[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33099-33103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-13881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review: Honey from the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. 
(Wuhan), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the 
People's Republic of China. The period of review covers the period 
December 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. The preliminarily results are 
listed below in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.'' 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza at (202) 482-3019 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
duty order on honey from the PRC on December 10, 2001. See Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China, 66 
FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). On June 25, 2002, the Department received 
from Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. (Wuhan), a producer and exporter of 
the subject merchandise, a properly filed request for a new shipper 
review under the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(c) 
of the Department's regulations. Under these provisions, an exporter 
that is also a producer of the subject merchandise, in requesting a new 
shipper review, must certify to the following: (i) it did not export 
the merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation 
(POI); and (ii) it is not affiliated with any exporter or producer who 
exported the subject merchandise during that period. Moreover, in an 
antidumping proceeding involving imports from a non-market economy 
country, the new shipper must also certify that its export activities 
are not controlled by the central government. If these provisions are 
met, the Department will conduct a new shipper review to establish an 
individual weighted-average dumping margin for such new shipper, if the 
Department has not previously established such a margin for the 
exporter or producer. (See generally section 351.214(b)(2) of the 
Department's regulations.)
    The regulations further require that the exporter or producer 
include in its request documentation establishing: (i) the date on 
which the merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption, or, if it cannot establish the date of first entry, 
the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the 
United States, or, if the merchandise has not yet been shipped or 
entered, the date of sale; (ii) the volume of that and subsequent 
shipments; and (iii) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated 
customer. See section 351.214(b)(2)(iv).
    Wuhan's request was accompanied by information and certifications 
establishing that it did not export the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POI, and that it was not affiliated with any 
company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POI. Wuhan provided information and certifications that 
demonstrated the date on which it first shipped and entered honey for 
consumption in the United States, the volume of that shipment, and the 
date of the first sale to the unaffiliated customer in the United 
States. Additionally, Wuhan certified that its export activities are 
not controlled by the central government.
    Because the Department determined that Wuhan's request met the 
requirements of section 351.214 of its regulations, on August 6, 2002, 
the Department published its initiation of this new shipper review for 
the period December 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002.\1\ (See Honey from 
the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping 
Duty Reviews (67 FR 50862, August 6, 2002).) Accordingly, the 
Department is now conducting this review in accordance with section 751 
of the Act and section 351.214 of its regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We also initiated a new shipper review based on a request 
filed by Chengdu-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dubao). 
However, on January 23, 2003, the Department rescinded the new 
shipper review with respect to Dubao. See Honey from the People's 
Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 68 FR 4760 (January 30, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 6, 2002, we issued the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Wuhan. On September 12, 2002, Wuhan submitted its 
Section A questionnaire response. On October 4, 2002, Wuhan submitted 
its Section C and D questionnaire responses. On October 18, 2002, 
petitioners submitted comments on Wuhan's section A, C, and D 
questionnaire responses.\2\ On November 7, 2002, we issued a 
supplemental questionnaire covering Wuhan's questionnaire responses. On 
November 18, 2002, petitioners

[[Page 33100]]

submitted a letter requesting that the Department conduct a 
verification of the responses submitted by Wuhan. On December 5, 2002, 
we received Wuhan's supplemental questionnaire response. On December 
20, 2002, petitioners submitted comments on Wuhan's supplemental 
questionnaire response. On January 23, 2003, the Department extended 
the preliminary results of this new shipper review by 120 days until 
May 27, 2003. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension 
of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty 
Review, 68 FR 4761 (January 30, 2003). On January 31, 2003, we issued a 
second supplemental questionnaire to Wuhan. On February 25, 2003, we 
received Wuhan's second supplemental questionnaire response. On 
February 28, 2003, the Department provided the parties with an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information regarding 
surrogate country selection and factors of production surrogate values 
for consideration in the preliminary results of this review. On March 
4, 2003, petitioners submitted comments for consideration in the 
Department's verification of Wuhan's questionnaire responses. On March 
5, 2003, Wuhan submitted a revision to its February 25, 2003, second 
supplemental questionnaire response. On March 14, 2003, through March 
18, 2003, the Department conducted verification of Wuhan's responses. 
See ``Verification'' section below. On March 31, 2003 and April 18, 
2003, petitioners, and Wuhan submitted publicly available information 
to value the factors of production and rebuttal comments. On April 28, 
2003, Wuhan submitted additional comments with regard to new factual 
information submitted by petitioners in their April 18, 2003, rebuttal 
comments. On May 1, 2003, petitioners submitted additional arguments 
regarding the bona fides of Wuhan's sale and certain factors of 
production surrogate value information. On May 9, 2003, Wuhan submitted 
rebuttal comments to petitioners' bona fides arguments and certain 
factors of production surrogate value information. On May 15, 2003, 
petitioners submitted declarations executed by researchers that 
gathered information regarding the Indian honey industry. On May 19, 
2003, petitioners responded to comments made by Wuhan in its May 9, 
2003, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey 
Association are petitioners in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered by this review 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 review is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service (as 
of March 1, 2003, renamed the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection) (Customs) purposes, the Department's written description of 
the merchandise under order is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act and section 351.307 of 
the Department's regulations, we conducted verification of the 
questionnaire responses of Wuhan. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of Wuhan's production 
facilities, its sales offices in Shanghai, and the examination of 
relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are 
outlined in the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic 
of China (PRC) (A-570-863): Sales and Factors of Production 
Verification Report for Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd., dated April 22, 
2003 (Wuhan Verification Report). A public version of this report is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 of the 
Main Commerce Building.

New Shipper Status

    Based on questionnaire responses submitted by Wuhan, and our 
verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Wuhan has met the 
requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. We have 
determined that Wuhan made its first sale and/or shipment of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that Wuhan was not 
affiliated with any exporter or producer that previously shipped to the 
United States.
    In submissions dated December 20, 2002 and March 4, 2003, 
petitioners allege that Wuhan's sale to the United States during the 
POR does not reflect a bona fide commercial transaction. Petitioners 
argue that the quantity of Wuhan's sale appears to be unusual because 
bulk honey is traded internationally in ocean-going full container load 
lots. In its February 25, 2003, second supplemental questionnaire 
response, Wuhan explains that its first sale to the United States was 
less than a full container load because of commercial factors unique to 
the U.S. market at the time the sale was made (i.e., thorough testing 
of PRC honey for antibiotics and the application of an antidumping duty 
margin of 183 percent). Nonetheless, Wuhan argues that the amount 
shipped is still significant and represents a viable commercial 
quantity for a sale of honey.
    In a submission dated May 1, 2003, petitioners submitted additional 
arguments regarding the bona fides of Wuhan's transaction. In 
particular, petitioners argue that the unreasonably high price paid for 
Wuhan's sale of subject merchandise to the United States demonstrates 
that the reported sale is not bona fide. Petitioners contend that the 
sale price is significantly higher than prevailing prices at which 
other PRC producers and exporters sold honey to U.S. customers during 
the POR. Thus, petitioners argue that Wuhan's U.S. customer could have 
obtained the same quality product from other PRC exporters for a 
substantially lower price. On May 9, 2003, Wuhan submitted rebuttal 
comments to petitioners' bona fides allegations. Specifically, Wuhan 
argues that petitioners' claims that its sale under review was not bona 
fide require the Department to (1) ignore verified evidence of 
subsequent sales by Wuhan at even higher prices, and (2) reject Wuhan's 
rational explanation of the reasons why its first sale consisted of a 
less-than-full container-load and a proper reading of the law regarding 
the deposit requirement prior to initiation of a new shipper review.
    As an initial matter, the Department examined the average unit 
values (AUVs) of imports into the United States of comparable 
merchandise from the PRC during the POR. We note that in comparison to 
shipments from other PRC honey exporters/producers, the quantity of 
Wuhan's shipment is among the lowest and its price is among the 
highest.
    Due to the time constraints in issuing these preliminary results, 
the Department was unable to complete its analysis with respect to 
Wuhan's pricing and terms of sale to the United States nor fully 
analyze submissions from petitioners and respondent dated May 1, 2003 
and after. We intend to fully examine all issues pertaining to the bona 
fides of Wuhan's transaction, including the relationship between 
Wuhan's sale and imports into the United States of other PRC honey 
producers/exporters, for purposes of the final results of this review.

[[Page 33101]]

    In summary, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, we 
are treating Wuhan's sale of honey to the United States as a bona fide 
transaction. However, as noted above, the Department intends to 
continue to carefully examine this issue for the final results of this 
review.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a presumption that all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping 
duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence 
of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 
with respect to its export activities. In this review, Wuhan requested 
a separate company-specific rate.
    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent in its 
export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate, 
company-specific rate, the Department analyzes the exporting entity in 
an NME country 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, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), and amplified by 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-22587 
(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).
    The Department's separate-rate test is unconcerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/ border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, 
quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are 
imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over 
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-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).
    Wuhan provided separate-rate information in its responses to our 
original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a 
separate-rates analysis to determine whether this producer/exporter is 
independent from government control (see Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic 
of China, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)).
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 and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR 20588, 20589.
    Wuhan has 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'' (May 12, 1994) and the ``Administrative 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the 
Registration of Legal Corporations'' (June 3, 1998). The Department has 
analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of de 
jure control. See, e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). At verification, we found that Wuhan's 
business license and ``Certificate of Approval-For Enterprises with 
Foreign Trade Rights in the People's Republic of China'' were granted 
in accordance with these laws. Moreover, the results of verification 
support the information provided regarding these PRC laws. See Wuhan 
Verification Report. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there 
is an absence of de jure control over Wuhan's export activities.
De Facto Control
    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a 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 its 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 at 22587.
    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Silicon Carbide at 22586-22587. 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.
    Wuhan has asserted the following: (1) it is a privately-owned 
company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of 
export prices; (3) its chief executive officer and authorized employees 
have the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) it does not have to 
notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) 
there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) it 
is responsible for financing its own losses. Wuhan's questionnaire 
responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. 
Furthermore, our analysis of the responses during verification reveals 
no other information indicating the existence of government control. 
See Wuhan Verification Report, at 7-9. Consequently, because evidence 
on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, over the company's export activities, we preliminarily 
determine that Wuhan has met the criteria for the application of a 
separate rate. For further discussion of the Department's preliminary 
determination regarding the issuance of separate rates, see Separate 
Rates Decision Memorandum to Richard Weible, Office Director, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group III, dated May 27, 2003, on file in the CRU located 
in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondent's sale of the subject 
merchandise to the United States was made at a price below normal 
value, we compared its United States price to normal value, as 
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.

United States Price

    For Wuhan, we based the United States price on export price (EP) in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed 
export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the 
record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We deducted 
foreign inland freight and U.S.

[[Page 33102]]

Customs duty expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production methodology 
if (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) 
available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-
market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 
773(a) of the Act.
    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. Wuhan did not contest such treatment in this 
review. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the factors of 
production to determine NV. See Factor Valuation Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey 
from the People's Republic of China, dated May 27, 2003 (Factor 
Valuation Memo). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the 
CRU located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.
    We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations. 
Consistent with the original investigation of this order, we determine 
that India (1) is comparable to the PRC in level of economic 
development, and (2) is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. Accordingly, we valued the factors of production using 
publicly available information from India.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our 
practice. Where appropriate, we adjusted Indian import prices by adding 
foreign inland freight expenses to make them delivered prices. When we 
used Indian import values to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC 
suppliers, 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 port of export 
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 PRC suppliers, we 
based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier 
to the site at which the input was used. When we relied on Indian 
import values to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, we excluded imports from both NMEs and countries deemed to 
have generally available export subsidies (i.e., Indonesia, Korea, and 
Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. For those surrogate 
values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation 
using the wholesale price indices for India, as published in the 
International Monetary Fund's publication, International Financial 
Statistics.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value raw honey, we used an average of the highest and lowest 
price for raw honey, as adjusted for inflation, stated in an article 
published in The Tribune of India on March 1, 2000, entitled, 
``Apiculture, a major foreign exchange earner'' (later republished in 
The Agricultural Tribune on May 1, 2000). As noted above, petitioners 
and respondent submitted additional information on the record regarding 
the proper surrogate value for raw honey. Due to the time constraints 
in issuing these preliminary results, the Department was unable to 
fully analyze these additional submissions. However, the Department 
intends to continue to carefully examine this issue for the final 
results of this review.
    To value beeswax, a raw honey by-product, we used the average per 
kilogram import value of beeswax into India for the POR.
    To value coal, we relied upon Indian import values of ``steam 
coal'' for the period April 2001, through January 2002 as reported in 
the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: 
Imports (Monthly Statistics), as adjusted for inflation for the period 
prior to the POR (April 2001 - November 2001). We also adjusted the 
surrogate value for coal to include freight costs incurred between the 
supplier and the factory. To value electricity, we used the 2000 total 
average price per kilowatt hour (KWH), adjusted for inflation, for 
``Electricity for Industry'' as reported in the International Energy 
Agency's publication,Energy Prices and Taxes, Second Quarter, 2002. To 
value water, we used the average water tariff rate, adjusted for 
inflation, as reported in the Asian Development Bank's publication, 
Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region, 1997.
    To value packing materials (i.e., paint and steel drums), we relied 
upon Indian import data under the Indian Customs' heading ``3209,'' and 
a price quote from an Indian steel drum manufacturer, respectively. We 
adjusted the surrogate value for steel drums to reflect inflation. We 
also adjusted the surrogate values of packing materials to include 
freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit, we relied upon publicly available 
information in the 2001-2002 annual report of the Mahabaleshwar Honey 
Producers Cooperative Society, Ltd. (MHPC), a producer of the subject 
merchandise in India. We applied these rates to the calculated cost of 
manufacture and cost of production.
    For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at Import 
Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected 
NME Countries, revised in September 2002, and corrected in February 
2003. Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with 
similar per capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of 
the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based 
wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import 
Administration's web site is the Year Book of Labour Statistics 2001, 
International Labour Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing.
    To value truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based 
on Indian market truck freight rates on a per MT basis published in the 
Iron and Steel Newsletter, April 2002. To value rail freight, we used 
an average rail freight cost based on rail freight costs of 
transporting molasses to various cities within India as stated on the 
Indian Railways' website (Indian Government Agency).
    For details on factor of production valuation calcuations, see 
Factor Valuation Memo.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the 
Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margin exists:

[[Page 33103]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Manufacturer and Exporter             POR          Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd......   12/01/01 - 05/31/                9.66
                                                  02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty margin, see 
the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China, 
dated May 27, 2003. A public version of this memorandum is on file in 
the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon 
issuance of the final results of this new shipper review, if any 
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs to assess 
antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment 
rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, 
we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject 
merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to 
each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the 
sales to that importer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of review, we will direct Customs to assess the resulting 
rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on 
each of Wuhan's importer's/customer's entries during the POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    Wuhan may continue to post a bond or other security in lieu of cash 
deposits for each entry of subject merchandise produced and exported by 
Wuhan. Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security 
requirements for Wuhan's shipments after publication of the final 
results of this new shipper review. The following cash-deposit rate 
will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new 
shipper review for all shipments of honey from the PRC entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, 
as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject 
merchandise produced and exported by Wuhan, the cash-deposit rate will 
be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for all 
other subject merchandise exported by Wuhan, the cash-deposit rate will 
be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 183.80 percent; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC country-wide rate; 
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 
supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of 
the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to 
request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) the party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be 
raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within 
five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal 
presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will 
issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include 
the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 
days from the date of the preliminary results, unless the time limit is 
extended.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's 
regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could 
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties.
    This new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 27, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-13881 Filed 6-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S