[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36422-36426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12891]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently 
conducting the semi-annual 2005-2006 new shipper review of the 
antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''). We preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') with respect to Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., 
Ltd. (``Shanghai Bloom''), which failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability, provided unverifiable information, and impeded the proceeding. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during 
the period of review (``POR'') for which the importer-specific 
assessment rates are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2007)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Anya Naschak, 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-
1442 or (202) 482-6375, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 21, 2006, the Department received a timely request from 
Shanghai Bloom, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new 
shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''). On July 20, 2006, the Department extended 
the deadline to initiate Shanghai Bloom's new shipper review, in order 
to clarify certain information contained in Shanghai Bloom's request 
for a new shipper review. On August 30, 2006, after receiving 
supplemental information from Shanghai Bloom, the Department found that 
the request for review with respect to Shanghai Bloom met all of the 
regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated a 
antidumping duty new shipper review covering the period December 1, 
2005, through June 30, 2006. See Honey from the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR 52764 
(September 7, 2006)

(``Initiation Notice'').

    On September 11, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom. See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from 
Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 (September 
11, 2006). On October 2, 2006, Shanghai Bloom responded to section A of 
the Department's questionnaire. On October 18, 2006, Shanghai Bloom 
submitted its response to sections C and D, and importer-specific 
questions of the Department's questionnaire. On October 26, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom, and 
received Shanghai Bloom's response on November 24, 2006. On January 3, 
2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to 
Shanghai Bloom. Shanghai Bloom submitted its response and its 
importer's response to the Department's second supplemental 
questionnaire on January 31, 2007.
    On January 9, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of the new shipper review until June 26, 2007. See 
Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 947 
(January 9, 2007).
    On March 20, 2007, the Department rejected Shanghai Bloom's January 
31, 2007, response on the grounds that proprietary information was not 
sufficiently summarized in the public version. On March 22, 2007, per 
the Department's instruction, Shanghai Bloom resubmitted its response 
as well as its importer's response to the Department's second 
supplemental questionnaire. On March 29, 2007, Shanghai Bloom submitted 
revised FOP spreadsheets and reconciliation charts that related to its 
March 22, 2007, filing. On March 30, 2007, the Department issued 
Shanghai Bloom a third supplemental questionnaire. The Department 
received Shanghai Bloom's response and its importer's response to the 
third supplemental questionnaire on April 13, 2007. On April 19, 2007, 
Shanghai Bloom re-filed its importer's response to the Department's 
March 30, 2007, importer-specific questions contained in its third 
supplemental questionnaire. From May 15, 2007, through May 18, 2007, 
the Department conducted verifications of the sales and factors of 
production information submitted by Shanghai Bloom and its unaffiliated 
producer, Linxiang Jindeya Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd. (``Linxiang 
Jindeya'').

Surrogate Country and Factors

    On March 13, 2007, the Department provided parties with an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information (``PAI'') on 
surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary 
results. See Letter to All Interested Parties, from Christopher D. 
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding New

[[Page 36423]]

Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China, dated 
March 13, 2007.
    On March 28, 2007, Shanghai Bloom submitted surrogate value data 
(see Letter from Shanghai Bloom to the U.S. Department of Commerce 
regarding Honey from the People's Republic of China New Shipper Review 
(March 28, 2007). On May 14, 2007, the petitioners\1\ submitted 
surrogate value data (see Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
from petitioners, regarding 9th New Shipper Review of Honey from the 
People's Republic of China, dated May 14, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are the American Honey Producers Association and 
the Sioux Honey Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.307(b)(iv), the Department verified the questionnaire responses of 
Shanghai Bloom from May 15, 2007, to May 18, 2007, (which included a 
verification of Shanghai Bloom's unaffiliated producer, Linxiang 
Jindeya). For these companies, we used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's and 
exporter's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial 
records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification 
report for each company. For a further discussion, see Memorandum to 
the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Anya Naschak, Senior International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, and Michael Holton, Senior International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification of the Questionnaire 
Responses of Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co. Ltd., in the 
Antidumping New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of 
China (``Shanghai Bloom Verification Report''); see also Memorandum to 
the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Anya Naschak, Senior International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, and Michael Holton, Senior International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification of the Questionnaire 
Responses of Shanghai Bloom that relate to Linxiang Jindeya Bee-Keeping 
Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Honey from the 
People's Republic of China (``Linxiang Jindeya Verification Report'').

Scope of 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.

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, Shanghai Bloom submitted information in 
support of its claim for a company-specific rate.
    Accordingly, we have considered whether Shanghai Bloom 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, 20589 (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.
    Shanghai Bloom provided complete separate-rate information in its 
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, 
we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether it is 
independent from government control.

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. Our analysis shows that the evidence on the 
record supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government 
control for Shanghai Bloom. Shanghai Bloom 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), and the ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's 
Republic of China'' (May 12, 1994). See Exhibit A-2 of Shanghai Bloom's 
October 2, 2005, submission (Shanghai Bloom Section A). Shanghai Bloom 
also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit A-3 of its 
section A response, and a revised business license at verification. See 
Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at Exhibit SB2. The Shanghai 
Industry and Commerce Administration Bureau issued these licenses. 
Shanghai Bloom explained 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. Shanghai Bloom 
affirmed that license defines the scope of its business operations and 
that there are no other limitations imposed by the business license.
    Shanghai Bloom stated that it is governed by the Company Law and 
the Foreign Trade Law, which it claimed

[[Page 36424]]

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 and allowing 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 Shanghai Bloom.

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.
    Shanghai Bloom 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.
    In support of its claim to independent price negotiations, Shanghai 
Bloom stated that such negotiations were conducted through emails and 
telephone calls, and that it had placed on the record copies of all 
emails between itself and its U.S. customer during the POR.\2\ Shanghai 
Bloom also stated that its only email account was the account listed on 
the above-referenced sales negotiations. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See e.g., Shanghai Bloom's Section A at Exhibit A-5, 
Shanghai Bloom's Response to the Departments Second Supplemental 
Questionnaire at 3, (March 22, 2007), and Shanghai Bloom's Response 
to the Department's Third Supplemental Questionnaire at 1, (April 
13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the verification of Shanghai Bloom, the Department found that 
the emails placed on the record by Shanghai Bloom were not stored in 
Shanghai Bloom's email account, and were instead stored in text files 
on Shanghai Bloom's computer hard drive. See Shanghai Bloom 
Verification Report at 9. In addition, the Department found at 
verification that Shanghai Bloom used an additional email address for 
official company business; the Department requested access to this 
email account. However, company officials stated that all information 
in the account had been deleted prior to granting the Department access 
to the account. See Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at 8. However, 
the Department successfully verified that Shanghai Bloom is a privately 
owned company (see Shanghai Bloom Verification Report at 3-4 and 
Exhibit SB2), that Shanghai Bloom independently selected management 
(id. at 10), and that Shanghai Bloom had authority to determine the use 
of sales revenue (id.). Moreover, the Department found no indications 
of restrictions on the use of export revenue (id.). Furthermore, 
Shanghai Bloom supplied sales negotiation documentation including a 
purchase order and sales contract with an independent third party, 
demonstrating its independent setting of export prices. See Shanghai 
Bloom Verification Report at 18.
    Irrespective of the issues with respect to the email accounts, 
which are addressed separately below under ``Use of Adverse Facts 
Otherwise Available,'' because evidence on the record preliminarily 
indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, 
over Shanghai Bloom's export activities, we preliminarily determine 
that it has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. 
However, we will continue to carefully examine these issues for the 
Final Results.

Use of Adverse Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts 
available to Shanghai Bloom. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 
that, if an interested party: (A) withholds information that has been 
requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a 
timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding 
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that 
when the Department finds that a respondent has not complied with a 
request for information, the Department shall inform the respondent of 
the deficiency and allow them an opportunity to remedy or explain the 
deficiency. If the Department finds that the subsequent response of the 
respondent is deficient or is not filed within the applicable time 
limits, the Department may, subject to subsection (e) disregard all or 
part of the original and subsequent responses. Moreover, section 782(e) 
states that the Department shall not decline to consider information by 
a respondent 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 information and meeting the requirements 
established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5) 
the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    The Department conducted verification of Shanghai Bloom's sales and 
factors of production information placed on the record of this new 
shipper review. Shanghai Bloom impeded the Department's verification of 
its information by destroying or deleting information needed to verify 
completeness and price negotiations and by providing unverifiable 
factors of production (``FOP'') data. See Shanghai

[[Page 36425]]

Bloom Verification Report; see also Linxiang Jindeya Verification 
Report. Because Shanghai Bloom deleted information needed to verify 
completeness and price negotiations, section 782(d) and (e) of the Act 
are not applicable. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration from Erin Begnal, Senior 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 
Administration, regarding Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shanghai Bloom 
International Trading Co., Ltd. (June 26, 2007).
    By hindering the Department's ability to conduct verification 
through destroying and/or deleting pertinent information and by 
providing information at verification that directly conflicted with 
information previously submitted on the record by Shanghai Bloom, 
Shanghai Bloom has not cooperated to the best of its ability.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. 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 (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
    As explained above, Shanghai Bloom provided unverifiable 
information on the record, deleted information requested by the 
Department, and failed to provide evidence of price negotiations. 
Therefore, Shanghai Bloom did not cooperate to the best of its ability. 
Because Shanghai Bloom did not cooperate to the best of its ability in 
the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A),(B) and (C) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') as the basis for these preliminary results of 
review for Shanghai Bloom .

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, the Department normally 
selects, as AFA, the highest rate on the record of 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 (April 21, 2003). The Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') and the Federal Circuit 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.'' See 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.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); D&L Supply Co. v. 
United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 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 
normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 212.39 
percent, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the 
proceeding, to Shanghai Bloom as AFA. See, e.g., Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In 
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 
2006) (``Third AR Final Results''). As discussed further below, this 
rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
described in the SAA as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition 
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The 
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have 
probative value information must be reliable and relevant. Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). 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. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and, Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 
70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).
    To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both 
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input 
costs or

[[Page 36426]]

selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated 
dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are 
administrative determinations. The information upon which the AFA rate 
we are applying for the current review was calculated during the third 
administrative review. See Third AR Final Results. Furthermore, no 
information has been presented in the current review that calls into 
question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department 
finds that the information is reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996). 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 AFA rate we are applying for 
the current review was corroborated in the third administrative review 
of honey from the PRC. See Third AR Final Results. Moreover, as there 
is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that 
this rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available, we 
determine that this rate has relevance.
    As the Third AR Final Results margin is both reliable and relevant, 
we find that it has probative value. As a result, the Department 
determines that the Third AR Final Results margin is corroborated for 
the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be 
applied to Shanghai Bloom. Because these are preliminary results of 
review, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the 
time of the final results of review for the purpose of determining the 
most appropriate final margin for Shanghai Bloom. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade 
Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 
2000).

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during 
the period December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006:

                           Honey from the PRC
Shanghai Bloom......................................              212.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose our analysis to parties to these proceedings 
within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
this notice.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in 
case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be 
submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties 
are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed 
five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of this review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

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. 
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the 
final results of this review is above de minimis. The final results of 
this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties 
on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review 
and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit 
rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, 
if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash 
deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above 
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for 
all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to 
be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-
wide rate of 212.39 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
    This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 
351.214.

    Dated: June 26, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-12891 Filed 7-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S