[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76766-76771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7981]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-812]


Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in 
Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping order on honey from Argentina. The review covers six 
firms. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2003, through November 
30, 2004.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have 
been made below the normal value (NV) in the case of Asociacion de 
Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA). For Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco), we 
preliminary find a zero margin. In addition, we have preliminarily 
determined to rescind the review with respect to Nutrin S.A. (Nutrin), 
Radix S.A. (Radix), Compania Europea Americana S.A. (CEASA), and 
HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax) because they had no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export 
price (EP) and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings 
are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the 
issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of 
authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Strom for ACA, Brian Sheba for 
Seylinco, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2704, (202) 482-0145, or 
(202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on honey from Argentina. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 
Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 
2004, the Department published its opportunity to request a review. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 
69889. On December 30, 2004, the petitioners\1\ requested an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from 
Argentina in response to the Department's notice of opportunity to 
request a review. Petitioners requested that the Department review 
entries of subject merchandise made by 24 Argentine producers/
exporters. In addition, the Department received individual requests for 
review from four Argentine exporters, three of which were included as 
part of petitioners' request for review.\2\ The Department initiated 
the review for all 24 companies included in petitioners' request for 
review plus El Mana S.A. (El Mana), a Argentine exporter of honey. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 
2005), corrected in Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 7143 
(February 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are American Honey Producers Association and 
the Sioux Honey Association.
    \2\ The one Argentine exporter not included in petitioners' 
request for review was El Mana S.A. (El Mana).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 22, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request for review 
with respect to fifteen of the 24 exporters that comprised petitioners' 
request for administrative review. On March 3, 2005, El Mana, an 
exporter not included in petitioners' request for review, submitted a 
withdrawal of its request for administrative review. On March 24, 2005, 
petitioners and Nexco S.A. (Nexco) submitted a withdrawal of request 
for administrative review for Nexco. On March 31, 2005, petitioners 
submitted a withdrawal request for a further two companies. On April 
15, 2005, the Department rescinded its administrative review for El 
Mana and eighteen of the 24 companies in petitioners' December 30, 
2004, request for review. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 19927 
(April 15, 2005).
    The following exporters submitted letters claiming no shipments of 
the subject merchandise during the POR: Nutrin on March 9, 2005; Radix 
on March 14, 2005; CEASA on March 14,

[[Page 76767]]

2005; and HoneyMax on March 16, 2005. For further discussion, see the 
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    On February 23, 2005, the Department issued Sections A, B, and C of 
the antidumping questionnaire to all exporters subject to the 
review.\3\ We received responses on March 29 and April 22, 2005, for 
ACA and on March 24 and April 8, 2005, for Seylinco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which 
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests 
a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market 
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market 
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy 
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires for ACA on May 
17, 2005, and on May 18, 2005, for Seylinco. We received responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires from ACA on May 31, 2005, and from 
Seylinco on June 1, 2005. On July 8, 2005, petitioners filed comments 
on ACA's questionnaire responses and on July 13, 2005, ACA filed a 
response to petitioners' comments. On August 2, 2005, the Department 
issued a second supplemental questionnaire to ACA. On August 19, 2005, 
ACA filed its response to the Department's second supplemental 
questionnaire. On August 25, 2005, the Department determined a 
``particular market situation'' existed in Argentina during the POR. 
See the discussion of ``Selection of Comparison Market'' under ``Normal 
Value'' below. On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a third 
supplemental questionnaire to ACA, which ACA timely responded to on 
November 28, 2005.
    On July 1, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for 
issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review to 
December 20, 2005. See Honey from Argentina; Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 70 FR 38102 (July 1, 
2005).

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this order is honey from Argentina. The 
products covered 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 covered by 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 this 
order is dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax informed the 
Department that they did not have shipments of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. We have confirmed with CBP that these 
exporters did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 
the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review 
with respect to Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax. See e.g., Frozen 
Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 51008, 
51009 (October 5, 2001) and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube 
from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998).

Intent Not To Revoke In Part

    Section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations requires, inter 
alia, that a company requesting revocation submit the following: (1) a 
certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not 
less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not 
sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the 
company sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of 
the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and 
(3) an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is 
subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than 
fair value. In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order 
in part, the Department must ascertain that the party sold merchandise 
at not less than normal value (i.e., zero or de minimis margins) for a 
period of at least three consecutive years. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). 
See, e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke 
in Part, 66 FR 15832 (March 21, 2001).
    On December 27, 2004, ACA submitted a request for revocation of the 
antidumping duty order with the requisite certifications set forth in 
19 CFR 351.222(e). ACA based its request on the absence of dumping for 
three consecutive review periods, that is, the first, second and 
current administrative reviews. The Department found zero dumping 
margins in both the first and second administrative reviews. See Honey 
from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005) and Honey from Argentina: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 
2004).
    In the current administrative review, we have preliminarily 
determined a weighted-average margin of 2.95 percent for ACA. The 
margin calculated during the current review period constitutes one of 
the three consecutive reviews cited by ACA to support its request for 
revocation. Consequently, we preliminarily find that ACA is not 
eligible for revocation of the order under section 351.222(b) of the 
Department's regulations and preliminarily determine not to revoke the 
order with respect to ACA. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(d)(1) we have examined ACA's shipments over the past three PORs 
and have preliminarily determined that ACA has not shipped in 
commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of 
the request for revocation. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, 
through Robert James, Program Manager, from Angela Strom, Case Analyst: 
``Request by Asociation of Coopertivas Argentinas (ACA) for Revocation 
in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Honey from 
Argentina,'' dated December 20, 2005.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Tariff Act), we verified sales information provided by ACA, using 
standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant 
sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in 
the public and proprietary versions of our verification reports, which 
are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the main 
Department building. See ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated 
December 13, 2005.

Product Comparison

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all sales of

[[Page 76768]]

honey covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Review'' section 
of this notice, supra, which were sold in the respective third-country 
markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the 
United States. We matched products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by ACA and Seylinco. Where there were no sales 
of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions 
listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to 
constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to 
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is 
based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level 
of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer 
after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. 
In this review, both ACA and Seylinco claimed only EP sales.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the 
difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make 
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act.
    ACA reported two LOTs in the third-country market corresponding to 
differing channels of distribution: 1) sales to packers and 2) sales to 
importers. Differing channels of distribution, alone, do not qualify as 
separate LOTs when selling functions performed for each customer class 
are sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). We found that the 
selling functions ACA provided to its reported channels of distribution 
in the third-country and U.S. markets were virtually the same, varying 
only by the degree to which testing and warranty services were 
provided. We do not find the varying degree of testing and warranty 
services alone sufficient to determine the existence of different 
marketing stages. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 50611 and accompanying Decision Memo 
at Comment 18 (October 4, 2001); Honey from Argentina: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 621 (January 
6, 2004). Thus, we have determined that there is only one LOT for ACA's 
sales to all markets. See ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 
2005.
    Seylinco reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country 
sales. Seylinco claimed that its selling activities in both markets are 
identical, although we note Seylinco sold to two general classes of 
customers in both the U.S. and its comparison market. For Seylinco, we 
preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same 
LOT, and we therefore have no need to make an LOT adjustment. See 
Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.

Transactions Investigated

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the 
Department normally will use date of invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date 
of invoice if it better reflects the date on which material terms of 
sale are established. For ACA, the Department, consistent with its 
practice, used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both 
its third-country and U.S. markets since shipment occurred prior to 
invoice date. See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 
68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Decision Memo at 
Comment 3. For Seylinco, the Department used the invoice date as the 
date of sale for both its comparison and U.S. market sales.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which 
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States. . . .,'' as adjusted under section 772(c). Section 772(b) of 
the Tariff Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter. . . .,'' as adjusted under sections 772(c) and 
(d). ACA and Seylinco have classified their U.S. sales as EP because 
all of their sales were made before the date of importation directly to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications.

Normal Value

1. Selection of Comparison Market

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act, to 
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home 
market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compare each company's aggregate volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise. Because Seylinco did not have home market sales, 
we preliminarily find that Seylinco's home market did not provide a 
viable basis for calculating NV. ACA, however, did have home market 
sales in excess of five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales.
    Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the 
Department may determine that home market sales are inappropriate as a 
basis for determining NV if a particular market situation would not 
permit a proper comparison with EP or CEP. During the first and second 
reviews of this order, the Department found a particular market 
situation rendered the Argentine market inappropriate for the 
calculation of NV because of, among other reasons, the export-oriented 
nature of the Argentine honey industry.\4\ In the first supplemental 
questionnaire dated May 17, 2005, the Department asked ACA to provide 
further information in order to

[[Page 76769]]

evaluate the market situation in Argentina with respect to honey, and 
on May 31, 2005, ACA responded to the Department's request. ACA states 
that the circumstances in this review are the same as in the first two 
reviews and that the Department should find a ``particular market 
situation'' in Argentina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Anti-
Dumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 621 (January 6, 2004); 
Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004); Honey from 
Argentina: Preliminary Results of Anti-Dumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 77195 (December 27, 2004); and Honey From Argentina: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 19926 
(April 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 25, 2005, the Department determined that a particular 
market situation does, in fact, exist with respect to ACA's sales of 
honey in Argentina, rendering the Argentine market inappropriate for 
purposes of determining NV. See Decision Memorandum ``Analysis of 
Particular Market Place Situation'' from Angela Strom through Robert 
James to Richard Weible, dated August 25, 2005.
    When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the 
basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that 
sales to a third-country market may be utilized if (i) the prices in 
such market are representative; (ii) the aggregate quantity of the 
foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-
country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the 
subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and (iii) the 
Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the 
third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. 
ACA reported France as its largest third-country market during the POR, 
in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales 
is five percent or more of sales to the United States). Seylinco 
reported Germany as its largest third-country market during the POR, in 
terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales is 
five percent or more of sales to the United States). See, e.g., Notice 
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Preliminary Determination To Revoke the Order in Part, and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic 
Salmon From Chile, 67 FR 51186, 51186 (August 7, 2002) (selecting the 
largest third-country market as the basis for NV). The Department 
preliminarily determines that the prices in France and Germany are 
representative and no particular market situation exists that would 
prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, for ACA, NV is based on 
sales to France and for Seylinco NV is based on sales to Germany.
    In summary, therefore, NV for all companies is based on third-
country market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the 
prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption 
in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, 
and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the EP. We calculated 
NV as noted in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section of this 
notice.

2. Cost of Production

    The Department disregarded certain sales made by ACA to its 
comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise during the investigation. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 50611 
(October 4, 2001) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov 21, 2001) 
(Final Determination). However, because we did not find sales below 
cost in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding and 
because petitioners made no allegation of sales below cost in the 
context of this review, the Department determined there were not 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ACA made sales in the 
comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise 
in this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. As a 
result, on May 17, 2005, we informed ACA that ACA would not be required 
to submit cost information.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

ACA
    We based NV on the third-country market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act, 
we made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act, we made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling 
expenses, where appropriate. We note that for certain claimed direct 
expenses in the third-country market, the Department has re-classified 
them as indirect for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis 
Memorandum.
    As in previous segments of this proceeding, ACA originally reported 
warranty expenses on a customer-specific basis. ACA allocated warranty 
claims corresponding to POR sales to total tons of honey sold to a 
particular customer during the POR. In response to our first request 
for information, ACA also submitted transaction-specific warranty 
expenses. See Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated May 31, 2005. 
In response to our most recent request for information, ACA reported 
its historical experience for warranties by market. See Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response dated November 28, 2005.
    Notwithstanding ACA's reporting of warranty expenses both on a 
customer-specific and transaction-specific basis, the Department finds 
that these allocation methodologies fail to reflect the nature and 
terms of warranty costs as incurred by ACA, i.e., at the time of sale, 
warranty claims for specific customers or transactions cannot be known 
or quantified and the terms for such claims did not vary from customer 
to customer. Indeed, in the less than fair value investigation 
involving honey from Argentina, the Department recalculated ACA's 
warranty expense over total sales to the market in question. See Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey 
from Argentina, 66 FR 24108 (May 11, 2001), unchanged in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Honey from 
Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001). In the second administrative 
review, the Department accepted ACA's reported warranty expenses on a 
customer-specific basis. See ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated 
November 26, 2004,and ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 
2004. However, based upon our review of the facts in this case, this is 
not the appropriate methodology.
    If the warranty terms offered by a respondent at the time of sale 
vary significantly from customer to customer, a customer-specific 
allocation of warranty expenses may be appropriate. However, as in this 
case, if the warranty terms offered by the respondent at the time of 
sale are not significantly different from customer to customer, an 
allocation of warranty expenses over total sales or sales to the market 
in question is more reflective of the nature of the expense and the 
respondent's expectation that its pricing behavior will allow it to 
recoup these costs over time. Furthermore, because warranty expenses 
are not incurred until after a warranty claim has been received from a 
customer, can vary greatly from year to year, and can occur months or 
years after the relevant date of sale, the Department often bases 
warranty expenses on historical data rather than the expenses incurred 
during a single POR. (See, e.g., Large Newspaper Printing Presses and 
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 11557 
(February 26, 2001) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.)

[[Page 76770]]

    Based on the foregoing considerations, we have re-calculated ACA's 
reported warranty expenses. In order to capture warranty expenses 
reflective of ACA's historical experience for the market in question, 
we used warranty expenditures incurred in that market in the three most 
recently completed fiscal years\5\ and allocated those expenses over 
ACA's total sales to that market for the same three-year period. The 
resulting ratio which we applied to the gross unit price for these 
Preliminary Results represents a three year historical average of ACA's 
warranty expenses with respect to the market in question. In addition, 
we revised certain warranty expenses for the reasons outlined in the 
accompanying Analysis Memorandum. See ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated 
December 20, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The three most recent fiscal years were chosen as the 
calculated time period because this is in accord with the 
Department's standard questionnaire. Furthermore, the three-year 
average is not inconsistent with ACA's historical warranty claims 
for the market in question. See Supplemental Questionnaire Response 
dated November 28, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seylinco
    We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. 
We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. Where 
appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We also made 
adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. See Seylinco's 
Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France, 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003). However, the Federal 
Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine 
peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily 
exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. 
Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We 
used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion 
dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2003, 
through November 30, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               Average
                  Manufacturer / Exporter                      Margin
                                                            (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas.....................          2.95
Seylinco S.A..............................................          0.00
All Others................................................         30.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or 
written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and 
comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these 
proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement 
of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case 
briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments 
or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment 
rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the 
POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those 
duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that 
particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion 
of the review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Tariff Act:
    (1) the cash deposit rates for all companies reviewed will be the 
rates established in the final results of review;
    (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published in the most recent period;
    (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer 
of the merchandise; and
    (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate from the investigation 
(30.24 percent). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), 
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 2001), and Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 
2001).
    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 this review period. 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.


[[Page 76771]]


    Dated: December 20, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-7981 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S