[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67832-67838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30178]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

[[Page 67833]]

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Shanghai Xiuwei International 
Trading Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Xiuwei'') and Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao 
Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Sichuan Dubao''), 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 February 10, 2001 through 
November 30, 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: December 4, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander at (202) 482-0182 or 
Dena Aliadinov at (202) 482-3362; 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 People's Republic of China (``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 
December 31, 2002, the Department received properly filed requests from 
Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao for new shipper reviews under the 
antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and Sec.  351.214(c) of the 
Department's regulations. Shanghai Xiuwei identified itself as an 
exporter of processed honey produced by its supplier, Henan Oriental 
Bee Products Co., Ltd. (``Henan Oriental''). Sichuan Dubao identified 
itself as the producer of the processed honey that it exports.
    Under the new shipper provisions, an exporter or 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. In addition, if 
the exporter is not the producer, then the person that produced or 
supplied the subject merchandise must also submit these same 
certifications. Moreover, in an antidumping proceeding involving 
imports from a non-market economy country, the new shipper must also 
certify that its (and its producers') 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 Sec.  351.214(b)(2) of the Department's 
regulations.)
    The regulations further require that the person making the request 
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; (ii) the volume of that and subsequent shipments; and 
(iii) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the 
United States. See Sec.  351.214(b)(2)(iv).
    Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's requests were accompanied by 
information and certifications establishing that neither they nor their 
suppliers exported the subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POI, and that they were not affiliated with any company which 
exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. 
Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao provided information and 
certifications that demonstrated the date on which they 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, Shanghai Xiuwei and 
Sichuan Dubao certified that neither their nor their suppliers' export 
activities are controlled by the central government.
    Because the Department determined that Shanghai Xiuwei's and 
Sichuan Dubao's requests met the requirements of Sec.  351.214 of its 
regulations, on February 5, 2003, the Department published its 
initiation of this new shipper review for the period February 10, 2001 
through November 30, 2002. See Honey from the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews (68 FR 5868, 
February 5, 2003). Accordingly, the Department is now conducting this 
new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act 
and Sec.  351.214 of its regulations.
    On February 20, 2003, we issued the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao. Shanghai Xiuwei and 
Sichuan Dubao submitted their Section A questionnaire responses on 
March 20, 2003 and March 28, 2003, respectively. On April 3, 2003, 
Shanghai Xiuwei submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses. 
Also on April 3, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on Shanghai 
Xiuwei's Section A response. On April 4, 2003, Sichuan Dubao submitted 
its Section C and D questionnaire responses. On April 15, 2003 
petitioners submitted comments on Sichuan Dubao's Section A, C, and D 
questionnaire responses. On April 18, 2003, petitioners submitted 
comments on Shanghai Xiuwei's Section C and D questionnaire responses.
    On May 1, 2003, petitioners requested that the Department align the 
period of review for this new shipper review with the antidumping duty 
review. On May 2, 2003 (for Shanghai Xiuwei) and May 13, 2003 (for 
Sichuan Dubao), we issued the first supplemental questionnaire covering 
Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's Section A, C, and D questionnaire 
responses. We received Shanghai Xiuwei's first supplemental 
questionnaire response on May 15, 2003, and received Sichuan Dubao's 
first supplemental questionnaire response on June 3, 2003. On May 30, 
petitioners submitted comments on Shanghai Xiuwei's first supplemental 
questionnaire response. On June 13, petitioners submitted comments on 
Sichuan Dubao's first supplemental questionnaire response. We issued 
the second supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan 
Dubao, covering their first supplemental responses, on June 27, 2003 
and June 26, 2003, respectively. We received Shanghai Xiuwei's second 
supplemental questionnaire response on July 12, 2003, and received 
Sichuan Dubao's second supplemental questionnaire response on July 10, 
2003.
    On June 10, 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 June 
24, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on the surrogate country 
selection. On July 7, 2003, petitioners submitted information on 
factors of production surrogate values for consideration. On July 11, 
2003, petitioners submitted a declaration

[[Page 67834]]

executed by a market researcher that gathered information regarding the 
Indian honey industry. We did not receive any comments or information 
from Shanghai Xiuwei or Sichuan Dubao.
    On June 13, 2003, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires 
to Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao to forward to their importers 
(``importer questionnaire''). We received responses to the importer 
questionnaires from Shanghai Xiuwei's importer and one of Sichuan 
Dubao's importers on June 30, 2003. Petitioners submitted comments on 
the importer questionnaire responses on July 10, 2003 (for Sichuan 
Dubao) and July 30, 2003 (for Shanghai Xiuwei).
    On July 21, 2003, the Department extended the preliminary results 
of this new shipper review 300 days until November 26, 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 43086 
(July 21, 2003). Petitioners submitted comments for consideration in 
the Department's verification of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's 
questionnaire responses on July 22, 2003 and July 28, 2003, 
respectively.

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 
(renamed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection) (``CBP'') purposes, 
the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and Sec.  351.307 of 
the Department's regulations, we conducted verification of the 
questionnaire responses of Shanghai Xiuwei (August 4 through 7, 2003) 
and Sichuan Dubao (August 4 through 6, 2003 and August 8, 2003). We 
used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of 
the production facilities of Henan Oriental (Shanghai Xiuwei's supplier 
of processed honey) and Sichuan Dubao, the sales office of Shanghai 
Xiuwei in Shanghai and the sales office of Sichuan Dubao in Dujiangyan, 
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): Verification of 
U.S. Sale for respondent Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading Co., 
Ltd. (Shanghai Xiuwei) and Factors of Production Information Submitted 
by Henan Oriental Bee Products Co., Ltd. (Henan Oriental), dated 
September 30, 2003 (``Shanghai Xiuwei Verification Report''); and the 
New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
(A-570-863): Verification of U.S. Sales and Factors of Production 
Information Submitted by Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., 
Ltd. (Sichuan Dubao), dated September 23, 2003 (``Sichuan Dubao 
Verification Report''). Public versions of these reports are 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 Shanghai Xiuwei and 
Sichuan Dubao, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine 
that Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao have met the requirements to 
qualify as new shippers during the POR. We have determined that 
Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao made their first sale and/or shipment 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that 
neither was affiliated with any exporter or producer that previously 
shipped to the United States. We also determined that Henan Oriental 
did not export subject merchandise during the POI, nor was it 
affiliated with any other exporter or producer that did so.
    In submissions dated April 3, 2003 (for Shanghai Xiuwei) and July 
10, 2003 (for Sichuan Dubao), petitioners allege that Shanghai Xiuwei's 
and Sichuan Dubao's sales to the United States during the POR do not 
reflect bona fide commercial transactions. For Shanghai Xiuwei, 
petitioners raise issues regarding Shanghai Xiuwei's customer and the 
shipment destination, and allege that the sales price was too high. For 
Sichuan Dubao, petitioners raise issues regarding Sichuan Dubao's 
customers, the sales prices, and whether the sales transactions between 
Sichuan Dubao and the importers were arm's-length transactions. As an 
initial matter, the Department examined the average unit values 
(``AUVs'') and quantities 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 
quantities of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's shipments are among 
the highest and the prices are about average.
    For Shanghai Xiuwei, the Department was unable to complete its 
analysis of all factors relevant to the bona fides of Shanghai Xiuwei's 
new shipper sale. The Department is concerned about the fact that 
Shanghai Xiuwei and its U.S. customer, who acted as importer of record, 
were created in a short period of time and that the sales was 
consummated close to the dates both entities were formed. The 
Department is requesting comments on this timing issue and will 
carefully examine these facts for the final results.
    For Sichuan Dubao, the Department was unable to complete its 
analysis of all factors relevant to the bona fides of its second sale. 
The Department is experiencing difficulties contacting the importer of 
record, who has not responded to the Department's importer 
questionnaire. For a full review of our research and the efforts the 
Department has made to locate this importer, see the Memorandum from 
Brandon Farlander and Dena Aliadinov to the File, dated November 26, 
2003. The Department is requesting comments on this issue and we will 
carefully examine this second sale for the final results.
    In summary, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, we 
are treating Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's sales of honey to 
the United States as bona fide transactions. 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, Shanghai Xiuwei 
and Sichuan Dubao both 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

[[Page 67835]]

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).
    Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao provided separate-rate 
information in their responses to our original and supplemental 
questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to 
determine whether this exporter and producer/exporter are 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.
    Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao 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'' 
(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 Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's 
business licenses 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 Shanghai 
Xiuwei Verification Report at 9-10 and Sichuan Dubao Verification 
Report at 10-11. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an 
absence of de jure control over Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao'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.
    Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao have both asserted the following: 
(1) They are privately-owned companies; (2) there is no government 
participation in their setting of export prices; (3) their chief 
executive officers and authorized employees have the authority to bind 
sales contracts; (4) they do not have to notify any government 
authorities of their management selection; (5) there are no 
restrictions on the use of their export revenue; and (6) they are 
responsible for financing their own losses. Shanghai Xiuwei's and 
Sichuan Dubao's questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is 
coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of the responses 
during verification reveal no other information indicating the 
existence of government control. See Shanghai Xiuwei Verification 
Report at 10-11 and Sichuan Dubao Verification Report at 11-13. 
Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, over Shanghai Xiuwei's and 
Sichuan Dubao's export activities, we preliminarily determine that 
Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao have both met the criteria for the 
application of a separate rate.

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 their United States price to normal value, as 
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.

United States Price

    For both Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao, 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. For Sichuan Dubao, we deducted foreign 
inland freight from the starting price (gross unit price), in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Shanghai Xiuwei, we 
deducted foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling expenses 
incurred in the PRC from the starting price.

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. Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao did not 
contest such treatment in this review. Accordingly, we have applied 
surrogate values to the factors of production to determine NV. See the 
Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic 
of China, dated November 26, 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 67836]]

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 continue to use the average of the highest 
and lowest price for one kilogram (``kg.'') of raw honey 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). Consistent with the 
methodology established in the previous proceedings, to account for raw 
honey price increases in India, we have inflated the average raw honey 
price from the March 2000, Tribune of India article (i.e., Rs. 35 per 
kg.) to December 2001 by dividing the Indian WPI for December 2001 by 
the Indian WPI for March 2000. To account for increases in Indian raw 
honey prices from December 2001 through May 2002 in excess of 
inflation, we averaged raw honey purchase prices from the Tiwana and 
Jallowal Bee Farms submitted by petitioners in Exhibit 1 of its July 7, 
2003 response to calculate a total average raw honey price for each 
month from December 2001 through May 2002. Next, we calculated monthly 
price increases on a percentage-basis, and then applied these price 
increases (percentage) to our adjusted raw honey price from the March 
2000, Tribune of India article. Then, we calculated a simple average of 
these adjusted monthly raw honey prices to derive our raw honey 
surrogate value for the period we had raw honey purchase pricing data 
(i.e., December 1, 2001-May 31, 2002). In order to make this value 
fully-contemporaneous to the POR, we further adjusted the raw honey 
surrogate value for inflation during the period of June 2002 through 
November 2002 by the Indian WPI for May 2002. Finally, we converted the 
raw honey value from a per kg.-basis to a per metric ton-(``MT'') 
basis. See Attachments 2, 3, and 15 of the Factor Valuation Memo for 
further details. See also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
62053 (October 31, 2003 ) (``Wuhan NSR Final Results'') and Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001). However, the 
Department intends to examine this issue further for the final results 
of this review. The Department therefore invites interested parties to 
submit comments on this issue for purposes of the final results.
    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 contemporaneous Indian import values 
of ``steam coal'' under the Indian Customs' heading of ``27011902'' 
obtained from the World Trade Atlas, which notes that its data was 
obtained from the Ministry of Commerce of India. 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 water tariff rate, as reported on the 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web site. See http://www.mcgm.gov.in/Stat%20&%20Fig/Revnue.htm and Attachment X of the 
Factor Valuation Memo for source documents.
    To value packing materials (i.e., paint and steel drums), we relied 
upon contemporaneous 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 using the same methodology 
established in Wuhan NSR Final Results.
    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, Sec.  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 metric ton basis 
published in the Iron and Steel Newsletter, April 2002.
    For details on factor of production valuation calculations, see the 
Factor Valuation Memo, dated November 26, 2003.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to Sec.  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 
margins exist:

[[Page 67837]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin
      Manufacturer and exporter                POR            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading    02/10/01-11/30/02          0
 Co., Ltd............................
Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee             02/10/01-11/30/02          8.47
 Industrial Co., Ltd.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty margins, see 
the Analysis of Data Submitted by Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading 
Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Xiuwei'') in the Preliminary Results of New 
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's 
Republic of China (``Shanghai Xiuwei Analysis Memo''), dated November 
26, 2003; and the Analysis of Data Submitted by Sichuan-Dujiangyan 
Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Sichuan Dubao'') in the Preliminary 
Results of New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey 
from the People's Republic of China (``Sichuan Dubao Analysis Memo''), 
dated November 26, 2003. Public versions of these memoranda are on file 
in the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to Sec.  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 CBP 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 CBP to assess the resulting 
rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on 
each of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's importer's/customer's 
entries during the POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    Shanghai Xiuwei and Sichuan Dubao may continue to post a bond or 
other security in lieu of cash deposits for certain entries of subject 
merchandise exported by Shanghai Xiuwei or Sichuan Dubao. As Sichuan 
Dubao has certified that it both produced and exported the subject 
merchandise, Sichuan Dubao's bonding option is limited only to such 
merchandise for which it is both the producer and exporter. For 
Shanghai Xiuwei, which has identified Henan Oriental as the producer of 
subject merchandise for the sale under review, Shanghai Xiuwei's 
bonding option is limited only to entries of subject merchandise from 
Shanghai Xiuwei that were produced by Henan Oriental. Bonding will no 
longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for Shanghai 
Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's shipments after publication of the final 
results of this new shipper review. The following cash-deposit rates 
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 Sichuan Dubao, or produced by 
Henan Oriental and exported by Shanghai Xiuwei, the cash-deposit rate 
will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
all other subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Xiuwei or Sichuan 
Dubao, 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 Sec.  351.224(b). 
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 67838]]

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 25, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-30178 Filed 12-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P