to a

medium degree in the third country

market and to a low degree in the U.S.

market.

Based on the information provided by

ACA, we find that the selling functions

ACA provided to its reported channels

of distribution in the third country and

U.S. markets are the same, varying only

by the degree to which warranty

services were provided. We do not find

the varying degree to which warranty

services are provided sufficient to

determine the existence of different

marketing stages. Therefore, based upon

this information, we have preliminarily

determined that the LOT for all EP sales

is the same as that for third country

sales. Accordingly, because we find U.S.

sales and third country sales to be at the

same LOT, no LOT adjustment under

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is

warranted.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars in accordance with section

773 of the Act based on the exchange

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S.

sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark rate for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Further, section 773A(b) of the Act

directs the Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has

undergone a sustained movement. A

sustained movement has occurred when

the weekly average of actual daily rates

exceeds the weekly average of

benchmark rates by more than five

percent for eight consecutive weeks.

(For an explanation of this method, see

Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency

Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8,

1996).)

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify all

information relied upon in making our

final determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(e)(2)

of the Act, the Department will direct

the Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of all entries of subject

merchandise from Argentina that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the weighted-average

amount by which the NV exceeds the

EP, as indicated in the chart below. This

suspension-of-liquidation will remain in

effect until further notice.

The margins in the preliminary

determination are as follows:

HONEY FROM ARGENTINA

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

ACA .......................................... 49.93

Radix ......................................... 60.67

ConAgra .................................... 60.67

All Others .................................. 49.93

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determinations are affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the latter of 120

24114 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners are Carpenter Technology Corp.,

Crucible Specialty Metals, Electralloy Corp., Empire

Specialty Steel Inc., Slater Steels Corp., and the

United Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC.

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determinations, whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes. Further, we would

appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments on diskette.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In

the event that the Department receives

requests for hearings from parties to

several honey cases, the Department

may schedule a single hearing to

encompass all those cases. Parties

should confirm by telephone the time,

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours

before the scheduled time. Interested

parties who wish to request a hearing,

or participate if one is requested, must

submit a written request within 30 days

of the publication of this notice. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. We intend to make

our final determination no later than 75

days after the date of this preliminary

determination.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1)

of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: May 4, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11941 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–820, A–428–830, A–475–829, A–580–

847, A–583–836, A–412–822]

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From

France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan,

and the United Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Smith (France) at (202) 482–1766;

Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt (Korea) at

(202) 482–0629; Brian Ledgerwood (the

United Kingdom) at (202) 482–3836;

Craig Matney (Germany) at (202) 482–

1778; Jarrod Goldfeder (Italy) at (202)

482–0189; Blanche Ziv (Taiwan) at (202)

482–4207; Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (April 2000).

POSTPONEMENT OF PRELIMINARY

DETERMINATIONS: On January 24, 2001,

the Department published the initiation

of the antidumping duty investigations

of imports of stainless steel bar from

France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan,

and the United Kingdom. The notice of

initiation stated that we would make

our preliminary determinations for

these antidumping duty investigations

no later than 140 days after the date of

issuance of the initiation (i.e., June 6,

2001). See Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Stainless Steel Bar from France,

Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom, 66 FR 7620, 7626

(January 24, 2001); and Corrections,

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel Bar

from France, Germany, Italy, Korea,

Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, 66 FR

14986 (March 14, 2001).

On April 27, 2001, the petitioners 1

made a timely request pursuant to 19

CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day

postponement of the preliminary

determinations, or until July 26, 2001.

The petitioners requested a

postponement of the preliminary

determinations because of the need for

additional time to submit comments

regarding the respondents’

questionnaire responses and for the

Department to analyze the respondents’

data and seek additional data, if

necessary, prior to the issuance of the

preliminary determinations.

For the reasons identified by the

petitioners, and because there are no

compelling reasons to deny the request,

we are postponing the preliminary

determinations under section 733(c)(1)

of the Act. We will make our

preliminary determinations no later

than July 26, 2001.

This notice is published pursuant to

sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: May 7, 2001.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11937 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–063]

Certain Iron-metal Castings From

India: Amended Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review in Accordance With Decision

Upon Remand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

results of countervailing duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to remand

instructions by the Court of

International Trade (CIT), the

Department has recalculated the

countervailing duty rates for the 1990

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

iron-metal castings from India. The final

countervailing duty rates for this

administrative review period are listed

below in the Final Results of Review

section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Enforcement

Office VI, Group II, Import