[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14725-14731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6810]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-838]


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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karla Whalen or David J. Goldberger, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-6309 or (202) 482-4136, respectively.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that honey from the People's Republic of 
China (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 Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins are shown in 
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on October 24, 1994, (59 
FR 54434, October 31, 1994), the following events have occurred:
    On November 1, 1994, we sent a survey to the PRC's Ministry of 
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFREC) and the China Chamber 
of Commerce for Foodstuffs, Native Produce and Animal By-products 
Importers and Exporters (the Chamber) requesting the identification of 
producers and exporters, and information on production and sales of 
honey exported to the United States.
    A response to the survey was received on November 29, 1994. Based 
on this information, the Department sent full questionnaires including 
Attachment I (dealing with claims for Market Oriented Industry (MOI) 
status) and Attachment II (dealing with claims for Separate Rates), to 
MOFTEC and the Chamber, requesting that the questionnaire be 
transmitted to all companies that process honey for export to the 
United States and to all companies that were engaged in exporting honey 
to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). On 
December 13 1994, MOFTEC responded that it had done so.
    On November 17, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured or threatened with material 
injury by reason of imports of honey from the PRC that are allege to be 
sold at less than fair value.
    On January 3, 1995, the Department received section A responses 
from the Chamber and 28 Chinese exporters and their respective 
producers. Supplemental information was received on January 5 and 23, 
1995. Each exporter is listed with its supplier(s):

Kunshan Xinlong Food, Ltd.
    Kunshan Xinlong
Jiangsu Native Produce Import and Export
    Jiangsu Sweet and Qinghai Provincial Bee Products
Jiangxi Native Produce Import and Export
    Jianxi Ao Shan Duo Qi Beverage Factory [[Page 14726]] 
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-product Import and Export
    Hangzhou Lewei Food Factory
Heilongjiang Native Produce and Animal By-product Import and Export
    Baoji Kanda Honey Corportion
Inner Mongolia Native Produce and Animal By-product
    Inner Mongolia Shengli Food Co.
Chang Cheng Industrial Co., Ltd.
    Changcheng Industrial Co., Itd.
Shaanxi Native Produce Import and Export
    Shaanxi Export Food Factory
Kunshan Foreign Trade Co.
    Kunshan Xinlong Foods Ltd.
China (TUHSU) Super Food Import and Export
    Xinle Hebei Honey Factory
    Shanghai Bee Product Factory
    Baoji Kanda Honey Corporation
Hubei Native Produce Import and Export
Tianjin Native Produce Import and Export
    Hebei Province Bee Product Company
Shandong Native Produce Import and Export
    Hu Shan Dried Fruits Processing Company
Qinghai Cereals and Oils Import and Export
    Qinghai Provincial Bee Products Company
Shanghai Native Produce Import and Export
    Jiangsu Sweet
Guangxi Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation
    Kunshan Xinlong Foods Company, Ltd.
Sichuan Native Produce Import and Export
    Anhui Tianxin Honey Product Co.
China (TUHSU) Flavors and Fragrances Import and Export
    Kunshan Xinlong Food Ltd.
Shandong Cereals and Oils Import and Export
    Weifang Hua Yuan Foodstuffs, Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Native Produce Import and Export
    Ningbo Natural Bee Products Factory
Anhui Cereals & Oils Import and Export
    Chaohu Baichun Pharmaceutical Ltd.
Jiangsu Sweet Foods Ltd.
    Jiangsu Sweet
Hebei Native Produce Import and Export
    Xinle Hebei Honey Factory
Anhui Medicines and Health Produce Import and Export
    Zhuzhou General Trade Honey Product Factory
Xian Native Produce and Animal By-product Import and Export
    Shaanxi Jingbian Honey Processing Factory
Liaoning Native Produce Import and Export
    Liaoning Honey Factory
Anhui Native Produce Import and Export
    Anhui Wuhu Milk Products Factory
Henan Native Produce Import and Export
    Xinyang Honey Processing Factory

    On January 19, 1995, we received responses to the remaining 
sections of the questionnaire from the above-mentioned exporters that 
had sales to the United States and their suppliers during the POI. We 
also received responses from the Additional information concerning 
Attachment II of the questionnaire was received on January 23, 1995.
    In January and February 1995, we received comments from petitioners 
and respondents regarding separate rates and other issues.
    In February 1995, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire based on its analysis of the questionnaire response. We 
also sent a supplemental ``Separate Rates'' questionnaire to MOFTEC and 
to the Chamber.
    On January 27, 1995, the Department requested parties to submit 
publicly available published information concerning surrogate values 
for valuating the factors of production for honey. On February 10 and 
February 24, 1995, petitioners and respondents, respectively, did so.
    On February 27, 1995, responses to the Department's supplemental 
questionnaires were submitted. In addition, on March 3 and March 6, 
1995, responses to the supplemental ``Separate Rates'' questionnaire 
were received.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are natural honey, 
artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by 
weight, and preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 
percent natural honey by weight. The subject products include 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 subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 
0409.00.00, 1702.90.50, 2106.90.61, and 2106.90.69 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Standing

    On January 23, 1995, respondents challenged petitioners' standing 
to file this case with regard to ``artificial honey containing more 
than 50 percent natural honey by weight'' and ``preparations of natural 
honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight'' because 
the ITC could not be certain that there was substantial production of 
``mixtures of honey'' or ``honey preparations'' in the United States.
    Pursuant to section 732(b)(1) of the Act, in order to have standing 
to file an antidumping petition, the petitioner must be an ``interested 
party.'' The term ``interested party'' is defined, in relevant part, as 
``a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of the 
like product.'' (Section 771(9)(C) of the Act) Therefore, in 
determining whether the petitioners have standing as interested parties 
to file a petition on the class or kind of merchandise, the Department 
must determine whether the petitioners produce the like product.
    For purposes of determining standing, as is our usual practice, the 
Department has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the ITC's 
definition of like product in this case. The ITC has determined that 
there is a single like product consisting of ``natural honey, 
artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by 
weight, and preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 
percent natural honey by weight.'' Because it is undisputed that 
petitioners produce merchandise that falls within the like product 
category, as defined by the Department, they have standing with respect 
to all imports within the class or kind of merchandise, including 
mixtures of honey and honey preparations. See Sandvik AB v. United 
States, 721 F. Supp. 1322 (CIT, 1989), aff'd without op., Sandvik AB v. 
United States, 904 F. 2d 46 (1990).
Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is May 1, 1994, through October 
31, 1994.

Selection of Respondents

    On February 7, 1995, the Department solicited comments on its 
intention to focus the investigation on four exporters and their 
suppliers due to the administrative burden of analyzing and verifying 
such a large number of cooperating exporters located throughout the PRC 
(see Memorandum from Louis Apple, Program Manager, Office of 
Antidumping Investigations, to Gary Taverman, Acting Director, Office 
of Antidumping Investigations, dated February 6, 1995). Comments on 
this decision were received form respondents, petitioners, and U.S. 
importers of honey.
    After a review of the comments received, the Department determined 
that a full analysis and verification of the four largest exporters 
that account for over 75 percent by volume of the subject merchandise 
imports from the PRC during the POI would provide an adequate basis for 
calculating a margin for purposes of collecting estimated duties. Thus, 
the analysis in this notice is based on the following exporters and 
their respective suppliers: (1) Kunshan Xinlong; (2) Jiangsu Native; 
(3) Jiangxi Native; and (4) Zhejiang Native. On March 2, 1995, the 
Department notified MOFTEC of this decision, pursuant to section 
353.42(b)(2) of the Department's regulations.

Separate Rates

    Each of the responding Chinese companies has requested a separate, 
[[Page 14727]] company-specific rate Kunshan Xinlong is a foreign joint 
venture which was established in 1992 and is owned by both PRC and 
foreign investors. Jiangsu Native is a limited liability corporation 
which is owned in part by its employees and in part by ``all the 
people.'' According to their business licenses, Jiangxi Native and 
Zhejiang Native are state-owned enterprises (``owned by all the 
people'').
    As stated in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 
22585, 22586, May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide), and the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sebacic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China (59 FR 28053, May 31, 1994 (``Sebacic 
Acid''), ownership of a company by all the people does not require the 
application of a single rate. Accordingly, each of the four respondents 
is eligible for consideration for a separate rate.
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising our of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers'') 
and amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, 
the Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only 
if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The respondents in this investigation have submitted a number of 
documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including two 
enactments indicating that the responsibility for managing enterprises 
``owned by all of the people'' is with the enterprises themselves and 
not with the government. These are the ``Law of the People's Republic 
of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People,'' adopted 
on April 13, 1988, (1988 Law) and the ``Regulations for Transformation 
of Operational Mechanism of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises,'' 
approved on August 23, 1992 (1992 Regulations).
    The 1988 Law and 1992 Regulations shifted control of enterprises 
owned by all the people from the government to the enterprises 
themselves. The 1988 Law provides that enterprises owned ``by the whole 
people'' shall make their own management decisions, be responsible for 
their own profits and losses, choose their own suppliers, and purchase 
their own goods and materials. The 1988 Law also has other provisions 
which support a finding that such enterprises have management 
independence from the government in making management decisions. The 
1992 Regulations provide that these same enterprises can, for example, 
set their own prices (Article IX); make their own production decisions 
(Article XI); use their own retained foreign exchange (Article XII); 
allocate profits (Article II); sell their own products without 
government interference (Article X); make their own investment 
decisions (Article XIII); dispose of their own assets (Article XV); and 
hire and fire their employees without government approval (Article 
XVII).
    Honey exports are also affected by another law, passed by the State 
Council in 1994, which the Department has not previously considered in 
the context of the Separate Rates issue. In April 1994, the ``Emergent 
Notice of Changes in Issuing Authority for Export Licenses Regarding 
Public Quota Bidding for Certain Commodities'' (1994 Quota Measure) 
entered into force, superseding earlier laws dealing with the export of 
the named commodities. Companies exporting honey during the POI, 
including the respondents, were subject to this law.
    The 1994 Quota Measure cancelled previous export licenses for honey 
and put into place a licensing system based on a public bidding 
process. Now, any company (including barter, joint venture, solely 
foreign owned enterprises, etc.) wishing to export honey to any country 
must submit bids for a portion of a global quota of honey to be 
exported.
    The global quota is determined by the Chamber in consultation with 
the exporting companies, based on an analysis of the annual exports 
over the last three years, the current supply and demand in the 
international market, and the Chinese domestic supply. The Chamber 
recommends this quota amount to MOFTEC, which to date has accepted 
every such recommendation made by the Chamber.
    The process of bidding for a portion of the quota is administered 
by representatives of MOFTEC and the Chamber. MOFTEC stated that each 
bidding company decides its own bid price, which reflects the amount it 
is willing to pay for a portion of the quota, and the quantity for 
which it intends to bid. Winning companies are selected by a computer 
program based on the tendered prices and a publicly available 
mathematical formula, as detailed in Article XIV and Article XVI of the 
``Guidelines of Public Quota Bidding for Export Commodities.'' Each 
winning company earns the right to an export license. Companies that 
have earned the right to export honey must deposit a portion of the bid 
price with the government in the form of a bond upon notification of 
their winning status and pay the balance of the bid price times the 
quantity allotted to the government upon claiming their honey export 
license.
    After the bidding process is completed, the Chamber consults with 
winning bidders and analyzes past years' export prices to determine the 
appropriate minimum floor price in light of prices in the international 
market. The licensed exporters are free to negotiate prices above this 
floor. However, the program's regulations state that there are severe 
penalties for selling below the floor price, including revocation of 
the right to bid for or hold an export license for that commodity for 
up to two years. Despite this restriction in the regulations, 
respondent's counsel has stated that certain exporters have reported 
that they, in fact, sell honey below the floor price.
    Respondents argue that: (1) the licensing process should not be 
seen as the Chinese government's reassertion of control over the 
companies, and (2) the 1994 Quota Measure and the bidding process do 
not allow the Chinese government to manipulate the price of exported 
honey. Respondents view this procedure as an effort by the Chinese 
government to provide every company an equal opportunity to bid for 
part of the quota on a fair and impartial basis and to increase the 
price of PRC honey through macro-economic means.
    Petitioners, on the other hand, view the 1994 Quota Measure as 
evidence that the honey industry in the PRC is controlled by the 
Chinese central government. Petitioners state that the 1994 Quota 
Measure extends the quota system on honey ``to cover worldwide exports 
and to control worldwide prices of exported honey,'' and see this 
measure as evidence of de jure control of the honey industry by the 
Chinese government.
    After a thorough examination of the nature of the government 
involvement associated with the 1994 Quota Measure described above, the 
Department has preliminarily determined that, although there is some 
government involvement with respect to the export of products subject 
to investigation, there is an absence of government control over 
exporting pricing and marketing decisions of firms.
    We find that the bidding process, as described in detail in the 
official [[Page 14728]] documents provided for the record, permits 
independent export pricing decisions. The quota system operates on the 
basis of transparent and well-defined rules. All companies are free to 
bid for the right to export honey according to their own business 
plans. Further, companies are free to independently negotiate export 
prices with their customers above the floor price, which the exporting 
companies themselves are instrumental in setting. MOFTEC has claimed 
that it does not involve itself in the price-setting or market 
destination of companies that have won the right to export honey. Thus, 
allocation of the export quota is arrived at in a competitive form, and 
separate prices are set by each enterprise with industry input as to 
the floor price and in open competition with respect to the final 
price. Furthermore, under the 1994 Quota Measure, honey exporters 
compete with each other for customers in the global marketplace. Thus, 
the 1994 measure does not involve the type of de jure government 
control over export pricing and marketing decisions contemplated in the 
separate rates test.
    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 to 
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 export prices are set by or 
subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide and Sebacic Acid).
    Kunshan Xinlong, Jiangsu Native, Jiangxi Native and Zhejiang Native 
have each asserted that (1) it establishes its own export prices above 
the floor in conformance with the 1994 Quota Measure and the PRC 
government does not set or approve the actual prices negotiated between 
buyers and sellers for honey imports into the United States; (2) it 
negotiates contracts on a case-by-case basis based on market 
conditions, without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions, and there is 
no information on the record that suggests central government control 
over selection of management; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its 
export sales, uses profits according to its business needs and has the 
authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. In addition, 
questionnaire responses indicate that company-specific pricing during 
the POI does not suggest coordination among exporters (i.e.,  the 
prices for the same grades of honey differ among companies). This 
information supports a preliminary finding that there is a de facto 
absence of governmental control of the management of these firms. The 
de facto impact of the regulatory provisions embodied in the 1994 Quota 
Measure does 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 Kunshan Xinlong, 
Jiangsu Native, Jiangxi Native and Zhejiang Native have met the 
criteria for the application of separate rates.
Market Oriented Industry

    The respondents participating in this investigation have claimed 
that their material inputs are acquired at market prices and that, 
accordingly, we should find that the Chinese honey industry is a market 
oriented industry (MOI) and the Department should use the actual PRC 
prices for valuing these inputs.
    The criteria for determining whether a MOI exists are: (1) For the 
merchandise under investigation, there must be virtually no government 
involvement in setting prices or amounts to be produced; (2) the 
industry producing the merchandise under investigation should be 
characterized by private or collective ownership; and (3) market-
determined prices must be paid for all significant inputs, whether 
material or non-material e.g., labor and overhead), and for all but an 
insignificant proportion of all the inputs accounting for the total 
value of the merchandise under investigation. (See, Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Amendment to 
Antidumping Duty Order: Chrome Plated Lug Nuts from the People's 
Republic of China, 57 FR 15052, 15054, April 24, 1992) (Lug Nuts 
Redetermination).
    We recognize that certain sectors in the PRC may be becoming more 
market-oriented and that honey appears to be one of the more 
decentralized industries. However, we have determined that the MOI 
criteria outlined above have not been met in this investigation. For 
example, the third prong has clearly not been met in this case. 
Respondents have merely made unsubstantiated claims that the prices for 
significant inputs in processing honey are market-determined. 
Respondents have provided no information regarding the relevant real 
estate and capital markets. There is no description of the supply and 
demand factors supporting the claim that raw honey prices in China are 
market-driven, nor is there evidence on the record regarding supply and 
demand conditions in the labor market. Although the Ministry of 
Agriculture submitted a statement that coal and electricity prices are 
``set by the market,'' respondents do not elaborate on this statement 
nor do they provide any factual support for such a statement. It is 
known that electricity is rationed in the PRC, but respondents have not 
explained if and how electricity is rationed in the case of honey 
producers and on what basis.
    Therefore, we preliminarily find that a MOI does not exist, and 
accordingly have calculated foreign market value in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the statute.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy country 
(NME) in all past antidumping investigations and administrative reviews 
(see, e.g., Sebacic Acid and Silicon Carbide). Neither respondents nor 
petitioners have challenged such treatment. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 771(18)(c) of the Act, we will continue to treat the PRC 
as an NME in this investigation.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base FMV on the NME producers' 
factors of production, valued in a comparable market economy that is a 
significant producer of the merchandise. Section 773(c)(2) of the Act 
alternatively provides that when available information is inadequate 
for using the factors of production methodology, FMV may be based on 
the [[Page 14729]] export prices for comparable merchandise from market 
economy countries at a comparable level of economic development.
    For purposes of the preliminary determination, we have relied on 
the methodology provided by section 773(c)(1) of the Act to determine 
FMV. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the 
FMV section, below.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producers' 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 has 
determined that India, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and 
Indonesia are the countries most comparable to the PRC in terms of 
overall economic development (see Memorandum from David Mueller, 
Director, Office of Policy, to Gary Taverman, Acting Director, Office 
of Antidumping Investigations, dated January 25, 1995). According to 
the information we have developed, India appears to be the most 
significant producer of honey among these six potential surrogate 
countries. Accordingly, we have calculated foreign market value (FMV) 
using Indian prices for the PRC producers' factors of production. We 
have obtained and relied upon published, publicly available information 
wherever possible.
Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of honey from the PRC to the United 
States by Kunshan Xinlong, Jiangsu Native, Jiangxi Native and Zhejian 
Native were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States 
price (USP) to the foreign market value (FMV), as specified in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this 
notice.

United States Price

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by the 
Chinese exporters to unrelated parties in the United States prior to 
importation into the United States.
    For the four investigated exporters, we calculated purchase price 
based on packed, CIF and C&F foreign-port prices to unrelated 
purchasers in the United States. Where necessary, we made deductions 
for foreign inland freight and transportation insurance, valued in 
India.
    The four respondents reported commissions incurred on certain 
sales. Our analysis of these expenses, based on respondents' 
submissions, indicates that these expenses are actually discounts from 
price. Accordingly, we have deducted them from gross price.
    Two exporters, Jiangsu Native and Zhejian Native reported that 
their merchandise was shipped on market-economy carriers and that they 
paid for these services in U.S. dollars. These expenses included 
containerization and loading charges. Accordingly, for those companies, 
we deducted the reported ocean freight expense. The other two 
exporters, Kunshan Xinlong and Jiangxi Native, reported the use of both 
market economy and PRC based shipping companies. However, neither 
identified which sales were shipped by the relevant ocean freight 
companies. As best information available (BIA), we applied the higher 
of the reported expense or the amount provided by an international 
shipping company for transportation between Shanghai, the port of 
exportation, and various U.S. destinations. Where an international 
shipping rate was used, we also deducted containerization and loading 
fees valued in India, because these charges were included in the ocean 
freight value.

Foreign Market Value

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated FMV 
based on factors of production reported by the factories in the PRC 
which produced the subject merchandise for the four exporters. The 
factors used to produce the subject merchandise include raw honey, 
labor, factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, 
and packing. The reported factor quantities were multiplied by Indian 
values. Where possible, we used public information. For a complete 
analysis of surrogate values, see the Valuation Memorandum, dated March 
13, 1995, for this investigation.
    We did not add separately a freight expense for transporting raw 
material from the supplier to the processor because this expense 
appears to be included in the surrogate values used (see the Valuation 
Memorandum).
    To value raw honey, we used public information from the August-
September, 1993, edition of Khadigramodyog, an English-language Indian 
agricultural journal. We adjusted the factor values from 1993 to the 
POI using wholesale price indices published in International Financial 
Statistics (IFS) by the International Monetary Fund.
    To value labor, we used information regarding the Indian trade 
industry from the International Labor Office's 1993 Yearbook of Labor 
Statistics. We adjusted the factor value to the POI using consumer 
price indices published in the International Financial Statistics, 
consistent with our treatment of this value in past NME cases (see, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Coumarin from the People's Republic of China 59 FR 66895, December 28, 
1994).
    To value factory overhead, including energy, we calculated a 
percentage based on data from the August-September, 1993 edition of 
Khadigramodyog. For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, we used the ten percent statutory minimum because we were 
unable to obtain an Indian value. For profit, we used the statutory 
minimum of eight percent of materials, labor, factory overhead, and 
SG&A expenses because we were unable to obtain an Indian value. We 
added packing, using Indian values obtained from Indian Import 
Statistics.

Margins for Exporters Whose Responses Were Not Analyzed

    For the responding companies that provided all the questionnaire 
responses requested of them and otherwise fully cooperated with the 
Department's investigation, but nonetheless, were not fully analyzed by 
the Department, due to limited resources, (see Selection of Respondents 
section above), we are assigning the weighted-average of the rates of 
the four fully analyzed companies. Companies receiving this rate are 
identified by name in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this 
notice.
    We are not assigning a single country-wide rate to all exporters 
other than those which had been individually determined to have met the 
criteria for a separate rate. This change in methodology was 
necessitated by the particular circumstances of this case. The parties 
who responded but were not analyzed have applied for separate rates, 
and provided materials for the Department to consider in this request. 
Although the Department is unable, due to administrative constraints, 
to consider the request for separate rates status, and to calculate a 
separate rate for each of these named parties, there has been no 
failure on the part of these firms to provide requested information. 
Because it would not be appropriate for the Department to refuse to 
consider an affirmative documented request for an examination of 
whether these companies were independent of any [[Page 14730]] non-
respondent firms and then assign to the cooperative firms the rate for 
the noncooperative firms, which in this case is an adverse margin based 
on best information available, the Department has assigned a special 
single rate for these firms.
Best Information Available (BIA)

    The following discussion regarding the application of BIA applies 
to all exporters other than those that have responded to our 
questionnaires. Because no information has been presented to the 
Department to prove otherwise, any exporter of subject merchandise that 
did not respond to the Department's questionnaires is presumed to be 
under government control, and, therefore, is not entitled to its own 
separate dumping margin. The evidence on record indicates the 
responding companies may not account for all exports of the subject 
merchandise. In the absence of responses from all exporters, therefore, 
we are basing the All PRC rate on BIA, pursuant to section 776(c) of 
the Act (see Silicon Carbide).
    In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology, whereby the Department normally assigns lower 
margins to those respondents that cooperated in an investigation and 
more adverse margins to those respondents that did not cooperate in an 
investigation. When a company refuses to provide the information 
requested in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes the 
Department's investigation, it is appropriate for the Department to 
assign to that company the higher of (a) the highest margin alleged in 
the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in 
the investigation (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate From Belgium (58 FR 37083, July 9, 1993). In this 
investigation, since the evidence indicates that not all PRC exporters 
of honey responded to our questionnaire, we are assigning to any PRC 
company, other than those specifically identified below, the highest 
calculated margin, which is higher than the margin alleged in the 
petition, as revised by the Department (see Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation: Honey from the People's Republic of China, (59 FR 
54434, October 31, 1994).

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify all 
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of honey 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 amount by which the FMV exceeds the 
USP as shown below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kunshan Xinlong Food, Ltd..................................       146.37
Jiangsu Native Produce Import & Export.....................       127.52
Jiangxi Native Produce Import & Export.....................       157.16
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Product Import & Export       131.86
For the Following Other Responding Firms:..................       144.61
  Heilongjiang Native Produce and Animal By-product Import              
   and Export..............................................  ...........
  Inter Mongolia Native Produce and Animal By-product......  ...........
  Chang Cheng Industrial Co. Ltd...........................  ...........
  Shaanxi Native Produce Import and Export.................  ...........
  Kunshan Foreign Trade Co.................................  ...........
  China (TUHSU) Super Food Import and Export...............  ...........
  Hubei Native Produce Import and Export...................  ...........
  Tianjin Native Produce Import and Export.................  ...........
  Chanting Native Produce Import and Export................  ...........
  Qinghai Cereals and Oils Import and Export...............  ...........
  Shanghai Native Produce Import and Export................  ...........
  Guangxi Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export                
   Corporation.............................................  ...........
  Sichuan Native Produce Import and Export.................  ...........
  China (TUHSU) Flavors and Fragrances Import and Export...  ...........
  Shandong Cereals and Oils Import and Export..............  ...........
  Ningbo Native Produce Import and Export..................  ...........
  Anhui Cereals & Oils Import and Export...................  ...........
  Jiangsu Sweet Foods, Ltd.................................  ...........
  Hebei Native Produce Import and Export...................  ...........
  Anhui Medicines and Health Produce Import and Export.....  ...........
  Xian Native Produce and Animal By-product Import and                  
   Export..................................................  ...........
  Liaoning Native Produce Import and Export................  ...........
  Anhui Native Produce Import and Export...................  ...........
  Henan Native Produce Import and Export...................  ...........
All PRC....................................................       157.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The All PRC rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise 
except for entries from exporters that are identified above.

ITC 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 [[Page 14731]] 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

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than May 4, 1995, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than May 11, 1995. In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing if requested, to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held at 1:00 
p.m. on May 16, 1995, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4803, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 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 to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Request 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants: and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. In this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination within 75 days 
after the preliminary determination.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-6810 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M