Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24101

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–863]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value; Honey from the People’s

Republic of China

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelica Mendoza (Inner Mongolia and

Zhejiang) at (202) 482–3019, Fred Baker

(Kunshan) at (202) 482–2924, Charles

Rast at (202) 482–1324 or Donna

Kinsella at (202) 482–0194;

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Office Eight,

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 the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

honey from the People’s Republic of

China (the PRC) is being, or 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 margin of

sales at LTFV is shown in the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

Case History

On October 26, 2000, the Department

initiated antidumping investigations of

honey from Argentina and the PRC. 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. Since the

initiation of these investigations, the

following events have occurred with

respect to honey from the PRC.

On November 13, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination on imports of subject

merchandise from Argentina and the

PRC. On November 17, 2000, the ITC

published its preliminary determination

that there is a reasonable indication that

an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports

of the subject merchandise from

Argentina and the PRC (65 FR 69573).

On November 27, 2000, the

Department issued Section A of its

antidumping duty questionnaire to the

Embassy of the PRC with a letter

requesting that it forward the

questionnaire to all exporters of honey

who shipped subject merchandise to the

United States during the period of

investigation (POI) and instruct those

exporters to respond to Question 1,

Section A. On December 12, 2000, the

Department received responses from

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region

Native Produce and Animal By-Products

Import and Export Corporation (Inner

Mongolia), Kunshan Foreign Trading

Company (Kunshan), Zhejiang Native

Produce and Animal By-Products

Import and Export Corporation

(Zhejiang), High Hope International

Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import and

Export Corporation (High Hope),

Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Company

Ltd. (Shanghai Eswell), Anhui Native

Produce Import and Export Corporation

(Anhui), and Henan Native Produce

Import and Export Corporation (Henan).

Based on this information, the

Department selected Inner Mongolia,

Kunshan, and Zhejiang as mandatory

respondents in this investigation

because they represent, by volume, the

three largest exporters of subject

merchandise during the POI. See

Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini,

Selection of Respondents, dated

December 19, 2000.

On December 19, 2000, the

Department issued all sections of the

antidumping duty questionnaire to

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, and Zhejiang.

On January 19, 2001, we received

responses to Section A of the

Department’s questionnaire from these

three exporters as well as Section A

responses from High Hope, Shanghai

Eswell, Anhui, and Henan. On February

2, 2001, the Department issued

supplemental Section A questionnaires

to Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, Zhejiang,

High Hope, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui,

and Henan. On February 23, 2001, we

received responses from all seven

exporters.

On February 9, 2001, Inner Mongolia,

Kunshan, and Zhejiang responded to

Sections C and D of the Department’s

questionnaire. Petitioners submitted

comments on these responses on

February 20, 2001. On February 13,

2001, we solicited comments from

interested parties on surrogate country

selection for purposes of this

investigation. We received comments

from petitioners and respondents Inner

Mongolia, Kunshan, and Zhejiang on

March 15, 2001. On February 23, 2001,

the Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire with respect to Sections C

and D to the mandatory respondents.

The Department issued a second

supplemental questionnaire for Section

A to the mandatory respondents on

March 1, 2001. On March 16, 2001,

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, and Zhejiang

responded to the supplemental

questionnaire concerning Sections C

and D and responded to the second

supplemental questionnaire for Section

A. Petitioners submitted comments on

respondents’ supplemental

questionnaire responses (from March

16, 2001) on April 20, 2001 and April

23, 2001. OnApril 25, 2001, the

mandatory respondents commented on

petitioners’ April 20, 2001 filing.

On March 19, 2001, we invited

interested parties to provide publicly

available information for valuing the

factors of production. On April 4, 2001,

we received comments and information

from interested parties regarding

valuation of the factors of production

Petitioners and respondents filed

rebuttal comments on April 11, 2001.

On April 12, 2001, petitioners

commented on respondents’ April 11,

2001 filing. Respondents submitted

additional comments and information

on April 18, 2001. Petitioners also filed

additional comments regarding the

valuation of the factors of production on

April 20, 2001 and April 23, 2001. On

April 24, 2001, the Department

requested that petitioners and

respondents provide additional

information and comments concerning

the calculation of a surrogate value for

factory overhead. See Memorandum to

the File from Donna L. Kinsella (April

24, 2001). On April 27, 2001, we

received responses from petitioners and

respondents.

On March 29, 2001, the Department

requested additional information on the

export licensing system for honey in the

PRC. On April 12, 2001 and April 18,

2001, all respondents provided this

information.

On February 14, 2001, petitioners

made a timely request for a fifty-day

24102 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

1Only those exporters that participated in the

original 1994–95 PRC honey antidumping

investigation were eligible to bid, on the grounds

that only those companies had demonstrated their

willingness to reliably participate in the

investigation.

2 If an export subsequently realized it could not

fully utilize its export volume, it could ask the

Chamber to allow it to transfer the unused portion

to another exporter. Likewise, if an exporter

realized it could export more than its export

volume, it could apply to the Chamber for unused

export volume transferred by other exporters.

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

Antidumping Duty Determinations, 66

FR 12924 (March 1, 2001).

On February 23, 2001, the petitioners

alleged that there is a reasonable basis

to believe or suspect that critical

circumstances exist with respect to

imports of honey from the PRC. On

March 19, 2001, the Department

requested monthly shipment data for

the period February 1999 through

February 2001 from Inner Mongolia,

Kunshan, Zhejiang, High Hope,

Shanghai Eswell, Anhui, and Henan. On

April 2, 2001, Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

Zhejiang, High Hope, Shanghai Eswell,

Anhui, and Henan responded to this

request.

Period of Investigation

In accordance with section

351.204(b)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, the POI comprises the two

most recently completed fiscal quarters

as of the month in which the petition

was filed. For all exporters, this is the

period of January 1, 2000 through June

30, 2000.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, 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 this

investigation 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.

Non-Market Economy Status for the

People’s Republic of China

The Department has treated the PRC

as a non-market economy (NME)

country in all past antidumping

investigations. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People’s

Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May

25, 2000), and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice

Concentrate from the People’s Republic

of China, 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000).

A designation as an NME remains in

effect until it is revoked by the

Department. See Section 771(18)(C) of

the Act. The respondents in this

investigation have not requested a

revocation of the PRC’s NME status. We

have, therefore, preliminarily

determined to continue to treat the PRC

as an NME. When the Department is

investigating imports from an NME,

section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to

base the normal value (NV) on the NME

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a comparable market economy that is

a significant producer of comparable

merchandise. The sources used to value

individual factors are discussed under

the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below.

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

all exporters of merchandise subject to

investigation in an NME country a

single rate, unless an exporter can

demonstrate that it is sufficiently

independent so as to be entitled to a

separate rate. Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

Zhejiang, High Hope, Shanghai Eswell,

Anhui, and Henan have provided

company-specific separate rate

information and have stated that there is

no element of government ownership or

control. In their questionnaire

responses, Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

Zhejiang, High Hope, Shanghai Eswell,

Anhui, and Henan state that they are

independent companies ‘‘owned by all

the people’’ and controlled by the

general assembly of workers and

employees. Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

Zhejiang, High Hope, Shanghai Eswell,

Anhui, and Henan further claim that

they do not maintain any corporate

relationship with the central, provincial,

and local government in terms of

production, management, and

operations.

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, Zhejiang,

High Hope, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui,

and Henan have stated that their exports

of subject merchandise to the United

States were subject to the export

licensing system governing all exports

of honey from the PRC. They submitted

for the record the following relevant

State Council laws and regulations

governing the export licensing system:

‘‘Notice on Issuing Guidelines of Quota

Bidding for Exporting Commodities,’’

‘‘Detailed Rules on Bidding for

Exporting Commodity Quotas,’’ and

‘‘Notice of Issuing List of Commodities

Subject to Export License

Administration, 2001.’’ While exports of

honey from the PRC have been subject

to licensing requirements for many

years, during the POI of this proceeding,

the export licensing system in effect was

largely dictated by the terms of the

Agreement Suspending the

Antidumping Investigation of Honey

from the PRC (the ‘‘Agreement’’). See 60

FR 42521 (August 16, 1995). In October

1995, for example, the Ministry of

Foreign Trade and Economic

Cooperation (MOFTEC) issued the

Provisional Regulations for the

Administration of Export of Honey to

the United States (Provisional

Regulations), which implemented the

Agreement and established the process

for PRC exporters to obtain the quotas

necessary to export honey to the United

States.

Under the terms of the Agreement,

exports of PRC honey to the United

States were subject to an annual

limitation and a reference price at or

above which all exports of honey to the

United States were required to be sold.

The annual limit for exports to the

United States was allocated by MOFTEC

to specific exporters through an open

bidding process, in which the largest

exporters bid first based on their

historical export levels. Bid applications

were processed by the China Chamber

of Commerce of Importers and Exporters

of Foodstuffs, Native Produce and

Animal By-Products (the ‘‘Chamber’’).

After the largest 10 exporters bid and

were allocated export volume, an open

bidding process was initiated for the

remaining 18 eligible exporters.1 The

total fee for the bid that the winner paid

to MOFTEC for the export volume was

based on the bidding prices and the

quantity of the quota that the recipient

won. Individual companies that had

successfully bid for export limit were

then notified of their respective quota

allocation by the Foreign Trade

Administration Department (FTA).2

Upon completion of the bidding

process, the Chamber issued letters to

each company successfully bidding for

export volume, confirming that the

company was eligible for an export

license. This confirmation of eligibility

for an export license, coupled with the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24103

notification of volume allocation from

the FTA, allowed the exporter to enter

into a contract for the sale of honey to

the United States. The exporter then

submitted to the Chamber the formal

notification of volume allocation and a

copy of its contract for sale of honey to

the United States. The Chamber then

reviewed the contract to ensure that the

sale price was above the applicable

reference price set by the Department.

The exporter then submitted to the

Quota Licensing Board (QLB) or the

Special Commissioners Office an

application for an export license,

including a copy of the formal notice of

volume allocation from the FTA, the

relevant contract for the sale of honey to

the United States, and the letter of

eligibility for an export license issued

by the Chamber. Export licenses were

issued on a shipment-specific basis,

identified the price, quantity, and

destination of the honey to be exported,

and were valid for a period of three

months from the date of issuance. After

receiving an export license, the exporter

would apply for a export volume

certificate confirming that the exporter

was authorized to export the quantity of

honey covered by the sales contract. The

QLB kept a running tally of the amount

of export volume available to any

individual exporter, and ensured that

the amount of honey covered in a

contract was less than or equal to that

exporter’s remaining export volume.

The final step prior to exportation

involved the submission of all relevant

documents, including the export

volume certificate and export license, to

the PRC Customs Service, which

checked the documentation before

authorizing export.

The Agreement was terminated in

July 2000. See Notice of Final Results of

Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review,

Termination of Suspended

Antidumping Investigation on Honey

From the People’s Republic of China, 65

FR 46426 (July 28, 2000). Thereafter,

MOFTEC made slight modifications to

the export licensing system for honey.

For example, under a new regulation

issued by MOFTEC in December 2000,

‘‘The Notice of Issuing List of

Commodities Subject to Export License

Administration, 2001 and Relevant

Issues,’’ export volume certificates are

no longer required for exports of PRC

honey to the United States. In the

absence of a reference price issued by

the Department and in an attempt to

ensure that there is no dumping of

Chinese honey, the Chamber, in

consultation with the affected exporters,

periodically establishes a minimum

export price (EP) based on recent EPs.

All exports of honey to the United

States are required to be sold at or above

this minimum EP.

The bidding process for export

volume, however, remains the same as

that in operation under the Agreement,

and the annual limitation on exports of

Chinese honey to the United States in

effect at the time the Agreement was

terminated remains in effect through

July 2001.

The Department’s separate rate test is

not concerned, in general, with

macroeconomic border-type controls

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and

minimum EPs), particularly if these

controls are imposed to prevent

dumping. Rather, the test focuses on

controls over the export-related

investment, pricing, and outputdecision-making process at the

individual firm level. See Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276,

61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey

from the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725,

14726 (March 20, 1995). In determining

whether the export licensing system for

Chinese honey is consistent with the

application of separate rates to eligible

exporters for purposes of this

investigation, we believe it is

appropriate to focus on the export

licensing system and minimum price

floor currently in effect rather than the

system in effect during the POI because

the system in effect during the POI was

largely driven and governed by the

Agreement which has since been

terminated.

In the Department’s preliminary

determination in the original

antidumping duty investigation of

honey from the PRC (see 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)) (Preliminary

Determination), the Department

determined that the existence of the

export licensing system and minimum

price floor for exports of Chinese honey

to the United States were consistent

with the Department’s determination to

grant separate rates to certain exporters

of Chinese honey. We preliminarily

determine in this investigation that the

export licensing system and minimum

price floor for exports of Chinese honey

to the United States currently in effect

are nearly identical to those examined

in the original investigation and as a

result are also consistent with the

application of separate rates to those

exporters who otherwise qualify. The

bidding process, as described on the

record, permits independent export

pricing decisions and the export volume

system operates on the basis of

transparent and well-defined rules. All

eligible exporters are free to bid for the

right to export honey according to their

own business plans. Further, exporters

are free to independently negotiate EPs

with their customers above the

minimum EP. Allocation of export

limits takes place in a competitive

manner and exporters compete with

each other for customers in the global

marketplace. Thus, the export licensing

system and minimum EP currently in

effect does not involve the type of de

jure government control over export

pricing and marketing decisions that

would preclude respondents from being

eligible to receive separate rates.

With respect to the claims for

entitlement to separate rates put forth by

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, Zhejiang,

High Hope, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui,

and Henan, as stated in the Final

Determinations of Sales at Less-ThanFair-Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585

(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide), and

Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR

22545 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol),

ownership of a company by ‘‘all the

people’’ does not require the application

of a single rate. As noted above, the

Department’s test for separate rates

focuses on controls over export-related

investment, pricing, and output

decision-making process at the

individual firm level. To establish

whether a firm is sufficiently

independent to be entitled to a separate

rate, the Department analyzes each

exporting entity under the test

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), and

amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under this

test, the Department assigns separate

rates in NME cases only if an exporter

can affirmatively demonstrate the

absence of both (1) de jure and (2) de

facto governmental control over export

activities. See Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the

following de jure criteria in determining

whether an individual company may be

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence

of restrictive stipulations associated

with an individual exporter’s business

24104 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

and export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, Zhejiang,

High Hope, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui,

and Henan, have placed on the record

a number of documents to demonstrate

absence of de jure control, including the

‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the People’s

Republic of China,’’ promulgated on

May 12, 1994, the ‘‘Law of the People’s

Republic of China in Industrial

Enterprises Owned by the Whole

People,’’ adopted on April 13, 1998

(1988 Law), the ‘‘Law of the People’s

Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign

Cooperative Joint Ventures,’’ and

‘‘Regulations for Transformation of

Operational Mechanism of State-Owned

Enterprises,’’ effective as of July 23,

1992 (1992 Regulations).

In prior cases, the Department has

analyzed the 1988 Law and 1992

Regulations and found that they

establish an absence of de jure control.

See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides

with Rollers from the People’s Republic

of China, 60 FR 54472 (October 24,

1995). We have no new information in

this proceeding which would cause us

to reconsider this determination.

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that the provisions of the

above-cited 1988 Law and 1992

Regulations regarding enterprise

autonomy have not been implemented

uniformly among different sectors and/

or jurisdictions in the PRC. See ‘‘PRC

Government Findings on Enterprise

Autonomy,’’ in Foreign Broadcast

Information Service-China-93–133 (July

14, 1993). Therefore, the Department

has determined that an analysis of de

facto control is critical in determining

whether respondents are, in fact, subject

to a degree of governmental control

which would preclude the Department

from assigning separate rates.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the EPs are set by

or are subject to the approval of a

governmental agency; (2) whether the

respondent has authority to negotiate

and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses.

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, Zhejiang,

High Hope, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui,

and Henan assert the following: (1) They

each establish their own EPs

independent of the government and

without the approval of a government

authority; (2) they each negotiate

contracts, without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) they each make their own personnel

decisions including the selection of

management; and (4) they each retain

the proceeds of their export sales, and

utilize profits according to business

needs. This information supports a

preliminary finding that there is a de

facto absence of governmental control of

the management of these exporters. The

de facto impact of the regulatory

provisions embodied in the abovereferenced laws and regulations,

including those governing the

administration of the Agreement, do not

constitute the degree of control of these

firms which would preclude the

calculation of antidumping rates based

on their own, separate competitively-set

prices.

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that Inner Mongolia,

Kunshan, Zhejiang, High Hope,

Shanghai Eswell, Anhui, and Henan

have met the criteria for the application

of separate rates. We will examine this

matter further at verification.

Since Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

Zhejiang, High Hope, Shanghai Eswell,

Anhui, and Henan, are the only

responding producers/exporters and

they do not account for all shipments of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POI, we preliminarily

determine, as facts available, that all

other, non-responsive, producers/

exporters have not met the criteria for

application of separate rates. See the

discussion of the PRC-wide rate below.

Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not

Selected

The exporters who responded to

Section A of the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire but were not

selected as respondents in this

investigation (High Hope, Shanghai

Eswell, Anhui, and Henan) have applied

for separate rates, and provided

information for the Department to

consider for this purpose. Although the

Department is unable, due to

administrative constraints (see

Respondent Selection Memo), to

calculate for each of these named parties

who are exporters a rate based on their

own data, these companies cooperated

in providing all the information that the

Department requested of them. For High

Hope, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui, and

Henan, we have calculated a weightedaverage margin based on the rates

calculated for those exporters that were

selected to respond in this investigation.

Companies receiving this rate are

identified by name in the ‘‘Suspension

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

The PRC-Wide Rate

All exporters were given the

opportunity to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire. As

explained above, we received timely

responses from Inner Mongolia,

Kunshan, and Zhejiang, for which we

have calculated company-specific rates,

and timely responses to Section A of the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire from High Hope,

Shanghai Eswell, Anhui, and Henan for

which we have assigned a margin based

on the weighted-average rate of the

calculated company-specific rates of

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, and Zhejiang.

U.S. import statistics indicate that the

total quantity and value of U.S. imports

of honey from the PRC is greater than

the total quantity and value of honey

reported by the seven PRC producers/

exporters that submitted responses in

this investigation. For this reason, we

preliminarily determine that some PRC

exporters of honey failed to respond to

our questionnaire. Consequently, we are

applying a single antidumping rate—the

PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters in

the PRC based on our presumption that

those respondents who failed to

demonstrate entitlement to a separate

rate constitute a single enterprise under

common control by the government of

the PRC. See, e.g., Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s

Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707

(May 3, 2000) (Synthetic Indigo). The

PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of

subject merchandise except for entries

from Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

Zhejiang, High Hope, Shanghai Eswell,

Anhui, and Henan.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, significantly

impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute, or provides

information which cannot be verified,

the Department shall use, subject to

sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. Pursuant to

section 782(e) of the Act, the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24105

Department shall not decline to

consider submitted information if that

information is necessary to the

determination but does not meet all of

the requirements established by the

Department provided that all of the

following requirements are met: (1) The

information is submitted by the

established deadline; (2) the information

can be verified; (3) the information is

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as

a reliable basis for reaching the

applicable determination; (4) the

interested party has demonstrated that it

acted to the best of its ability; and (5)

the information can be used without

undue difficulties.

Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act

requires the Department to use facts

available when a party does not provide

the Department with information by the

established deadline or in the form and

manner requested by the Department. In

addition, section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, if the Department finds

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information,’’ the Department may use

information that is adverse to the

interests of that party as facts otherwise

available.

PRC-Wide Rate

As explained above, the exporters

comprising the single PRC-wide entity

failed to respond to the Department’s

request for information. Pursuant to

section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching

our preliminary determination, we have

used total facts available for the PRCwide rate because we did not receive the

data needed to calculate a margin for

that entity. Also, because the exporters

comprising the PRC-wide entity failed

to respond to the Department’s requests

for information, the Department has

found that the PRC-wide entity failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability.

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of

the Act, we have used an adverse

inference in selecting from the facts

available for the margin for that entity.

As adverse facts available, we assigned

the highest margin based on information

in the petition, because the margins

derived from the petition are higher

than the calculated margins for the

selected respondents.

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.

103–316, (1994) (SAA), states that

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that

the information used has probative

value. See SAA at 870.

The petitioners’ methodology for

calculating the EP and NV, in the

petition, is discussed in the initiation

notice. To corroborate the petitioners’

EP calculations, we compared the prices

in the petition to the prices submitted

by respondents for the same honey

product. To corroborate the petitioners’

NV calculations, we compared the

petitioners’ factor consumption data to

the data reported by the respondents,

and the surrogate values for these

factors in the petition to the values

selected for the preliminary

determination.

As discussed in the Memorandum to

the file entitled Corroboration of the

Petition Data for the PRC-wide entity,

dated May 4, 2001, we found that the EP

and factors of production information in

the petition were reasonable and of

probative value. As a number of the

surrogate values selected from the

preliminary determination differed from

those used in the petition, notably the

value for raw honey and ratio for factory

overhead, we compared the petition

margin calculations to the calculations

based on the selected surrogate values

wherever possible and found them to be

reasonable. Therefore, we preliminarily

determine that the petition information

has probative value. Accordingly, we

find that the highest margin from the

petition, 183.80 percent, is corroborated

within the meaning of section 776(c) of

the Act.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of honey

from the PRC were made in the United

States at less than fair value, we

compared EP to NV based on an NME

analysis, as described below. In

accordance with section

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

calculated weighted-average EPs.

Export Price

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act because Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

and Zhejiang sold the subject

merchandise directly to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States and

because CEP methodology was not

otherwise appropriate. We calculated EP

based on packed FOB or, where

appropriate, C & F prices to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for inland freight from the

plant/warehouse to the port of

exportation, and any insurance,

brokerage and handling charges paid by

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, and Zhejiang,

in the PRC. Because certain domestic

factors, such as inland freight,

insurance, brokerage and handling were

provided by NME companies, we valued

those factors using surrogate rates from

India. Where appropriate, we calculated

expenses which were incurred in U.S.

dollars (i.e., international freight) based

on the actual U.S. dollar amounts paid

for such expenses. (See Memoranda

from the Team to the File regarding

Margin Analysis for Kunshan and

Xinlong, Inner Mongolia and Sheng Li,

and Zhejiang, Hubei and Hangzhou,

dated May 4, 2001 (Margin Analysis

Memoranda)).

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

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

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more market

economy countries that: (1) are at a level

of economic development comparable to

that of the NME country; and (2) are

significant producers of comparable

merchandise. The Department initially

determined that India, Pakistan,

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the

Philippines were the countries most

comparable to the PRC in terms of

overall economic development (see the

January 9, 2001 memorandum,

Antidumping Duty Investigation on

Honey from the People’s Republic of

China: Nonmarket Economy Status and

Surrogate Country Selection).

We have relied, where possible, on

information from India, as it is the

source of the most complete information

and the only country from among the

potential surrogate countries that

produces comparable merchandise in

commercial quantities. Accordingly, we

have calculated NV by applying Indian

values to virtually all of Inner

Mongolia’s, Kunshan’s, and Zhejiang’s

factors of production. See Margin

Analysis Memoranda.

2. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c)(4)

of the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production as reported by

Inner Mongolia and its supplier (Inner

Mongolia Sheng Li Food Co. Ltd. (Sheng

Li)), Kunshan and its supplier (Kunshan

Xinlong Food Co. Ltd. (Xinlong)), and

Zhejiang and its suppliers (Hubei

Yangzijiang Apiculture Co. Ltd. (Hubei))

and Hangzhou Green Forever

Apiculture (Group) Co. (Hangzhou)) for

the POI. To calculate NV, the reported

per-unit factor quantities were

multiplied by publicly available Indian

24106 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

surrogate values (except as noted

below).

In selecting the surrogate values, we

considered the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by

including freight costs to convert them

to delivered prices. When we used

Indian import values to value inputs

sourced domestically by the Chinese

producers, we added to Indian surrogate

values a surrogate freight cost calculated

using the shorter of the reported

distance from the domestic supplier to

the factory or the distance from the

nearest seaport to the factory. This

adjustment is in accordance with the

Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.

1997). When we used non-import

surrogate values for factors sourced

domestically by the Chinese producers,

we based freight for inputs on the actual

distance from the input supplier to the

site at which the input was used. For

those values not contemporaneous with

the POI, we adjusted for inflation using

wholesale price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

To value raw honey, we used an

average of the highest and lowest price

for raw honey given in an article

published in The Tribune of India on

January 3, 2000, entitled, ‘‘Apiculture, a

major foreign exchange earner.’’

To value electricity, we used publicly

available per kilowatt hour electricity

charges as reported in the financial

statements of seven Indian companies,

as adjusted for inflation, for the period

April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999.

To value coal, we used the per

kilogram rupee price, adjusted to the

POI, as reported in the April 1, 1999

through March 31, 1999 Annual Report

for Polychem, an Indian manufacturer.

To value water, we used publicly

available water tariff rates (as of 1995–

1996 for three areas in India: Chennai,

Delhi, and Mumbai) reported in the

second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian

and Pacific Region, published by the

Asian Development Bank.

We valued labor using the U.S. dollardenominated regression-based wage

rate, adjusted to the POI (i.e., US$0.80)

in accordance with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(3).

To value beeswax, a raw honey byproduct, we used the average per

kilogram import value of beeswax into

India from April 1998 to December

1998, adjusted for inflation. Because

there is no information on the record at

this time for another raw honey byproduct, scrap honey, we are not

valuing this factor for purposes of our

preliminary determination. We will

continue to search for an appropriate

value for scrap honey, and include our

findings in our final determination.

To value truck freight rates, we used

freight costs, adjusted for inflation,

based on Indian domestic prices of truck

freight rates (for the period of October

1998 through March 1999) as published

in the Economic Times, an Indian

newspaper.

As a surrogate value for rail

transportation, we used the average

train freight rates in India for fruit juices

and syrups, published in November

1999, and adjusted for inflation.

To value inland water transportation,

we used the surrogate value, adjusted

for inflation, for inland water freight

used in the Preliminary Results of the

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Helical Spring Lock

Washers from the People’s Republic of

China, 65 FR 5493 (September 8, 2000).

This rate was reported to the

Department in the August, 1993 cable

from the U.S. Embassy in India.

For brokerage and handling, we used

price quotes from two Indian freight

forwarders in November 1999, and

adjusted for inflation.

We based our calculation of factory

overhead, selling, general, and

administrative (SG&A) expenses on

actual data reported in the 1998–1999

annual report of the Mahabaleshwar

Honey Producers Cooperative Society,

Ltd. (MHPC), a producer of the subject

merchandise in India, as adjusted for

inflation.

We valued packing materials (iron

drums) on an offer for sale from an

Indian manufacturer of iron drums

(September 2000).

For a complete analysis of surrogate

values, see Margin Analysis

Memoranda.

Critical Circumstances

On February 23, 2001, petitioners

alleged that there is a reasonable basis

to believe or suspect that critical

circumstances exist with respect to

imports of honey from the PRC. In

accordance with 19 CFR

351.206(c)(2)(i), given that this

allegation was filed at least 20 days

prior to the preliminary determination,

the Department must issue its

preliminary critical circumstances

determination no later than the

preliminary determination.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department will preliminarily

determine that critical circumstances

exist if there is a reasonable basis to

believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a

history of dumping and material injury

by reason of dumped imports in the

United States or elsewhere of the subject

merchandise, or (ii) the person by

whom, or for whose account, the

merchandise was imported knew or

should have known that the exporter

was selling the subject merchandise at

less than its fair value and that there

was likely to be material injury by

reason of such sales, and (B) there have

been massive imports of the subject

merchandise over a relatively short

period.

History of Dumping or Importer

Knowledge of Dumping

To determine whether there is a

history of injurious dumping of the

merchandise under investigation, the

Department considers evidence of an

existing antidumping order on honey

from other countries to be sufficient. We

are unaware of any antidumping order

on honey from the PRC worldwide.

Petitioners stated in their allegation of

critical circumstances that the

Preliminary Determination and the

Agreement from the original

investigation of honey from the PRC

(1995) sufficiently establishes a history

of injurious dumping in the PRC with

respect to subject merchandise. The

Department, however, does not consider

either a preliminary determination or

the existence of a suspension agreement

as sufficient evidence of a history of

injurious dumping of honey. Therefore,

the Department must examine part (ii)

of the first prong of the critical

circumstances test.

In determining whether there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that an importer knew or should have

known that the exporter was selling

honey at less than fair value, the

Department normally considers margins

of 25 percent or more for EP sales

sufficient to impute knowledge of

dumping. (See, e.g., Preliminary

Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Certain Small Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Steel Seamless

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from

the Czech Republic, 65 FR 33803, 33803

(May 25, 2000)). In the instant case, we

have preliminarily determined that the

margins for the three mandatory

respondents, Inner Mongolia, Kunshan,

and Zhejiang, are 44.00, 37.51, and

36.98 percent, respectively. We have

preliminarily determined that the

margin for each of the four cooperative

respondents for which we only

examined the separate rates portion of

the questionnaire, (High Hope, Shanghai

Eswell, Anhui, and Henan) is 39.76

percent. Furthermore, the margin

preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide

entity (the remaining exporters) is

183.80 percent. Therefore, we have

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24107

imputed knowledge of dumping to

importers of the subject merchandise

from each of the seven cooperating

exporters and to the importers of subject

merchandise from all other producers/

exporters in the PRC.

In determining whether there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that an importer knew or should have

known that there was likely to be

material injury by reason of dumped

imports, the Department normally will

look to the preliminary injury

determination of the International Trade

Commission (ITC). If the ITC finds a

reasonable indication of present

material injury to the relevant U.S.

industry, the Department will determine

that a reasonable basis exists to impute

importer knowledge that there was

likely to be material injury by reason of

dumped imports. In this case, the ITC

has found that a reasonable indication

of present material injury due to

dumping exists for subject imports of

honey from the PRC. See Honey from

the PRC, 65 FR 69573 (November 17,

2000). As a result, the Department has

determined that there is a reasonable

basis to believe or suspect that

importers of honey from the PRC from

all exporters knew or should have

known that there was likely to be

material injury by reason of dumped

imports of the subject merchandise from

the PRC.

Massive Imports

In determining whether there are

‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively

short period,’’ pursuant to section

733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department

normally compares the import volume

of the subject merchandise for at least

three months immediately preceding the

filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘base

period’’), and a comparable period of at

least three months following the filing

of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison

period’’). However, as stated in section

351.206(i) of the Department’s

regulations, if the Secretary finds that

importers, exporters, or producers had

reason to believe, at some time prior to

the beginning of the proceeding, that a

proceeding was likely, then the

Secretary may consider a time period of

not less than three months from that

earlier time. Imports normally will be

considered massive when imports

during the comparison period have

increased by 15 percent or more

compared to imports during the base

period.

In this case, the petition was filed on

September 29, 2000. On April 2, 2001,

Inner Mongolia, Kunshan, Zhejiang,

High Hope, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui,

and Henan provided monthly shipment

data for February 1999 through February

2001 for exports of subject merchandise

to the United States. Thus, we were able

to obtain exporter-specific shipment

data for a period encompassing 5

months prior to and 5 months after the

filing of the petition. On an exporterspecific basis, we then compared Inner

Mongolia’s, Kunshan’s, Zhejiang’s, High

Hope’s, Shanghai Eswell’s, Anhui’s, and

Henan’s monthly shipments from May

2000 through September 2000 to their

monthly shipments from October 2000

through February 2001. Additionally,

we compared the exporter-specific

monthly shipments from May 1999

through September 1999 to monthly

shipments from October 1999 to

February 2000 to determine whether

any increases between the base and

comparison periods in 2000 could be

attributable to others factors, including

seasonal trends.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h) we

will not consider imports to be massive

unless imports in the comparison period

have increased by at least 15 percent

over imports in the base period. We find

that of the seven companies examined,

imports of honey from High Hope and

Zhejiang showed post-filing increases of

at least 15 percent over the base period

for which no other factors appear to be

responsible. While imports from Inner

Mongolia in the comparison period in

2000/2001 were also more than 15

percent greater than those in the base

period, we also found a similar increase

during the fall/winter of 1999/2000

when compared to the spring/summer

base period in 1999. This leads us to

conclude that the increase in imports

from Inner Mongolia in the comparison

period in 2000/2001 was attributable to

factors other than the filing of the

petition, such as seasonality. Imports

from Kushan, Shanghai Eswell, Anhui,

and Henan did not show an increase of

more than 15 percent during the postfiling comparison period. Therefore, the

Department did not find critical

circumstances with respect to these

exporters.

Because the PRC-wide entity failed to

respond to our initial antidumping

questionnaire, the Department, pursuant

to section 776(a) of the Act has based its

critical circumstances determination on

the facts available. Further, because this

entity did not act to the best of its ability

to respond to the Department’s

questionnaires, we have, pursuant to

section 776(b) of the Act, used an

adverse inference in selecting from the

facts available. We used U.S. Customs

import statistics to determine whether

there were additional imports during

the base and the comparison periods not

accounted for in the shipment data for

the seven exporters named above. We

found that there were such shipments

but we were unable to distinguish the

distribution of individual exporters in

the data. Therefore, because we have no

independent means by which to

determine import levels for the PRCwide entity, we have made an adverse

inference and preliminarily determined

that critical circumstances exists for the

PRC-wide entity. See Memo to Richard

Weible regarding Preliminary

Affirmative and Negative

Determinations of Critical

Circumstances, May 4, 2001 (CC Memo).

In their April 2, 2001 submission,

respondents argue that, when analyzing

their export data, the Department must

take into consideration two factors that

they claim significantly influenced the

recent export patterns of honey from the

PRC. First, they argue that substantial

uncertainty existed concerning exports

of honey from the PRC during the

summer of 2000 because of the

Department’s delay in completing an

administrative review of the Agreement

underway during that time period. This

market confusion was then further

increased by the uncertainty over the

amount of quota and reference prices

that could potentially apply to honey

exports on and after August 1, 2000. As

a result, respondents argue, exporters

either ceased or significantly decreased

their exports to the United States during

the summer. Any subsequent increase in

exports, they argue, is accordingly due

to this abnormal period of suppressed

exports. Second, the Department must

also consider that many honey exporters

export less honey during July, August,

and September, they argue, because they

are busy during those months

purchasing and processing honey for

export later in the year.

With respect to the first argument, our

initial comparison of export levels in

the 2000 base period and the 1999 base

period shows that High Hope’s and

Zhejiang’s exports and exports for the

PRC-wide entity during the 2000 base

period were not ‘‘suppressed.’’ With

respect to the second argument, a

comparison of the 2000 data for July,

August, and September and for October,

November, and December with the 1999

data for the same months for these

entities does not initially appear to

support the claim that exports of honey

are normally lower during those

months. See CC Memo. However, we

will verify the data with respect to this

issue and consider these arguments

further for purposes of the final

determination of critical circumstances.

In summary, we find that there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that importers had knowledge of

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