[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 85 (Monday, May 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24128-24132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


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

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

SUMMARY: On December 4, 2003, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on 
honey from the People's Republic of China (68 FR 67832). The review 
covers one producer/exporter, Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial 
Co., Ltd. (``Dubao''), and one exporter, Shanghai Xiuwei International 
Trade Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Xiuwei''), of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period February 10, 2001 through November 30, 
2002.
    Based on our analysis of the record, including factual information 
obtained since the preliminary results, we have made changes to Dubao's 
margin calculations and are now using a more contemporaneous labor 
rate, which was revised in September 2003 and was recently posted to 
IA's web site. Also, we have found Dubao's second sale to not be a bona 
fide transaction and are therefore only calculating an antidumping 
margin based on its first sale. For Shanghai Xiuwei, we are applying 
adverse facts available (``AFA''), which is 183.80 percent. Therefore, 
the final results differ from the preliminary results. See ``Final 
Results of Review'' section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander (Shanghai Xiuwei), 
Dena Aliadinov (Dubao), and Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182, (202) 482-3362, or 
(202) 482-1374, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    We published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of 
this new shipper review on December 4, 2003. See Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 67832 (December 4, 2003) (Preliminary 
Results). On February 25, 2004, the Department extended the final 
results of this new shipper review by 30 days until March 25, 2004. See 
Notice of Extension of Time Limit on Final Results of New Shipper 
Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 8625 (February 
25, 2004). On March 31, 2004, the Department extended the final results 
of this new shipper review by 14 days until April 8, 2004. See Notice 
of Extension of Time Limit on Final Results of New Shipper Review: 
Honey From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 16892 (March 31, 
2004). On April 14, 2004, the Department extended the final results of 
this new shipper review by 16 days until April 26, 2004. See Notice of 
Extension of Time Limit on Final Results of New Shipper Review: Honey 
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 19814 (April 14, 2004).
    The period of review (POR) is February 10, 2001 through November 
30, 2002. We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. We 
received case briefs from petitioners (the American Honey Producers 
Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, 
petitioners)), on January 21, 2004. We received rebuttal briefs from 
Dubao and Shanghai Xiuwei on January 27, 2004. On February 27, 2004, we 
invited petitioners to comment on the new information in Shanghai 
Xiuwei's rebuttal brief, but we did not receive any comments.

Scope of Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered by this order 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 the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 
the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find 
a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia/ita/doc/
gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have 
made changes to the margin calculation for Shanghai Xiuwei and for 
Dubao. For Shanghai Xiuwei, we are now applying an AFA rate. See the 
AFA rate section below for details. For Dubao, we are calculating an 
antidumping margin based only on its first sale and not its second sale 
because we have determined that its second sale was not a bona fide 
transaction. For this second sale, we are applying an adverse facts 
available rate of 183.80 percent for assessment purposes because the 
U.S. importer is an interested party, according to 771(9)(A) of the 
Act, and failed to cooperate with the Department's numerous requests 
for it to respond to the Department's importer questionnaire. See the 
discussion below on the specifics of this U.S. importer's failure to 
cooperate. Also, with respect to Dubao's other sale, we are changing 
the labor wage rate. See the discussion below for specifics on the 
labor wage rate change. For a detailed discussion of the Shanghai 
Xiuwei AFA rate and an analysis of the bona fides of Dubao's second 
sale, see Issues and Decision Memorandum. For business proprietary 
details of our analysis of the change

[[Page 24129]]

described below to Dubao's preliminary margin calculation, see Memo to 
the File regarding Analysis of the Data Submitted by Sichuan-Dujiangyan 
Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (April 26, 2004) (``Dubao Final Analysis 
Memo''). For details on the proprietary information for Shanghai 
Xiuwei, see Memo to the File regarding Analysis of the Data Submitted 
by Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Xiuwei 
Final Analysis Memo'') (April 26, 2004).
    For labor, during the Preliminary Results, 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. On February 10, 2004, the Expected 
Wages of Selected NME Countries was updated. For these Final Results, 
we are using the PRC regression-based wage rate in the Expected Wages 
of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003.

Application of Facts Available

Dubao

    The Department has determined that the application of adverse facts 
available is warranted with respect to Dubao's U.S. importer for its 
second sale.
    Dubao's importer for its second sale failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaires or participate in any way in this 
proceeding. Indeed, the Department made numerous attempts to contact 
the U.S. importer for Dubao's second U.S. sale, yet found the importer 
to be unavailable and/or unwilling to assist in the conduct of this 
administrative review. See the Department's bona fide memorandum from 
Brandon Farlander and Dena Aliadinov through Abdelali Elouaradia to the 
File regarding the New Shipper Review on Honey from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') (``Bona Fide Memo''), dated November 26, 
2003. On June 13, 2003, the Department issued an importer questionnaire 
to White & Case, the legal counsel for Dubao, and instructed that it be 
forwarded to Dubao's importers. On June 30, 2003, the Department 
received an importer questionnaire response for Dubao's U.S. customer, 
but this entity was not the U.S. importer for the second sale. In 
Dubao's second supplemental questionnaire, Dubao stated that its U.S. 
customer was not the importer of record for its second sale and 
provided a Customs Form 7501, which listed the importer of record and 
an address for this importer. The Department sent an importer 
questionnaire twice to the 7501 Form address but did not get a 
response. In addition, the Department sent an importer questionnaire to 
the address for this U.S. importer listed with the California Secretary 
of State's office and it was returned, with FedEx indicating that no 
business existed at that location. The Department located the owner of 
the 7501 Form address, via the Los Angeles Office of the Assessor's 
property ownership records and called this owner and he stated that he 
had lived at that address for two years and had never heard of the U.S. 
importer, nor was he employed by or an owner of the U.S. importer. At 
Dubao's verification, the Department informed Dubao that we were unable 
to locate the U.S. importer and we requested Dubao's contact names and 
numbers for this U.S. importer. The Department called this person 
provided by Dubao and she stated that the U.S. importer's address was 
the address listed on the Customs Form 7501, except for a slight 
address difference. We sent the importer questionnaire a second time to 
the Customs Form 7501 address and, again, did not get a response. Also, 
we left a message with this contact person and asked her to provide 
another address if necessary. The Department did not hear from this 
contact, nor did the U.S. importer respond to the Department's importer 
questionnaire.
    The Department was successful in locating a website for this U.S. 
importer and called the phone number appearing on that website, but 
discovered that the number had been disconnected. Furthermore, the 
Department e-mailed the company but no one responded. Finally, the 
Department called information for the greater Los Angeles area and the 
operator could not locate the U.S. importer in its phone directory.
    Section 771(9) of the Act defines an ``interested party'' under the 
antidumping duty law as including producers, exporters, or ``United 
States importer of subject merchandise.'' The U.S. importer for Dubao's 
second sale was an interested party. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, 
provides that if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission 
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Further, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may 
use in inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's request for information. See also Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
    Clearly, Dubao's importer for its second transaction failed to 
participate in any way in this review and did not act to the best of 
its ability. Accordingly, we are applying the adverse facts available 
rate of 183.80 percent as an assessment rate for the U.S. importer for 
Dubao's second sale, which we have determined is not a bona fide sale.
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign 
the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as total adverse 
facts available when a respondent rails to cooperate to the best of its 
ability. (See e.g., Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 10358 (March 7, 2002) (``Because we were 
unable to calculate margins for these respondents, we have assigned 
them the highest margin from any segment of this proceeding, in 
accordance with our practice.''); Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 
Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002) (``Consistent with 
Department practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate to 
the best of its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the 
Act, as adverse facts available we have applied a margin based on the 
highest margin from this or any prior segment of the proceeding.'')
    In keeping with Department precedent, for this new shipper review, 
we have determined that is appropriate to assign Dubao's U.S. importer 
for the second sale the rate of 183.80 percent--the highest rate 
determined in any segment of this proceeding. This rate was established 
in the LTFV investigation based on information contained in the 
petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value; Honey from the PRC, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001) and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions

[[Page 24130]]

Memorandum (Final Determination). In selecting a rate for adverse facts 
available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 
``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    We note that information from a prior segment of this proceeding 
constitutes ``secondary information'', and section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, when the Department relies on such secondary information 
rather than on information obtained in the course of a review, the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. (Secondary information is described in the SAA as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870.) The SAA states that the 
independent sources may include published price lists, official import 
statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested 
parties during the particular investigation or review. The SAA also 
clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996) (``TRBs''), to corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information used.
    As noted above, we are applying as AFA the highest rate from any 
segment of this administrative proceeding, which is the petition rate 
from the LTFV investigation. We note that in the LTFV investigation, 
the Department corroborated the information in the petition that formed 
the basis of the 183.80 percent PRC-wide entity rate. See Final 
Determination. Specifically, in the LTFV investigation, the Department 
compared the prices in the petition to the prices submitted by 
individual respondents for comparable merchandise. Moreover, the 
information upon which the AFA rate we are applying for the current 
review was corroborated again during the 2001-2002 administrative 
review, and found to be both reasonable and reliable. See Honey from 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of First 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 69988, 69992 (December 
16, 2003) (``01-02 Preliminary Results''). No information has been 
presented in the current review that calls into question the 
reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the 
information is reliable.
    We further note that, with respect to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, the Department stated in TRBs that it will ``consider 
information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are 
circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin.'' See TRBs at 61 FR 57392. See also 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) 
(disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information 
available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has 
been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 
1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has 
been judicially invalidated). The information used in calculating this 
margin was based on information from the petition, which was deemed 
reliable as compared to the selling prices of actual PRC exporters of 
the subject merchandise. This rate is also currently applicable to all 
exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. Moreover, as there is no 
information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this 
rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available, we determine 
that this rate has relevance.
    As the rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has 
probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from 
any segment of this administrative proceeding) i.e., the petition rate 
of 193.80 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate) is in accordance 
with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information be 
corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value).

Shanghai Xiuwei

    For Shanghai Xiuwei, we conducted verification of its questionnaire 
responses on August 4-7, 2003. See 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'') (``Shanghai Xiuwei 
verification report''). Despite certain inconsistencies on the record, 
for the preliminary determination, the Department calculated a margin 
for Shanghai Xiuwei's U.S. sale. See Preliminary Results. However, upon 
further review of the record and, in particular CBP information on the 
record, Commerce has revisited its findings. See Bona Fide Memo for the 
CBP data. Commerce now has determined for these final results that 
Shanghai Xiuwei failed to provide at verification complete and accurate 
information about its total shipments of honey to the United States. 
Moreover, we have determined that Shanghai Xiuwei failed to report in 
its questionnaire responses and at verification that one of its owners 
also owned a U.S. importer of subject merchandise and that these two 
companies are affiliates based on this common ownership. For these 
reasons, we believe that the application of facts available is 
warranted.
    Shanghai Xiuwei withheld information that was specifically 
requested by the Department. It is extremely important that an exporter 
provide all requested information to the agency at verification and in 
questionnaire responses, and that includes information pertaining to 
all U.S. affiliates. In particular, this is very important when the 
U.S. affiliate or affiliates are involved in the production, 
distribution or sales of subject merchandise. Shanghai Xiuwei did not 
provide the Department with the identity of its affiliate and did not 
report its shipments of subject merchandise to that affiliate. 
Therefore, by withholding this important data from the Department, 
Shanghai Xiuwei significantly impeded this proceeding, and other 
information which it provided at verification was called into question, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act. 
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in detail in the attached Issues 
and Decision memorandum, we find that the application of facts 
available is necessary in this case to determine the antidumping duty 
rate for Shanghai Xiuwei.

[[Page 24131]]

    Furthermore, as provided above, the Department has determined, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that an adverse inference is 
warranted in this case because Shanghai Xiuwei failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability to provide the information requested by the 
Department in this new shipper review. As discussed in detail in the 
attached Issues and Decision Memorandum, we determine that Shanghai 
Xiuwei could have complied with the Department's request to respond 
accurately to the Department's initial questionnaire, requests for 
supplemental information, and questions asked at verification, but 
failed to do so. Moreover, at no point in the administrative review, 
prior to or during verification, did Shanghai Xiuwei notify the 
Department of the existence of any inaccuracies in information it 
reported to the Department, or seek guidance on the applicable 
reporting requirements, as contemplated in section 782(c)(1) of the 
Act. Furthermore, Shanghai Xiuwei was the only party which had access 
to this information and, therefore, the only party that could have 
complied with the Department's request for information on Shanghai 
Xiuwei's affiliate and additional U.S. sales. For all of the 
aforementioned reasons, the Department finds that Shanghai Xiuwei 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.
    In keeping with Department precedent, for this administrative 
review, we have determined that it is appropriate to assign Shanghai 
Xiuwei the rate of 183.80 percent--the highest rate determined in any 
segment of this proceeding. See, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper 
Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999). This rate was 
established in the LTFV investigation based on information contained in 
the petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value; Honey from the PRC, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Determination). In 
selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a 
rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the 
facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department 
with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 
1998).
    For complete details of the Department's application of adverse 
facts available and its corroboration of the rate selected, see the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated April 26, 2004. For business 
proprietary information related to Shanghai Xiuwei, see Shanghai Xiuwei 
Final Analysis Memo.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following antidumping margin percentage 
exists for Shanghai Xiuwei and Dubao during the period February 10, 
2001 through November 30, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                  Manufacturer and exporter                    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd.                  21.61
 (``Dubao'')................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghi Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd...............      183.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment of Antidumping Duties

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer specific 
assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department 
will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 
15 days of publication of the final results of review. We will direct 
CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the CBP entered 
values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's/customer's 
entries during the review period. For assessment purposes for Dubao's 
second sale, which we have determined is not a bona fide transaction, 
we are applying an adverse facts available rate of 183.80 percent.

Cash Deposits Requirements

    Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security 
requirements for shipments from Shanghai Xiuwei and Dubao of honey from 
the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the 
United States on or after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.
    The following cash deposit rates shall be required for merchandise 
subject to the order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results for 
this new shipper review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Dubao (i.e., for subject 
merchandise both manufactured and exported by Dubao only) and Shanghai 
Xiuwei (i.e., for subject merchandise manufactured by Henan Oriental 
Bee Products Co., Ltd. and exported by Shanghai Xiuwei) will be the 
rates indicated above; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who 
received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will 
continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) 
the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity and for subject 
merchandise exported by Dubao and Shanghai Xiuwei but not manufactured 
by Dubao and Henan Oriental, respectively, will continue to be the PRC-
wide rate (i.e., 183.80 percent); and (4) the cash deposit rate for 
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise form the PRC will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. In 
addition, for all honey imported by the U.S. importer (company A) for 
Dubao's second sale, the cash deposit rate is the PRC-wide rate of 
183.80 percent. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 
There are no changes to the rates applicable to any other company under 
this antidumping duty order.

Notification to Interested Parties

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with these final results of review within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). This 
notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility 
under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment 
of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with Sec.  351.305(a)(3) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 24132]]


    Dated: April 26, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Comments Discussed in Issues and Decision Memorandum

    1. Bona Fides of Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., 
Ltd. U.S. Sales and Application of Adverse Facts Available for 
Dubao's Importer in the Second Sale.
    2. Application of Adverse Facts Available for Shanghai Xiuwei.

[FR Doc. 04-9994 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M