[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 241 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74764-74776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the third 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is 
December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. One named respondent 
company had no exports or sales of the subject merchandise during the 
POR; therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding our review of this 
company. We preliminarily determine that two companies have failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with our 
requests for information and, as a result, should be assigned a rate 
based on adverse facts available. Finally, we have preliminarily 
determined that five respondents made sales to the United States of the 
subject merchandise at prices below normal value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument(s).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Boughton or Bobby Wong, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
8173 or (202) 482-0409, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 1, 2004, the Department published a Notice of 
Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 
69889 (December 1, 2004). On December 30, 2004, the American Honey 
Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, 
petitioners), requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the 
Department's regulations, an administrative review of entries of 
subject merchandise made during the POR by 19 Chinese producers/
exporters.\1\ Also on December 30, 2004, Wuhan Bee, Zhejiang, Anhui 
Honghui, Eurasia, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, and Eswell requested that 
the Department conduct an administrative review of each respective 
company's entries during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The request included: Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 
Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. (Inner 
Mongolia); Kunshan Foreign Trade Company (Kunshan); Zhejiang Native 
Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. aka Zhejiang 
Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Group Corp. 
(Zhejiang); High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import 
& Export Corp. (High Hope); Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. 
(Eswell); Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp. (Anhui Native); 
Henan Native Produce Import & Export Corp. (Henan); Inner Mongolia 
Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products; Shanghai 
Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Xiuwei); Sichuan-
Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dubao); Wuhan Bee Healthy 
Company, Ltd. (Wuhan Bee); Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. (Jinfu); Shanghai 
Shinomiel International Trade Corporation (Shanghai Shinomiel); 
Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui); Chengdu 
Waiyuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (Chengdu Waiyuan); Eurasia Bee's 
Products Co., Ltd. (Eurasia); Foodworld International Club, Ltd. 
(Foodworld); Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. (Inner 
Mongolia Youth); and Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. 
(Jiangsu Kanghong).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 3, 2005, Dubao and Chengdu Waiyuan requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of each respective 
company's entries during the POR. On January 31, 2005, the Department 
initiated an administrative review of 19 Chinese companies. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 
2005).
    On February 1, 2005, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to 18 PRC producers/exporters of the subject merchandise 
covered by this administrative review.\2\ On February 3, 2005, the 
Department received a letter from Inner Mongolia Youth and Shanghai 
Xiuwei stating that neither company sold subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. On February 22, 2005, petitioners filed a 
letter withdrawing their request for review of Kunshan, High Hope, 
Henan, Shanghai Xiuwei, Shanghai Shinomiel, Foodworld, and Inner 
Mongolia Youth. On February 23, 2005, Anhui Native separately notified 
the Department that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR, and requested that the Department rescind 
this proceeding for Anhui Native.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department notes that while petitioners requested a 
review for Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and 
Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. and Inner Mongolia 
Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products separately, 
both names refer to the same company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2005, we invited interested parties to comment on the 
Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production 
in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit publicly 
available information to value the factors of production. On March 29, 
2005, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Kunshan, 
High Hope, Henan, Shanghai Xiuwei, Shanghai Shinomiel, Foodworld, and 
Inner Mongolia Youth, because petitioners, the only party to request a 
review for these companies, withdrew their request for review. See 
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Honey from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 15836 (March 29, 
2005).
    On April 28, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request for review of

[[Page 74765]]

Anhui Native, and on April 29, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request 
for review of Inner Mongolia. On May 25, 2005, the Department rescinded 
this review with respect to Anhui Native and Inner Mongolia because 
petitioners, the only party to request a review for these companies, 
withdrew their request for review. See Honey from the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 30082 (May 25, 2005).
    On June 22, 2005, petitioners filed a letter withdrawing their 
request for review of Wuhan Bee, and on the same day, the respondent 
also filed a letter withdrawing its request for an administrative 
review. On July 21, 2005, the Department rescinded this review with 
respect to Wuhan Bee. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
70 FR 42032 (July 21, 2005). Also on July 21, 2005, the Department 
published an extension of the time limits to complete these preliminary 
results. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 42033 (July 21, 2005).
    On October 11, 2005, petitioners and Eswell, Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu 
Kanghong, and Zhejiang submitted comments on surrogate information with 
which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On October 
18 and 21, 2005, the same parties submitted comments on each other's 
October 11, 2005, surrogate value submissions. From October 18 to 21, 
2005, the Department conducted verification of the information 
submitted by Anhui Honghui, and from October 23 to 27, 2005, the 
Department conducted verification of the information submitted by 
Jiangsu Kanghong.
    With regard to Anhui Honghui, Eswell, Jinfu, Jiangsu Kanghong, and 
Zhejiang, between March and December 2005, the Department received 
timely filed original and supplemental questionnaire responses and 
petitioners' comments on those responses.

Eurasia:

    We received timely responses from Eurasia to the Department's 
original questionnaire. We subsequently issued three supplemental 
questionnaires to Eurasia, receiving responses to the first two 
supplemental questionnaires and no response to the third supplemental 
questionnaire, sent October 7, 2005. On October 19, 2005, the 
Department received a letter from Eurasia's counsel stating that 
Eurasia was withdrawing its request for an administrative review. On 
October 26, 2005, the Department issued a warning letter to Eurasia, 
noting that petitioners had not withdrawn their request for review and 
that the Department required Eurasia's response to the supplemental 
questionnaire. The Department noted that it might have to resort to 
facts available if Eurasia failed to file a response. The Department 
received no response to this letter.

Dubao:

    The Department received no response from Dubao to its original 
questionnaire, sent February 1, 2005. On February 23, 2005, Dubao, 
through its counsel, withdrew its request for a review in this 
administrative proceeding. On March 7, 2005, the Department informed 
Dubao, via its counsel, that petitioners had not withdrawn their 
request for review of Dubao, that the Department was proceeding with 
the review, and that the Department required Dubao's questionnaire 
response or the Department might resort to facts available. On March 
17, 2005, the Department notified Dubao for the second time, through 
its counsel, that the Department was not rescinding the review with 
respect to Dubao and that Dubao risked application of adverse facts 
available if it failed to submit a response. The Department did not 
receive a response to either letter.

Chengdu Waiyuan:

    In response to the Department's issuance of the antidumping duty 
questionnaire, on February 23, 2005, Chengdu Waiyuan notified the 
Department that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR, and requested that the Department rescind this 
proceeding for Chengdu Waiyuan. We received no comments from any 
interested parties regarding Chengdu Waiyuan's request for rescission. 
Therefore, because Chengdu Waiyuan had no shipments to the United 
States during the POR, the Department is preliminarily rescinding this 
administrative review for Chengdu Waiyuan. See ``Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Administrative Review'' section, below.

Scope of the 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 order 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 customs purposes, 
the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.307, we conducted verification of the 
questionnaire responses of Anhui Honghui and Jiangsu Kanghong in 
October 2005. We used standard verification procedures, including on-
site inspections of the production facilities and examination of 
relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are 
outlined in the verification reports, public versions of which are on 
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 of the 
Main Commerce Building. See ``Memo to the File: Verification of Sales 
and of Factors of Production for Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., 
Ltd. (``Anhui Honghui'') in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Honey from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''),'' dated 
December 9, 2005; see also ``Memo to the File: Verification of U.S. 
Sales and Factors of Production for Respondent Jiangsu Kanghong Natural 
Healthfoods Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Kanghong),'' dated December 9, 2005, 
(Jiangsu Kanghong Verification Report).

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined 
that Chengdu Waiyuan made no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. In making this determination, the 
Department examined PRC honey shipment data maintained by U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP). Based on the information obtained from 
CBP, we found no entries of subject merchandise during the POR 
manufactured or exported by Chengdu Waiyuan to the United States. The 
Department also issued a no shipment inquiry to CBP on May 2, 2005, 
asking for notification from CBP if it had information contrary to our 
finding of no entries of subject merchandise for Chengdu Waiyuan during 
the POR. We received no response from CBP. See also ``Memorandum to the 
File regarding Entries by Chengdu Waiyuan Bee

[[Page 74766]]

Products Co., Ltd.,'' dated December 9, 2005.
    Therefore, based on the results of our corroborative CBP query, 
indicating no shipments of subject merchandise by Chengdu Waiyuan 
during the POR, as well as Chengdu Waiyuan's claim that it had no 
subject shipments, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative 
review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), with respect to 
Chengdu Waiyuan.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the 
Department begins with a rebuttable 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 Anhui Honghui, Eswell, Eurasia, Jiangsu 
Kanghong, Jinfu, and Zhejiang submitted information in support of their 
claim for a company-specific rate.
    Accordingly, we have considered whether each of the companies is 
independent from government control, and therefore eligible for a 
separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether 
the exporters are independent from government control does not 
consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 
controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making 
process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) 
(Sparklers), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-7 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). In 
accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export 
activities.
    Anhui Honghui, Eswell, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, and Zhejiang 
(collectively, fully responsive companies) provided complete separate-
rate information in their responses to our original and supplemental 
questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to 
determine whether these exporters are independent from government 
control.
    For the reasons discussed below in the section titled ``The Use of 
Facts Otherwise Available and PRC-wide Rate,'' we have preliminarily 
determined that Dubao and Eurasia do not qualify for a separate rate 
and are instead part of the PRC-wide entity.

Absence of 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) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. As discussed below, our analysis shows that 
the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure 
absence of government control for the five fully responsive companies 
based on each of these factors.

Anhui Honghui:

    Anhui Honghui has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Company Law of 
the People's Republic of China'' (December 29, 1993) (Company Law), the 
``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China'' (May 12, 1994) 
(Foreign Trade Law), the revised Foreign Trade Law (April 6, 2004), and 
``Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China 
Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations'' (June 3, 1988) 
(Legal Corporations Regulations). See Exhibit 2 of Anhui Honghui's 
March 10, 2005, submission (Anhui Honghui Section A). Anhui Honghui 
also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 3 of Anhui 
Honghui Section A. The Feidong County Industrial and Commercial Bureau 
issued this license. Anhui Honghui explains that its business license 
defines the scope of the company's business activities and ensures the 
company has sufficient capital to continue its business operations. 
Anhui Honghui affirms that its business operations are limited to the 
scope of the license, though it can be amended if it wishes to expand 
the scope of its operations, and that the license may be revoked if the 
company has insufficient capital or engages in activities outside the 
scope of its business. Further, Anhui Honghui states that the license 
must be renewed or reviewed annually, and to obtain a renewal, it must 
apply for a renewal and provide a copy of its most recent financial 
statements to the issuing authority.

Eswell:

    Eswell has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the Company Law, 
Foreign Trade Law, and the Legal Corporations Regulations. See Exhibit 
3 of Eswell's March 10, 2005, submission (Eswell Section A). Eswell 
also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 4 of Eswell 
Section A. The Shanghai Industry and Commerce Administrative Bureau 
issued this license. Eswell explains that its business license defines 
the scope of its business operations. Eswell affirms that its business 
operations are limited to the scope of the license, and that the 
license may be revoked if the company engages in illegal activities or 
if the company conducts activities outside its authorized business 
scope. Further, Eswell states that the license must be reviewed 
annually, and to obtain a review qualification, it must apply for a 
renewal and provide a copy of its most recent financial statements to 
the issuing authority.

Jiangsu Kanghong:

    Jiangsu Kanghong has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the Company Law, the 
Foreign Trade Law, the revised Foreign Trade Law, and the Legal 
Corporations Regulations. See Exhibit 2 of Jiangsu Kanghong's March 10, 
2005, submission (Jiangsu Kanghong Section A). Jiangsu Kanghong also 
submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 3 of Jiangsu 
Kanghong Section A. The Funing County Industrial and Commercial Bureau 
issued this license. Jiangsu Kanghong explains that its business 
license defines the scope of the company's business activities and

[[Page 74767]]

ensures the company has sufficient capital to continue its business 
operations. Jiangsu Kanghong affirms that its business operations are 
limited to the scope of the license, though it can be amended if it 
wishes to expand the scope of its operations, and that the license may 
be revoked if the company has insufficient capital or engages in 
activities outside the scope of its business. Further, Jiangsu Kanghong 
states that the license must be renewed or reviewed annually, and to 
obtain a renewal, it must apply for a renewal and provide a copy of its 
most recent financial statements to the issuing authority.

Jinfu:

    Jinfu has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate 
absence of de jure control, including the Company Law and Foreign Trade 
Law. See Exhibit A-2 of Jinfu's March 10, 2005, submission (Jinfu 
Section A). Jinfu also submitted a copy of its business license in 
Exhibit A-3 of Jinfu Section A. The Suzhou Kunshan Industry and 
Commerce Administrative Bureau issued this license. Jinfu explains that 
the business license defines its business scope and ensures that the 
company has sufficient capital to continue its business operations. 
Jinfu also affirms that its business operations are limited to the 
scope of the license, and that the license may be revoked if the 
company engages in activities outside the scope of its business or if 
the company goes bankrupt. Further, Jinfu states that the license is 
reviewed annually, and to obtain a renewal, it must provide a copy of 
its most recent financial statements to the issuing authority.

Zhejiang:

    Zhejiang has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Law of the 
People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole 
People'' (April 13, 1988), Company Law, the revised Foreign Trade Law, 
and the Legal Corporations Regulations. See Exhibit 2 of Zhejiang's 
March 10, 2005, submission (Zhejiang Section A). Zhejiang also 
submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 3 of Zhejiang 
Section A. The Industrial and Commercial Administrative Bureau of 
Zhejiang Province issued this license. Zhejiang explains that its 
business license defines the scope of the company's business activities 
and ensures the company has sufficient capital to continue its business 
operations. Zhejiang affirms that its business operations are limited 
to the scope of the license, though it can be amended if it wishes to 
expand the scope of its operations, and that the license may be revoked 
if the company has insufficient capital or engages in activities 
outside the scope of its business. Further, Zhejiang states that the 
license must be renewed or reviewed annually, and to obtain a renewal, 
it must apply for a renewal and provide a copy of its most recent 
financial statements to the issuing authority.
    We note that all five of the fully responsive companies state that 
they are governed by the Company Law, which they claim governs the 
establishment of limited liability companies and provides that such a 
company shall operate independently and be responsible for its own 
profits and losses. All of the fully responsive companies have placed 
on the record the Foreign Trade Law and state that this law allows them 
full autonomy from the central authority in governing their business 
operations. We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the Foreign 
Trade Law, which states, ``foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full 
autonomy in their business operation and be responsible for their own 
profits and losses in accordance with the law.'' As in prior cases, we 
have analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of 
de jure control. See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of New Shipper Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 
(January 21, 1998) and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), as affirmed in Final Results of New 
Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic 
of China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that there is an absence of de jure control over the export 
activities of Anhui Honghui, Eswell, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, and 
Zhejiang.

Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its 
export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to, the approval of a government 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, 59 FR 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. Id. 
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 government control, 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
    Anhui Honghui 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 general manager has the authority to bind 
sales contracts; (4) the company's executive director appoints the 
company's management and it does not have to notify government 
authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions 
on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its executive director 
decides how profits will be used. We have examined the documentation 
provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated 
among exporters of PRC honey.
    Eswell has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately owned 
company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of 
export prices; (3) the president of its affiliated company in the 
United States or its designated sales agent have the authority to bind 
sales contracts; (4) its management is appointed by its board of 
directors and it does not have to notify government authorities of its 
management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its 
export revenue; and (6) its board of directors decides how profits will 
be used. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it 
does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC 
honey.
    Jiangsu Kanghong 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 general manager has the authority to bind 
sales contracts; (4) the company's executive director appoints the 
company's management and it does not have to notify government 
authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions 
on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its executive director 
decides how profits will be used. We have examined the

[[Page 74768]]

documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing 
is coordinated among exporters of PRC honey.
    Jinfu has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately owned 
company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of 
export prices; (3) the general manager has the authority to bind sales 
contracts; (4) the company's board of directors appoints the company's 
management and it does not have to notify government authorities of its 
management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its 
export revenue; and (6) its board of directors decides how profits will 
be used. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it 
does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC 
honey.
    Zhejiang has asserted the following: (1) It is a publicly owned 
company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of 
export prices; (3) the manager of the Bee Department Number 1 has the 
authority to bind sales contracts; (4) the company's president selects 
the company's management and it does not have to notify government 
authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions 
on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its president decides how 
profits will be used. We have examined the documentation provided and 
note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among 
exporters of PRC honey.
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over each respondent's 
export activities, we preliminarily determine that each fully 
responsive company has met the criteria for the application of a 
separate rate.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and the PRC-Wide Rate

    Anhui Honhui, Eswell, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, Zhejiang, Chengdu 
Waiyuan, Dubao, and Eurasia were given the opportunity to respond to 
the Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received 
complete questionnaire responses from Anhui Honghui, Eswell, Jiangsu 
Kanghong, Jinfu, and Zhejiang, and we have calculated a separate rate 
for these companies. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of 
subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters 
that have their own calculated rate. See ``Separate Rates'' section 
above.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Chengdu Waiyuan's reply to the Department's questionnaire 
was its February 23, 2005, letter stating it had no sales in the 
United States during the POR. Based on this and the Department's 
analysis of CBP data, we have determined that Chengdu Waiyuan had no 
shipments during the POR and therefore we are preliminarily 
rescinding this review for Chengdu Waiyuan. See ``Partial 
Rescission'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dubao and Eurasia are appropriately considered to be part of the 
PRC-wide entity because they failed to establish their eligibility for 
a separate rate. Because the PRC-wide entity did not provide requested 
information necessary to the instant proceeding, it is necessary that 
we review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we note that section 
776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts 
available if necessary information is not available on the record of an 
antidumping proceeding. In addition, 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 of the Act; (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) of 
the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, 
use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title. Where the Department determines that a 
response to a request for information does not comply with the request, 
section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly 
inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the 
deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party 
with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) 
of the Act additionally states that if the party submits further 
information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering 
authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the 
original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides 
that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is 
submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination 
but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the 
administering authority if: (1) the information is submitted by the 
deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be 
verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve 
as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the 
interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements 
established by the administering authority with respect to the 
information; and (5) the information can be used without undue 
difficulties.
    We find that the PRC-wide entity (including Dubao and Eurasia) did 
not respond to our request for information and that necessary 
information either was not provided, or the information provided cannot 
be verified and is not sufficiently complete to enable the Department 
to use it for these preliminary results. Therefore, we find it 
necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise 
available as the basis for the preliminary results of this review for 
the PRC-wide entity.
    As stated above in the ``Background'' section, Dubao did not 
respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. The Department 
has no information on the record for Dubao with which to calculate a 
dumping margin or determine if it is eligible for a separate rate in 
this proceeding; therefore, we find that Dubao has significantly 
impeded the proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Because Dubao did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaires, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not 
applicable.
    As stated above in the ``Background'' section, Eurasia responded to 
the Department's antidumping questionnaire, and two subsequent 
supplemental questionnaires. The Department subsequently requested 
additional information from Eurasia in a supplemental questionnaire. 
See Supplemental A, C, and D questionnaire, dated October 7, 2005. On 
October 19, 2005, the Department received a letter from Eurasia stating 
that it was withdrawing its request for a review. We note that the 
omitted information included details relating to Eurasia's ownership 
structure, information critical to the Department's separate-rates 
analysis (see ``Separate Rates'' section above), as well as information 
on freight expenses and payment. The Department gave Eurasia an 
additional opportunity to provide the information the Department had 
requested on October 26, 2005. See Letter from Carrie Blozy to Eurasia 
dated October 26, 2005. The Department received no response to this 
request.
    Due to these serious deficiencies, we preliminarily find that 
Eurasia has failed to provide the information requested, thereby 
significantly impeding the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A), (B),

[[Page 74769]]

and (C) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the 
application of facts available is appropriate for these preliminary 
results.

Application of Adverse Inference

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a 
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, 
Vol. 1 (1994) at 870. In determining whether a respondent has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a 
determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct. See 
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1382-1393 (Fed. 
Cir. 2003). Furthermore, `` affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an 
adverse inference.'' Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
    In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with 
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient 
attention to its statutory duties. See Pacific Giant Inc. v. United 
States, 223 F. Supp 2d 1336, 1342 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the 
Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted 
information, and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of 
accurate dumping margins. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide 
entity (including Dubao and Eurasia) failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As 
noted above, the PRC-wide entity informed the Department that it would 
not participate in this review, or otherwise did not provide the 
requested information, despite repeated requests that it do so. This 
information was in the sole possession of the respondents, and could 
not be obtained otherwise. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to 
participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we 
ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they 
cooperated fully in this review.

Selection of AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final determination 
in the investigation; (3) any previous review or determination; or (4) 
any information placed on the record. In reviews, it is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest rate determined 
for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 
FR 19504, 19508 (April 21, 2003).
    The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have consistently upheld the 
Department's practice in this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United 
States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. 
v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 
73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from 
a different respondent in a LTFV investigation); see also Kompass Food 
Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 
51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from 
a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 
1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest 
available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous 
administrative review).
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The 
Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' SAA at 870. See also D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 
3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate 
balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond 
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the 
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior 
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior 
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if 
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 
F.2d at 1190.
    Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its practice, the 
Department has preliminarily assigned the rate of 183.80 percent, the 
highest rate determined in any segment of the proceeding to the PRC-
wide entity (including Dubao and Eurasia) as AFA. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from the PRC, 66 
FR 50608 (October 4, 2001) (Final Determination). As discussed further 
below, this rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA

    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.\4\ 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. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

[[Page 74770]]

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), as affirmed 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; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 
11825 (March 13, 1997). The SAA also states that independent sources 
used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published 
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. SAA at 870. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic 
Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), 
as affirmed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 7, 2003); and Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183-4 
(March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.'' SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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. For normal value (NV), we compared petitioners' factor-
consumption data to data reported by respondents. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from 
the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 24101, 24105 (May 11, 2001) 
(Investigation Prelim), as affirmed in the Final Determination.
    To satisfy the corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of 
the Act, in the instant review, we compared this margin rate to the 
margins we found for respondents in this review. Specifically, we found 
that respondents reported sales of subject merchandise for which the 
highest margins corroborate the 183.80 percent rate as established in 
the LTFV investigation and affirmed in the first and second 
administrative reviews. See Investigation Prelim; Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of First Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 69988, 69991-2 (December 16, 2003) 
and affirmed in Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 24128, 
24130 (May 3, 2004); and Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 38873, 38880 (July 6, 2005) (AR2 Final 
Results).
    Based on our analysis of respondents' margin results, we find that 
the margin of 183.80 percent is reliable and relevant. As the rate is 
both reliable and relevant, and no information has been presented to 
call into question the reliability of this information, we determine 
that it has probative value. For the company-specific information used 
to corroborate this rate, see ``Memorandum to the File: Corroboration 
of the PRC-Wide Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' dated December 9, 2005.
    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.'' TRBs, 61 FR at 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 extremely 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 rate applied in this review is the rate currently applicable to 
all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. Further, as noted above, 
there is no information on the record that the application of this rate 
would be inappropriate in this administrative review or that the margin 
is not relevant. Thus, we find that the information is relevant. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the PRC-wide 
rate of 183.80 is still reliable, relevant, and has probative value 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

Affiliation

    Jinfu has claimed that it is affiliated with Jinfu Trading (USA) 
Inc., (Jinfu USA) within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. 
Section 771(33) of the Act states that affiliated persons include: (A) 
Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the 
whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants; (B) 
any officer or director of an organization and such organization; (C) 
partners; (D) employer and employee; (E) any person directly or 
indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five 
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any 
organization and such organization; (F) two or more persons directly or 
indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, 
any person; (G) any person who controls any other person and such other 
person. For purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. To 
find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at 
least one of the criteria listed above is applicable to the 
respondents.
    Though no party in this case is questioning whether or not Jinfu 
was in fact affiliated with Jinfu USA at some point during the POR 
within the meaning of section 771(33), the effective date of this 
affiliation is in question, and is significant to this proceeding for 
purposes of determining whether certain of Jinfu's U.S. sales should be 
reported as ``export price'' sales or ``constructed export price'' 
sales. See discussion below under ``U.S. Price'' section of this 
notice. In this regard, Jinfu claims that it was affiliated with Jinfu 
USA as of October 25, 2002, which means the two firms were affiliated 
throughout the entire POR.
    In the most recently completed segment of these PRC honey 
proceedings, the Department determined that Jinfu was not affiliated 
with Jinfu USA until October 25, 2003, at the earliest. See AR2 Final 
Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. 
In making this finding in AR2 Final Results, the Department noted that 
it intended to examine Jinfu's date of affiliation further in the 
instant review. See id.
    In considering for purposes of these preliminary results whether 
Jinfu was affiliated with Jinfu USA under section 771(33) of the Act, 
we note that in the previous administrative review, the

[[Page 74771]]

Department found that evidence on the record in that review did not 
reflect a specific date of acquisition by Jinfu's CEO of Jinfu USA. 
Nevertheless, in that review, the Department found that the 
``Certificate of Transfer of Stocks,'' a stock ownership transfer 
agreement, was the most significant in establishing affiliation between 
Jinfu and Jinfu USA. Specifically, in the AR2 Final Results, we found 
that Jinfu's purchase/investment in Jinfu USA, as delineated in the 
Certificate of Transfer of Stocks, resulted in a common control 
relationship between Jinfu USA and Jinfu upon the date (October 25, 
2003) that document was signed. See AR2 Final Results and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. This decision is also 
consistent with our findings in the new shipper review that Jinfu 
requested. See Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 69 FR 64029 (November 3, 2004) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    For purposes of this review, the Department continues to find that 
the stock ownership transfer agreement, which the Department placed on 
the record of this review, results in affiliation between Jinfu and 
Jinfu USA. The issue at hand is when the document was actually signed. 
The document itself indicates a date of October 25, 2003. However, 
Jinfu has stated that the document was not signed until December 2003. 
This information is contained in an affidavit, signed by Jinfu's CEO, 
in which he states: ``In December 2003, Jinfu's Trading council in the 
new antidumping new shipper review asked me for a copy of the 
Certificate of Transfer. I realized than that I had forgotten to sign 
the Certificate of Transfer of Stocks. `` See Attachment I of the 
October 5, 2005, supplemental questionnaire from the Department to 
Jinfu; see also Attachment I of the November 18, 2005, supplemental 
questionnaire from the Department to Jinfu.
    However, Jinfu was unable to provide the exact date in December on 
which it was signed. Therefore, according to the information on the 
record, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jinfu and 
Jinfu USA were not affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of 
the Act until December 31, 2003, which is the last possible date that 
the above-referenced stock transfer agreement could have been executed. 
We note that this decision is consistent with our findings in AR2 Final 
Results. Moreover, in reaching this decision, the Department considered 
the limited additional information submitted by Jinfu in this 
proceeding, but determined such additional information did not have 
sufficient probative value to call into question the decision in AR2 
Final Results. For a further discussion of this issue, see ``Memorandum 
to James C. Doyle, Office Director: Analysis of the Relationship and 
Treatment of Sales between Jinfu Trading, Co., Ltd. and Jinfu Trading 
(USA) Inc.,'' dated December 9, 2005.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondents' sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal 
value, we compared their United States prices to normal values, as 
described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    For Jiangsu Kanghong, and certain sales by Jinfu (i.e., those prior 
to or on December 31, 2003), we based U.S. 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. Where 
applicable, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 
freight expenses from port to warehouse, and U.S. import duties and 
brokerage and handling from the starting price (gross unit price), in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    Specifically, for Jiangsu Kanghong we deducted foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international 
freight, U.S. inland freight expenses from warehouse to customer, and 
U.S. import duties, dock charges, and brokerage and handling from the 
starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of 
the Act. Based on information obtained at verification, we made changes 
to the U.S. brokerage and handling charges for certain sales. See 
``Memorandum to the File: Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., 
Ltd. (Jiangsu Kanghong) Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results 
of Review,'' dated December 9, 2005, (Jiangsu Kanghong Analysis Memo).
    Based on the Department's preliminary decision on affiliation 
between Jinfu and Jinfu USA, the Department requested that Jinfu supply 
EP sales information for all of its sales to the United States during 
the POR. For those sales that the Department determined should be 
considered EP sales for Jinfu, we deducted foreign inland freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses, from the starting price (gross 
unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or 
marine insurance were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in 
renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values (see 
``Factors of Production'' section below for further discussion). For 
those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid 
for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).

Constructed Export Price

    For Anhui Honghui, Eswell, Zhejiang, and certain sales by Jinfu, we 
calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because 
certain sales were made on behalf of the PRC-based company by its U.S. 
affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. We based CEP on packed, delivered 
or ex-warehouse prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting 
price (gross unit price) for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling charges, international freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. import duties, and U.S. 
inland freight expenses.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in 
the United States, including direct selling expenses and indirect 
selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    Specifically, for Anhui Honghui we deducted (where applicable) 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs 
duties, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse, 
U.S. dock storage, inventory carrying costs, credit expenses, other 
direct selling expenses (lab tests), indirect selling expenses, CEP 
profit, and added (where applicable) freight revenue. In its new 
shipper review, we found that Anhui Honghui was affiliated with Honghui 
USA and that

[[Page 74772]]

the use of CEP sales was appropriate. See Notice of Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews: Honey From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 69350, 69353 (November 29, 2004), affirmed 
without change in Honey From the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 70 FR 9271 
(February 25, 2005). For purposes of this review, there is no 
information on the record that would cause the Department to reconsider 
its affiliation finding. Therefore, we are continuing to analyze 
Honghui USA's sales to the first unaffiliated customer.
    For Eswell we deducted (where applicable) foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties, U.S. 
inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the 
warehouse to the customer, U.S. dock storage, commissions, credit 
expenses, other direct selling expenses (lab tests), indirect selling 
expenses, CEP profit, and inventory carrying costs. We recalculated 
Eswell's reported indirect selling expenses to be consistent with the 
Department's standard methodology. See ``Memorandum to the File: 
Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Eswell) Analysis Memorandum for 
the Preliminary Results of Review,'' dated December 9, 2005 (Eswell 
Analysis Memo).
    For Zhejiang we deducted (where applicable) foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine 
insurance, other discounts, U.S. brokerage, U.S. customs duties, 
commissions, credit expenses, indirect selling expenses, CEP profit, 
and inventory carrying costs.
    For those sales that the Department has determined should be 
calculated on a CEP basis for Jinfu, we deducted (where applicable) 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight, U.S. brokerage, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight from 
the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the 
warehouse to the customer, credit expenses, inventory carrying costs, 
indirect selling expenses, and CEP profit. Although Jinfu reported 
indirect selling expenses, the methodology used resulted in the double 
counting of certain expenses. Therefore, we recalculated the indirect 
selling expenses for Jinfu's affiliated company using its affiliate's 
financial statements to be consistent with the Department's standard 
methodology. See ``Memorandum to the File: Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. 
(Jinfu) Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review,'' 
dated December 9, 2005 (Jinfu Analysis Memo).
    Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or 
marine insurance, were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in 
renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values (see 
``Factors of Production'' section below for further discussion). For 
those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid 
for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense.

Normal Value

Non-Market-Economy Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a 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. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), as affirmed in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 
(December 18, 2003). None of the parties to these reviews have 
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (NV) 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 
countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development, as identified in the ``Memorandum from the Office of 
Policy to Carrie Blozy,'' dated March 7, 2005.\5\ In addition, based on 
publicly available information placed on the record (e.g., world 
production data), India is a significant producer of honey. 
Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes of 
valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's 
criteria for surrogate-country selection. See ``Memorandum to the File: 
Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated December 9, 2005, (Surrogate 
Country Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This memorandum is attached to the letters sent to 
interested parties to this proceeding requesting comments on 
surrogate country and surrogate value information, dated March 9, 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited 
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used factors 
of production reported by the producer or exporter for materials, 
energy, labor, and packing, except as indicated. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available 
Indian values.
    For Anhui Honghui, based on information obtained at verification, 
for these preliminary results the Department will adjust the labor 
input and recalculate energy, labor, and packing inputs so that they 
are reported on the correct per-unit measurement. See ``Memorandum to 
the File: Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui) 
Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review,'' dated 
December 9, 2005.
    For Eswell, the Department has adjusted two of Eswell's reported 
factors of production for these preliminary results, including 
recalculating one of Eswell's packing inputs, but not including one of 
Eswell's reported by-products, for which it could not substantiate that 
said by-product was sold during the POR, in the normal value 
calculation. See Eswell Analysis Memo.
    In the instant review, Jiangsu Kanghong reported factors of 
production beginning at the beehive stage because it maintains lease 
agreements with and pays salaries, rental fees, and bonuses to its raw 
honey suppliers. All other respondents in this proceeding have reported 
factors from the raw honey input stage of production. Although Jiangsu 
Kanghong initially only reported bee medicine and mileage and labor 
factors for the beehives, we asked Jiangsu Kanghong to report other 
factors used in the bee-keeping process, including beehives and all 
their parts, bees, and bee farmer tools. We asked them to report a 
factor for raw honey consumption as well. We note that Jiangsu Kanghong 
did not place any

[[Page 74773]]

surrogate value information on the record to value any of the inputs 
from the beehive stage of production, though it did provide surrogate 
value information on the record to value inputs from the raw honey 
stage of the production process.
    The Department has preliminarily determined, as discussed below, 
that it should value Jiangsu Kanghong's intermediate product of raw 
honey because we do not find the factor data for the production of raw 
honey to be reliable. To calculate a factor of production for the 
number of bees per kilogram of processed honey (which the Department 
requested), Jiangsu Kanghong used the number of bee farmers, raw honey 
produced during the POR, and consumption of raw honey per kilogram of 
processed honey, but relied on estimates for the number of bee hives, 
bees per hive, days in the POR bee season, and average bee life 
expectancy. Jiangsu Kanghong was unable to provide either verifiable 
direct evidence or even authoritative secondary sources to substantiate 
the accuracy of the estimated number of beehives, bees per hive, and 
average bee life expectancy that it reported. Furthermore, queen bees 
play an important role in the honey making process, yet Jiangsu 
Kanghong did not address this element at all in its reported bee factor 
of production. See ``Memorandum to the File: Bee Research,'' dated 
December 9, 2005. In addition, our research has indicated that bee 
species matter in terms of production output and value, yet there is no 
authoritative source on the record supporting Jiangu Kanghong's claim 
of the type of bees that its beekeepers use. See Id. In summary, the 
respondent failed to provide authoritative sources to indicate the 
resulting quantity of bees to value and the appropriate information 
with which to value a major material input at this stage of production. 
Lastly, the limited data placed on the record by Jiangsu Kanghong 
suggest, contrary to Jiangsu Kanghong's argument, that bees should be 
considered a factor of production rather than treated as overhead 
because they are ``consumed,'' similar to other inputs. For instance, 
information on the record suggests that worker bees during the 
production season live only from one to three months. See Jiangsu 
Kanghong Verification Report.
    At verification, the Department also found numerous errors with the 
factors of production data regarding other beekeeping inputs. These 
problems included three unreported inputs sugar, royal jelly scraper, 
and warming cloth. When beekeeping inputs were examined, we found that 
the reported measurements or quantities did not consistently match the 
measurements reported by Jiangsu Kanghong. For instance, the majority 
of the beekeeping-related inputs did not weigh what Jiangsu Kanghong 
reported or contain the exact number of pieces that Jiangsu Kanghong 
reported. The company also did not provide any supporting documentation 
demonstrating the useful asset lives of the beehives or beekeeping 
equipment to substantiate the numbers reported in its responses. 
Further, at verification, we could not reconcile the bee medicine input 
nor verify the packing input used for three of its reported by-
products. We found that the majority of supplier distances and 
beekeeping labor hours were reported incorrectly. In addition, of the 
two beekeepers interviewed, one claimed that he had not repaired his 
hives in ``many'' years, yet we saw beehive covers obviously made of 
fresh wood. Both of these beekeepers said they did not use bee 
medicine, though Jiangsu Kanghong reported this input as its only raw 
material in its original Section C response. See Jiangsu Kanghong 
Verification Report.
    Because of the many errors in the factors of production data for 
raw honey submitted by Jiangsu Kanghong, the Department finds that it 
is not necessary to reach a determination on whether Jiangsu Kanghong 
is sufficiently vertically integrated to value the raw honey using a 
factors of production approach. Because we do not find the factor data 
for raw honey to be reliable due to the lack of reliable information 
regarding bee consumption during the POR and the many errors found in 
the reported data at verification, for these preliminary results the 
Department will value the raw honey consumed by Jiangsu Kanghong using 
a surrogate value for the raw honey itself rather than a factor of 
production approach.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our 
practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 
(December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 6; and Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China Final Results of 
First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used publicly available 
import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (Indian Import 
Statistics) for December 2003 through November 2004 to value inputs 
sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the 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 CAFC'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 maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all 
export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South 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. 
See also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 
66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final results 
at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). See ``Memorandum to the File: Factors 
of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated December 9, 2005 (Factor 
Valuation Memo), for a complete discussion of the import data that we 
excluded from our calculation of surrogate values. This memorandum is 
on file in the CRU.
    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as 
published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian 
rupees. We made currency

[[Page 74774]]

conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. 
dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to the reported 
date of each sale. We relied on the daily exchanges rates posted on the 
Import Administration Web site (http://ia.ita.doc.gov). See Factor 
Valuation Memo.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value raw honey, we took a weighted average of the raw honey 
prices for each month from December 2002 through June 2003, based on 
the percentage of each type of honey produced and sold, as derived from 
EDA Rural Systems Pvt Ltd. website, http://www.litchihoney.com (EDA 
data), and as submitted by petitioners in their October 11, 2005, 
submission. We inflated the value for raw honey using the POR average 
WPI rate.
    The respondents in this review submitted news articles to be used 
as potential sources for the surrogate value data for raw honey, 
including an article from the Hindu Business Line dated January 2004 
and an article from IndiaInfoline.com dated September 2003. We have not 
used either of these alternate sources proposed by respondents in the 
preliminary results, as discussed in the Factor Valuation Memo.
    In selecting the raw honey values from the EDA data as the best 
available information with which to value raw honey in this proceeding, 
we note that the Department has conducted extensive research on 
potential raw honey surrogate values for this administrative review, 
including data collected from www.banajata.org, published by the 
Regional Centre for Development Cooperation. The relevant research is 
included as Attachment 18 of the Factor Valuation Memo. However, the 
Department cannot confirm the quality or reliability of the Banajata 
values because it was unable to ascertain how the information published 
by the website was collected.
    The use of EDA data is also consistent with the Department's recent 
decision in the second administrative review of this order. See AR2 
Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. For a further discussion of this issue, see Factor Valuation 
Memo.
    To value coal, the Department used data from the Teri Energy Data 
Directory & Yearbook, 2003 - 2004, as consistent with the findings 
affirmed in Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 05-
142 (CIT 2005). The Department calculated a simple average of all types 
of grade C coal produced by Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries from 
September 29, 2003, through June 15, 2004. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value water, we calculated the average price of inside and 
outside industrial water rate from various regions as reported by the 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, http://midcindia.org, 
dated June 1, 2003. We inflated the value for water using the POR 
average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India 
reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for Energy 
Prices & Taxes, Second Quarter 2003. We inflated the value for 
electricity using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    While Anhui Honghui, Eswell, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, and Zhejiang 
also identified diesel fuel and gasoline as inputs consumed in the 
production of the subject merchandise, the Department considers these 
materials as overhead rather than direct material inputs. The 
Department therefore has excluded diesel fuel and gasoline from the 
normal value calculation.
    To value beeswax, scrap honey, paint, and labels, we used Indian 
Import Statistics, contemporaneous with the POR, removing data from 
certain countries as discussed in the Factor Valuation Memo. We also 
adjusted the surrogate values to include freight costs incurred between 
the shorter of the two reported distances from either: (1) the closest 
PRC seaport to the location producing the subject merchandise, or (2) 
the PRC domestic materials supplier to the location where the subject 
merchandise is produced. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value drums, we relied upon a price quote from an Indian steel 
drum manufacturer from September 2000, as provided by petitioners in 
their October 11, 2005, submission at Exhibit 8. We inflated the value 
for drums using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit, we relied upon publicly available 
information in the 2003-2004 annual report of Mahabaleshwar Honey 
Production Cooperative Society Ltd. (MHPC), a producer of the subject 
merchandise in India, upon which petitioners and Eswell have argued 
that the Department should rely. Petitioners maintain in their October 
11, 2005, submission that the Department should continue to rely on the 
methodology as used in AR2 Final Results for calculation of the SG&A 
ratios. Eswell argued in its October 11, 2005, submission that the 
Department should adjust its SG&A methodology for the MHPC data so that 
the cost calculations reflect the additional expenses incurred in 
selling honey from inventory. Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, and 
Zhejiang argue in their October 11, 2005, submission that the 
Department should rely on information available in an alternate Indian 
producer's financial statements, that of Apis India Natural Products 
Ltd. (Apis), 2003 2004. However, we preliminarily find that the 
Department's calculation in AR2 Final Results was appropriate, 
including relying on MHPC data as opposed to Apis data, because the 
Apis data are not as reliable or detailed as that of MHPC, and because 
the publicly available MHPC information meets the Department's criteria 
for data on which to base surrogate financial ratios. Therefore, for 
these preliminary results we are continuing to calculate SG&A based on 
the MHPC data as consistent with the AR2 Final Results. For a further 
discussion of this issue, see Factor Valuation Memo.
    Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar 
levels of per capita gross domestic product, section 351.408(c)(3) of 
the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based 
wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor input, we used the PRC's 
regression-based wage rate published by Import Administration on its 
Web site, http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight 
cost based on publicly available data from www.infreight.com, an Indian 
inland freight logistics resource website. To value train freight, we 
used an average of rail freight prices based on the publicly available 
freight rates reported by the Official Website of the Ministry of 
Railways: http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railway/freightrates/freight_charges.htm. Consistent with the calculation of inland truck 
freight, the Department used the same freight distances used in the 
calculation of inland truck freight, as reported by www.infreight.com 
to derive the surrogate value. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued marine insurance, where necessary, based on publicly 
available price quotes from a marine insurance provider at http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html. We valued international freight 
expenses, where necessary, using contemporaneous freight quotes that 
the Department obtained from Maersk Sealand, a market-economy shipper. 
See Factor Valuation Memo.

[[Page 74775]]

    To value brokerage and handling, we used a simple average of the 
publicly summarized versions of the average value for brokerage and 
handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in Essar Steel 
Ltd.'s (Essar Steel) February 28, 2005, submission in the antidumping 
duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
India, and the March 9, 2004, submission from Pidilite Industries Ltd. 
(Pidilite) in the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole Violet 
Pigment 23 from India. Since the reported rate in Essar Steel is 
contemporaneous with the POR, no adjustments to the value were 
necessary. However, as the Pidilite rate was dated from October 2002 
through September 2003, we adjusted this rate for inflation using the 
POR wholesale WPI for India. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final results of this administrative review, 
interested parties may submit publicly available information to value 
the factors of production until 20 days following the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margins exist:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Exporter                                             Margin (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anhui Honghui Foodstuffs (Group) Co., Ltd.............                                                   151.80%
Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd...................                                                   117.53%
Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd.........                                                   151.13%
Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd................................                                                   115.59%
Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import                                                    116.22%
 & Export Group Corp..................................
PRC-Wide Rate (including Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee                                                    183.80%
 Industrial Co., Ltd. and Eurasia's Bee Products Co.,
 Ltd.)................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for each company, see the respective company's analysis 
memorandum for the preliminary results of the third administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, dated 
December 9, 2005. Public Versions of these memoranda are on file in the 
CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. 
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for honey from the PRC on a per-unit basis. 
Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the 
difference between normal value and export price or constructed export 
price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise 
sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment 
amount. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of review, we will direct CBP to levy importer-specific assessment 
rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the 
weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the 
POR.

Cash Deposits

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results for shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Anhui 
Honghui, Eswell, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, and Zhejiang, we will 
establish a per-kilogram cash deposit rate which will be equivalent to 
the company-specific cash deposit established in this review; (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 (except for Eurasia, whose cash-
deposit rate has changed in this review to the PRC-wide entity rate, as 
noted below); (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including 
Dubao and Eurasia), the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 
183.80 percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, 
the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier 
of that exporter.
    These deposit requirements 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 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 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 review, which will include the results of its analysis of

[[Page 74776]]

issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 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 administrative review and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 9, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-7448 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S