[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 107 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31348-31354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12602]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 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 and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products 
Co., Ltd (``Cheng Du'') and Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. (``Jinfu''), the 
U.S. Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting new 
shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on honey from the 
People's Republic of China. The period of review covers the period 
December 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003. For Jinfu, we have 
preliminarily determined that it failed to demonstrate its entitlement 
to a new shipper review, while for Cheng Du we have preliminarily 
determined that it has not made sales at less than normal value. See 
the ``Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review'' section below. The 
preliminary 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, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza (for Jinfu) at (202) 
482-3019 or Dena Aliadinov (for Cheng Du) 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, D.C. 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 June 
30, 2003, the Department received timely filed requests from Cheng Du 
and Jinfu 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 section 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations. Cheng Du 
identified itself as the producer and exporter of the merchandise 
subject to review. Jinfu identified itself as the exporter of subject 
merchandise produced by its supplier, Cixi City Yikang Bee Industry 
Co., Ltd. (``Cixi Yikang'').
    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 entity that produced or 
supplied the subject merchandise must also certify to the above-listed 
requirements. Moreover, in an antidumping proceeding involving imports 
from a nonmarket 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 section 351.214(b)(2) of the Department's regulations.)
    The regulations further require that the entity 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 section 351.214(b)(2)(iv).
    Cheng Du's and Jinfu'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 that exported 
subject merchandise to the

[[Page 31349]]

United States during the POI. Cheng Du and Jinfu 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 (Jinfu did not provide the 
latter information). See the ``Partial Rescission of New Shipper 
Review'' section below. Additionally, Cheng Du and Jinfu certified that 
neither their nor their suppliers' export activities are controlled by 
the central government.
    Because the Department determined that Cheng Du's and Jinfu's 
requests met the requirements of section 351.214 of its regulations at 
that time, on August 11, 2003, the Department published its initiation 
of this new shipper review for the period December 1, 2002, through May 
31, 2003. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews, 68 FR 47537 (August 11, 2003) 
(``Initiation of New Shipper Reviews''). Accordingly, the Department is 
now conducting this new shipper review in accordance with section 
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214 of its regulations.
    On August 4, 2003, we issued the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Cheng Du and Jinfu. Cheng Du and Jinfu submitted their 
Section A questionnaire responses on September 2, 2003 and September 
16, 2003, respectively. On September 8, 2003, Cheng Du submitted its 
Section C and D questionnaire responses. On September 28, 2003, Jinfu 
submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses. On October 8, 
2003, petitioners submitted comments on Cheng Du's Sections A, C, and D 
responses. On November 10, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on 
Jinfu's Sections A, C, and D responses.
    On October 29, 2003, we issued a supplemental questionnaire 
covering Cheng Du's Section A, C, and D questionnaire responses. We 
received Cheng Du's first supplemental questionnaire response on 
November 14, 2003. On December 3, 2003, petitioners submitted comments 
on Cheng Du's first supplemental questionnaire response.
    On December 3, 2003, the Department provided interested 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 December 3, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Cheng Du to forward to its importer (``importer 
questionnaire''). We issued a second supplemental questionnaire to 
Cheng Du, covering its first supplemental response, on December 8, 
2003.
    On December 11, 2003, we issued a supplemental questionnaire 
covering Jinfu's Section A, C, and D questionnaire responses. We 
received a response to the importer questionnaire from Cheng Du's 
importer on December 12, 2003. On December 17, 2003, petitioners 
submitted comments on the surrogate country selection. On December 22, 
2003, we received Cheng Du's second supplemental questionnaire 
response. On December 30, 2003, we received Jinfu's first supplemental 
questionnaire response.
    On January 5, 2004, petitioners submitted information on factors of 
production surrogate values for consideration. We did not receive any 
comments or information from Cheng Du. On January 5, 2004, we received 
surrogate value information from Jinfu.
    Petitioners submitted comments for consideration in the 
Department's verification of Cheng Du's questionnaire responses on 
January 6, 2004. On January 12, 2004, petitioners submitted comments on 
Jinfu's first supplemental questionnaire response. On January 14, 2004, 
the Department extended the preliminary results of this new shipper 
review by 120 days until May 26, 2004. See Honey from the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of 
New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 69 FR 2112 (January 14, 2004). We 
issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Jinfu, covering its first 
supplemental response, on January 16, 2004. We received Jinfu's second 
supplemental questionnaire response on January 23, 2004. Petitioners 
submitted comments for consideration in the Department's verification 
of Jinfu's questionnaire responses on January 29, 2004 and March 4, 
2004, 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 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 section 351.307 of 
the Department's regulations, we conducted verification of the 
questionnaire responses of Cheng Du (January 12, 2004, through January 
16, 2004) and Jinfu (February 2, 2004, through February 5, 2004). We 
used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of 
the production facilities of Cixi Yikang in Cixi, PRC (Jinfu's supplier 
of processed honey), and Cheng Du in Anshan, PRC, the sales and 
administrative office of Jinfu in Kunshan, PRC, and the sales office of 
Cheng Du in Chengdu, PRC, and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. We also conducted verification at the sales and 
administrative office of Jinfu's claimed U.S. affiliate, Jinfu Trading 
(USA), Inc., from March 8, 2004, through March 9, 2004, near Seattle, 
Washington. 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. Sales and Factors of Production for Respondent 
Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (``Cheng Du''), dated March 1, 
2004 (``Cheng Du Verification Report''), the Third New Shipper Review 
of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-863); 
Verification of Intra-company U.S. Sales Information Submitted by Jinfu 
Trading Company, Ltd. and Factors of Production Information Submitted 
by Cixi City Yikang Bee Industry Co., Ltd., dated May 5, 2004 (``Jinfu 
Verification Report''), and the Third New Shipper Review of Honey from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-863); Sales Verification of 
Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. on behalf 
of its U.S. affiliate, Jinfu Trading (USA), Inc., dated May 5, 2004 
(``Jinfu USA 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.

Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review

    For the reasons stated below, we are preliminarily rescinding, in 
part, the new shipper review with respect to Jinfu because 
documentation on the record shows that Jinfu was not affiliated with 
Jinfu USA during the

[[Page 31350]]

POR. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, through Abdelali Elouaradia, 
Analysis of the Relationship between Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. and Jinfu 
Trading (USA), Inc. (``Affiliation Memo''), dated May 26, 2004 for 
further discussion. Specifically, in its Section A response and first 
supplemental response, Jinfu stated that Jinfu USA is wholly-owned by 
its president and was legally incorporated in the State of Washington 
on October 4, 2002. However, upon further examination of documents 
relating to the establishment/incorporation of Jinfu USA, it appears 
that Jinfu and Jinfu USA were not affiliated at the time of Jinfu's 
first sale to the United States. In particular, the ``Certificate of 
Incorporation,'' which was placed by Jinfu on the record, incorporating 
the precursor of Jinfu USA, Yousheng Trading (USA) Co., Ltd. 
(``Yousheng USA''), was issued by the State of Washington on October 4, 
2002. See Jinfu's December 30, 2003, supplemental questionnaire 
response at Exhibit 7. The transaction in which Jinfu claims that Jinfu 
USA was an affiliated party, however, occurred only one month following 
Yousheng USA's incorporation. The extremely short period of time 
between the incorporation of Yousheng USA and the transaction in 
question, coupled with the fact that even the respondent admits that 
Yousheng USA officially became Jinfu USA ten days following the sale at 
issue, leads the Department to believe that on November 2, 2002 
Yousheng and Jinfu were not affiliated. See Jinfu's December 30, 2003, 
supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 7. Moreover, based on 
other record evidence, we have reason to believe that the president of 
Jinfu did not own Jinfu USA until after the POR. Specifically, the 
ownership transfer agreement provided by Jinfu in its supplemental 
questionnaire response dated December 30, 2003, was dated and signed by 
Jinfu's president and the owner of Yousheng USA on October 25, 2003, 
approximately five months after the POR and over a year after Jinfu's 
first sale to the United States. For further details, see Affiliation 
Memo. Therefore, for all of the above reasons, the Department has 
concluded that this transaction should not be treated as an affiliated 
transaction as claimed by Jinfu.
    In order to qualify for a new shipper review under 19 CFR 351.214, 
a company must provide certifications and documentation establishing, 
among other things, the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C). Given 
that Jinfu could not substantiate its affiliation with Jinfu USA at the 
time of its first sale to the United States or any time during the POR, 
we have preliminarily determined to treat the sale under review as an 
export-price (``EP'') sale. Because Jinfu's certification (which it 
provided prior to the initiation of the new shipper review) does not 
include documentation establishing the date of the first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer in the United States, Jinfu is not entitled to a 
new shipper review. Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding this 
review with respect to Jinfu.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We further note, presuming that the unaffiliated sale price 
will be treated as an export price (EP), that 
the EP sale price appears to be aberrationally low relative to the 
average unit value of all comparable honey imports from the PRC 
during the POR. In addition, record inconsistencies regarding the 
establishment of Jinfu USA and its relationship with Jinfu at the 
time of the EP sale leads us to question the legitimacy of the U.S. 
importer of record/customer, and as a result, the bona fides of the 
reported EP sale itself. Specifically, as noted above, we 
preliminarily find that Jinfu USA was not established when the EP 
sale had occurred. Furthermore, the date discrepancies between the 
ownership transfer agreement, as explained above, and the 
information described in the corporate resolution documents taken 
during verification, contradict Jinfu's assertion that Jinfu and 
Jinfu USA were affiliated parties during the POR. See Affiliation 
Memo for further details. See also Verification Exhibit 1. These 
factors are significant to our analysis of the bona fides of this EP 
sale. Accordingly, even if the Department's findings were to change 
between the preliminary and the final results of this review as to 
the certification inadequacies of Jinfu's new shipper review 
request, the bona fides issue would need to be further addressed in 
our final analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Shipper Status

    Based on questionnaire responses submitted by Cheng Du, and our 
verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Cheng Du has met 
the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. We have 
determined that Cheng Du made its first sale and/or shipment of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that it was not 
affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously shipped 
subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, for purposes of 
these preliminary results of review, we are treating Cheng Du's sale of 
honey to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this new 
shipper review.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving nonmarket economy (``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 (i.e., a PRC-wide entity 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, Cheng Du requested a separate 
company-specific rate.
    As stated in the ``Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review'' 
section above, Jinfu did not qualify for a new shipper review under the 
Department's new shipper regulations. We are, therefore, preliminarily 
rescinding the new shipper review with respect to Jinfu. Consequently, 
consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, the 
Department will not conduct a separate rates analysis for these 
preliminary results with respect to Jinfu, and thus, Jinfu will 
continue to be treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. See Initiation 
of New Shipper Reviews.
    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'').
    Cheng Du 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.
    Cheng Du 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

[[Page 31351]]

the ``Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China 
Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations'' (June 3, 1988). 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 Cheng Du'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 Cheng Du Verification Report at 10-11. Therefore, 
we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure control 
over Cheng Du'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.
    Cheng Du 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 officers 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. Cheng Du's 
questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated 
among exporters of PRC honey. Furthermore, our analysis of the 
responses during verification reveal no other information indicating 
the existence of government control. See Cheng Du Verification Report 
at 11-12. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over Cheng Du's 
export activities, we preliminarily determine that Cheng Du has 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 Cheng Du, 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 Cheng Du, we deducted domestic inland freight and domestic 
brokerage and handling 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. Cheng Du did not contest such treatment in 
this review. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the 
factors of production to determine NV for Cheng Du. 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 May 26, 2004 (``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 less-than-fair-value 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. See Memorandum to the file, 
through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Selection of Surrogate 
Country with Significant Producer of Comparable Merchandise in the New 
Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China, dated May 
26, 2004.
    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 data 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, 1408 (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. In instances where we relied 
on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and 
countries deemed to have generally available export subsidies (i.e., 
Indonesia, Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. 
See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 
Tables and Certain

[[Page 31352]]

Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 5127 (February 
3, 2004). 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 (``IMF's'') 
publication, International Financial Statistics.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We also used wholesale price indices for India provided on 
the IMF's website, http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value raw honey, we used the conservative rupee (``Rs.'') price 
for one kilogram (``kg.'') of raw honey, as stated in an article 
published in The Tribune (of India) on December 15, 2003, entitled, 
``Honey sweet despite price fall.'' A copy of the original article is 
attached at Attachment 15 of the Factor Valuation Memo. The article 
states that there had been a fall in the price of raw honey to Rs. 65 
per kg. from a high of Rs. 105 per kg. during the past year. In their 
March 30, 2004 submission, petitioners proposed calculating a raw honey 
price based on the assumption that the price of raw honey peaked in 
January 2003 at 105 Rs/kg. and calculated an average increase in the 
rupee price from May 2002 to January 2003. Then, petitioners calculated 
the percentage decrease in the raw honey price from January 2003 (105 
Rs./kg.) to 65 Rs./kg. in December 2003. Based on these percentage 
price decreases, petitioners calculated a monthly raw honey price for 
each POR month and then averaged these raw honey prices to generate a 
raw honey surrogate price for the POR. Since we are not certain 
specifically when the price of raw honey during the past year was 105 
Rs./kg. or 65 Rs./kg., we are using the conservative price of 65 Rs./
kg. Because the POR for this new shipper review is December 2002 
through May 2003, we do not have evidence contradicting that the raw 
honey price was 65 Rs. per kg. during the POR. Hence, this 65 Rs. per 
kg. raw honey price is contemporaneous.
    On January 5, 2004, Jinfu submitted an article, dated April 2003, 
entitled, ``Girijan co-op targets Rs 135-cr turnover,'' which stated a 
raw honey price of 30 to 45 Rs./kg. for the Andhra Pradesh region of 
India. While this article is contemporaneous with the POR, we have 
determined that this article is not reliable because it provides 
information about the price of raw honey in a particular region of 
India rather than an Indian-wide price. Additionally, the article's 
information is based on data provided by an Indian honey cooperative 
(Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd.). Consistent with the less-than-
fair-value investigation, we rejected data based on an Indian honey 
processing cooperative because we determined that such data represented 
the experience by a single processor of honey in a particular region of 
India. Generally, it is the Department's preference to use a publicly-
available price that reflects numerous transactions between many buyers 
and sellers, because the experience of a single producer is less 
representative of the cost of an input in the surrogate country. See 
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review, 68 FR 62053 (October 31, 2003) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (``Wuhan NSR 
Final'').
    Also, petitioners, in their January 5, 2004 filing, submitted raw 
honey price information from fourteen producers/processors, including 
several cooperatives. See Exhibit 1 of petitioners' submission dated 
January 5, 2004. However, we have determined that petitioners' raw 
honey price information is not reliable because it is not 
contemporaneous, as opposed to the information from the December 15, 
2003 article from The Tribune. As stated above, we reject data based on 
Indian honey processing cooperatives. Therefore, the Department has 
preliminarily valued the raw honey input using the 65 Rs. per kg. 
surrogate price from The Tribune article dated December 15, 2003. See 
Attachment 3 of the Factor Valuation Memo. 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 
kg. import value of beeswax into India for the POR, using 
contemporaneous Indian import values of ``beeswax, insect wax'' under 
the Indian Customs' heading of ``152190'' obtained from the World Trade 
Atlas, which notes that its data was obtained from the Ministry of 
Commerce of India (``World Trade Atlas'').
    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. 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 third and fourth 
quarter 2002 total average price per kilowatt hour (``KWH''), adjusted 
for inflation, for ``Electricity for Industry'' as reported in the 
International Energy Agency's publication, Key World Energy Statistics, 
2003. To value water, we used the water tariff rate (April 2000, 
through March 2001), as reported on the Municipal Corporation of 
Greater Mumbai's website. See http://www.mcgm.gov.in and Attachment 17 
of the Factor Valuation Memo for source documents. We also adjusted the 
water rate for inflation.
    To value packing materials (i.e., paint and steel drums), we relied 
upon contemporaneous Indian import data under the Indian Customs' 
heading ``3209'' obtained from the World Trade Atlas, 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 for 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 2002-2003 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. See Wuhan NSR Final and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate reported at 
Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in September 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 2002, International Labour Office 
(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
    To value truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based 
on Indian truck freight rates on a per metric ton basis published in 
the Iron and Steel Newsletter, April 2002, which we adjusted for 
inflation.
    For details on factor of production valuation calculations, see the 
Factor Valuation Memo, dated May 26, 2004.

[[Page 31353]]

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 or by Dow Jones Reuter Business Interactive, LLC (trading as 
Factiva).

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that an antidumping duty margin does not 
exist for the following manufacturer and exporter\3\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As stated in the ``Separate Rates'' section above, the 
Department has preliminarily determined that Jinfu is not entitled 
to a separate rate as we are rescinding the review. Thus, Jinfu's 
cash deposit rate will be the ``PRC-wide Entity Rate.''

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Manufacturer and Exporter            POR            Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee           12/01/02 - 5/31/03                  0.00
 Products Co., Ltd..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty margin for 
Cheng Du, see the Analysis of Data Submitted by Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee 
Products Co., Ltd (``Cheng Du'') in the Preliminary Results of New 
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's 
Republic of China (``Cheng Du Analysis Memo''), dated May 26, 2004. 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 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 antidumping 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 Cheng Du's importer's/customer's entries during 
the POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    Cheng Du or Jinfu may continue to post a bond or other security in 
lieu of cash deposits for certain entries of subject merchandise 
exported by Cheng Du or Jinfu. As Cheng Du has certified that it both 
produced and exported the subject merchandise, Cheng Du's bonding 
option is limited only to such merchandise for which it is both the 
producer and exporter. For Jinfu, which has identified Cixi Yikang as 
the producer of subject merchandise for the sale under review, Jinfu's 
bonding option is limited only to entries of subject merchandise from 
Jinfu that were produced by Cixi Yikang. Bonding will no longer be 
permitted to fulfill security requirements for Cheng Du's and Jinfu'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 Cheng Du, the cash-deposit rate will be that 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for all other 
subject merchandise exported by Cheng Du, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the PRC country-wide rate (i.e., 183.80 percent); (3) for all other PRC 
exporters which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate 
(including Jinfu), the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide entity 
rate of 183.80 percent; 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. A hearing would normally be held 37 days 
after the publication of this notice, or the first business day 
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

[[Page 31354]]

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 26, 2004.
James J. Jochum.
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-12602 Filed 6-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S