[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73758-73764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25261]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-812]


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

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

[[Page 73759]]

SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. The review covers 
five firms, two of which were selected as mandatory respondents (see 
``Background'' section of this notice for further explanation). The 
period of review (POR) is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have 
not been made below the normal value by both mandatory respondents 
during the period of review. In addition, we will preliminarily apply 
the average of the dumping margins calculated for both ACA and Seylinco 
as the review-specific rate for the three companies subject to this 
review but not selected as respondents (i.e., Patagonik S.A. 
(Patagonik), Naiman S.A. (Naiman), and El Mana S.A. (El Mana)). For 
more detail, see the ``Background'' section below; see also 
``Preliminary Results of Review,'' below. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will 
issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP). 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, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke, Deborah Scott, 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) 482-5604, (202) 482-2657, 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, 
2006, the Department published its opportunity to request a review. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 
69543 (December 1, 2006). On December 29, 2006, the American Honey 
Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, 
petitioners) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2005, through 
November 30, 2006. Petitioners requested that the Department review 
entries of subject merchandise made by nine Argentine producers/
exporters, six of which also filed individual requests for review with 
the Department. In addition, the Department received one request from a 
producer/exporter that was not included in petitioners' request for 
review. On February 2, 2007, the Department initiated a review of these 
ten\1\ companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 5005 
(February 2, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Federal Register notice lists 11 companies; however, in 
a previous segment of this proceeding the Department treated two 
affiliates as a single entity. No new evidence has been presented in 
this segment of the proceeding to warrant changing this treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 23, 2007, the Department issued quantity and value 
questionnaires to each of the ten companies covered by the review. On 
March 9, 2007, petitioners timely withdrew their request for review of 
three of the ten companies. On March 27, 2007, the Department 
determined that, because it was not feasible to examine all seven of 
the remaining producers/exporters of subject merchandise, the most 
appropriate methodology for purposes of this review was to select the 
four largest producers/exporters by export volume as respondents: ACA, 
Seylinco, Mielar/CAA, and Nexco S.A. (Nexco). The Department stated it 
would apply a review-specific average margin to those companies not 
selected, i.e., Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), Naiman S.A. (Naiman), and 
El Mana S.A. (El Mana). See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ``Selection of 
Respondents,'' dated March 27, 2007. Also, on March 27, 2007, the 
Department issued sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire 
to all exporters subject to the review.
    On April 23, 2007, Nexco withdrew its request for a review; 
petitioners also withdrew their request for a review of Nexco on April 
24, 2007. Accordingly, the Department published a notice of partial 
rescission in response to petitioners' and respondent's withdrawal of 
the review of Nexco, as well as petitioners' original request for 
withdrawal of the three following companies: Agroin Las Piedras Ltda., 
Seabird Argentina S.A., and Ultramar Argentina S.A. See Honey from 
Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 33740 (June 19, 2007).
    On July 17, 2007, both petitioners and respondent company Mielar/
CAA withdrew their requests for an administrative review. Accordingly, 
on September 4, 2007, the Department published a notice of partial 
rescission of review with regard to Mielar/CAA and also extended the 
time limit for issuance of the preliminary results of this 
administrative review to December 20, 2007. See Honey from Argentina: 
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 50661 
(September 4, 2007).
    With respect to the two remaining mandatory respondents, ACA and 
Seylinco, the chronology of this review is as follows. We received 
ACA's response to section A on April 25, 2007, and its response to 
sections B and C on May 22, 2007. On April 27, 2007, we received 
Seylinco's response to section A, and we received its response to 
sections B and C on June 5, 2007. On July 5, 2007, petitioners filed 
separate deficiency comments regarding the responses by ACA and 
Seylinco to sections A through C of the Department's questionnaire. ACA 
submitted a response to petitioners' comments on July 25, 2007, and 
Seylinco responded to petitioners' comments on July 31, 2007. The 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to ACA for section A on 
August 24, 2007, to which ACA responded on September 19, 2007. The 
Department then issued ACA a supplemental questionnaire for sections B 
and C on September 28, 2007, to which ACA responded on October 31, 
2007. The Department issued another supplemental questionnaire to ACA 
for sections A, B, and C on November 21, 2007. ACA submitted its 
narrative response and sales files to this supplemental questionnaire 
on December 4, 2007 and the related attachments on December 5, 2007. 
Finally, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to ACA on 
December 14, 2007, to which ACA provided a response on December 18, 
2007. For Seylinco, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
for sections A, B, and C on August 31, 2007; Seylinco responded to 
section A of the supplemental questionnaire on September 21, 2007 and 
sections B and C on September 27, 2007. On October 3, 2007, we issued a 
second supplemental questionnaire to Seylinco for sections A, B, and C, 
to which Seylinco responded

[[Page 73760]]

on October 22, 2007. On October 25, 2007, the Department requested 
clarification of Seylinco's second supplemental questionnaire response 
to which Seylinco provided support documentation on November 16, 2007. 
See Memorandum to the File, ``Honey from Argentina; Clarification of 
Respondent's Second Supplemental Response,'' dated November 9, 2007. 
Finally, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Seylinco on 
November 26, 2007, to which Seylinco responded on December 5, 2007.
    On June 18, 2007, petitioners submitted a letter alleging that ACA 
had made comparison market sales of honey at prices below the cost of 
production (COP) during the POR. On August 23, 2007, the Department 
determined that petitioners' COP allegation provided a reasonable basis 
on which to initiate a sales below cost investigation for ACA. See 
Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, ``Petitioners 
Allegations of Sales Below the Cost of Production in the December 1, 
2005-November 30, 2006 Administrative Review,'' dated August 23, 2007 
(Cost Initiation Memorandum). On September 6, 2007, we issued a 
memorandum indicating we had selected ACA's three largest beekeeper 
suppliers as respondents in the sales below cost investigation. See 
Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, ``Selection of Cost 
of Production Respondents,'' dated September 6, 2007 (Cost Selection 
Memorandum).
    On September 21, 2007, the Department issued section D of the 
antidumping duty questionnaire to solicit COP data from the three 
selected beekeeper suppliers (Beekeeper 1, Beekeeper 2, and Beekeeper 
3).\2\ We received Beekeeper 1's response to section D on October 19, 
2007, Beekeeper 3's response on October 22, 2007, and Beekeeper 2's 
response on October 26, 2007. On November 9, 2007, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires for section D to each of the beekeepers, to 
which each beekeeper responded on November 27, 2007. On November 30, 
2007, the Department issued another supplemental questionnaire to 
Beekeepers 1, 2, and 3; each beekeeper provided its response on 
December 10, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The three beekeepers' names are business proprietary 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Intent Not To Revoke In Part

    The Department's procedures for revoking an antidumping duty order, 
whether in whole or in part, are found at 19 CFR 351.222. 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 
normal value in the current review period and that the company will not 
sell at less than normal value 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 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., at zero or de minimis margins) for 
a period of at least three consecutive years. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2); 
see also Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review and Revocation in Part, 70 FR 39997 
(July 12, 2005).
    On December 29, 2006, Seylinco submitted a request for revocation 
of the antidumping duty order with the requisite certifications set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.222(e). Seylinco based its request on the absence 
of dumping for the four most recent review periods, 2002-2003, 2003-
2004, 2004-2005 and the current administrative review. The Department 
found zero dumping margins in the 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 
administrative reviews. See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005); 
see also Honey from Argentina: Final Results, Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke 
in Part, 71 FR 26333 (May 4, 2006) and Honey from Argentina: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not 
to Revoke in Part, 72 FR 25245 (May 4, 2007), respectively.
    In the current administrative review, we have preliminarily 
determined a weighted-average margin of zero percent for Seylinco. The 
margin calculated during the current review period constitutes one of 
the reviews cited by Seylinco in support of its request for revocation 
under section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations. However, we 
have also examined Seylinco's shipments over the past three PORs and 
have preliminarily determined that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), 
Seylinco has not shipped in commercial quantities in each of the three 
years forming the basis of the request for revocation. Accordingly, we 
hereby preliminarily find that, relative to shipment levels 
characteristic of the respondent and the industry as a whole, Seylinco 
is not eligible for revocation of the order. See undated 2004-2005 
Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, through Robert James, Program 
Manager, from Maryanne Burke, Case Analyst, ``Request by Seylinco S.A. 
(Seylinco) for Revocation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Honey from Argentina,'' placed on the record of this review on 
November 9, 2007.

Product Comparison

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Tariff Act), we considered all sales of honey covered by 
the description in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, 
supra, which were sold in the appropriate 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. For 
our discussion of market viability and selection of comparison market, 
see the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, infra. 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.

[[Page 73761]]

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to 
the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the 
home market at the same level of trade (LOT) as export price (EP) or 
the constructed export price (CEP). The normal value LOT is based on 
the starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when 
normal value 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 normal value 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 a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act.
    For sales in both the third-country market and the United States, 
ACA reported two LOTs 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. Thus, we have preliminarily determined there is only 
one LOT for ACA's sales in both the comparison and U.S. markets, and 
have not made a LOT adjustment. See ``Analysis Memorandum for 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Review on Honey from 
Argentina for Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas'' (ACA Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum), dated December 19, 2007.
    Seylinco reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country 
sales. Seylinco claimed its sales were made directly to unaffiliated 
customers in both the United States and Germany and that the selling 
activities in both markets are identical. For Seylinco, we 
preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same 
LOT, and therefore we have not made a LOT adjustment. See ``Analysis 
Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Review on 
Honey from Argentina for Seylinco S.A.'' (Seylinco Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum), dated December 19, 2007.

Transactions Reviewed

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states the 
Department normally will use the 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 the material terms 
of sale are established. For ACA, consistent with its practice, the 
Department used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both 
the third-country and U.S. market.\3\ Petitioners have argued the 
Department should use date of contract as the date of sale in this 
review, claiming that all of the terms of sale were set at the time of 
contract and remained unaltered through shipment to both the United 
States and all third country markets. See, e.g., petitioners' letter 
dated November 15, 2007. However, we examined this issue thoroughly in 
the original investigation of honey from Argentina involving ACA and 
found that changes to the essential terms of sale did and do occur 
between the contract date and the time of the actual shipment by ACA. 
See Memorandum to the File from Deborah Scott, dated December 19, 2007. 
As a result, in each subsequent POR, we used the date of shipment for 
ACA as the date of sale. Furthermore, in the instant POR, we found that 
actual changes did occur between contract date and shipment date with 
respect to the type of honey sold to the customer. Consequently, we 
determine that changes to the essential terms of sale continue to occur 
between the contract date and shipment date and therefore shipment date 
continues to be the appropriate date of sale with respect to ACA's 
sales in the U.S. and comparison markets. For Seylinco, the Department 
used the invoice date as the date of sale for both its comparison and 
U.S. market sales. However, in some instances shipment occurred prior 
to invoice, and consistent with past segments of this proceeding and 
the Department's practice, we used the shipment date as the date of 
sale for those sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ When shipment occurs prior to invoice date, as in the case 
of ACA's sales in both the U.S. and third-country markets, it is the 
Department's practice to use the shipment date as the date of sale 
rather than the invoice date. See, e.g., Honey from Argentina: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part, 70 FR 76766, 
76768 (December 28, 2005), unchanged in Honey from Argentina: Final 
Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 71 FR 26333 (May 4, 
2006); see also 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 the accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. For ACA, we based EP 
on prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States and made 
adjustments for movement expenses. For Seylinco, we calculated EP based 
on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States and made 
adjustments for billing adjustments and movement expenses.

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

[[Page 73762]]

equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared 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 any home market sales, we 
preliminarily find that Seylinco's home market does not provide a 
viable basis for calculating NV. ACA did have some home market sales; 
however, the volume of its home market sales was less than five percent 
of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales. As a result, we preliminarily 
find that ACA's home market does not provide a viable basis for 
calculating NV.
    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. 
Seylinco reported Germany as its largest third-country market during 
the POR in terms of volume of sales. The aggregate quantity of such 
sales is greater than five percent of sales to the United States, and 
there is no information on the record to suggest that any other market 
would provide greater product similarity. The Department preliminarily 
determines that the prices in Germany are representative and no 
particular market situation exists that would prevent a proper 
comparison to EP. As a result, for Seylinco we based NV on its sales to 
Germany for these preliminary results.
    ACA reported its sales to the United Kingdom, the largest third-
country market in terms of sales volume when date of shipment is used 
to determine date of sale. Based on information on the record, we find 
that while the United Kingdom does constitute the largest third-country 
market, the sales volumes to ACA's three reported largest third-country 
markets are comparable. Petitioners have claimed the Department should 
select one of ACA's other reported third-country markets as the 
comparison market since prices to the United Kingdom are not 
representative and the merchandise sold in the other third-country 
markets was more similar in terms of product standards (i.e., level of 
contamination) and not homogenized. See, e.g., petitioners' letters 
dated July 5, 2007 and October 4, 2007.
    The record shows, however, that ACA's sales to the United Kingdom 
have more product matches to its sales in the United States than do 
ACA's sales to its other two largest third-country markets. See section 
351.404(e) of the Department's regulations. Further, we do not find 
that the price differences among ACA's third-country markets support 
petitioners' assertion that prices to the United Kingdom are not 
representative. Since we preliminarily find ACA's sales volume to the 
United Kingdom is greater than five percent of its sales to the United 
States, prices to the United Kingdom are representative, greater 
product similarity exists with respect to ACA's sales to the United 
Kingdom and the United States, and no particular market situation 
exists that would prevent a proper comparison to EP, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act, we preliminarily find that 
ACA's sales to the United Kingdom serve as the most appropriate basis 
on which to base NV.
    In summary, therefore, NV for ACA and Seylinco is based on each 
exporter's 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
    As noted above, in response to petitioners' allegation that ACA 
sold the foreign like product at prices below its COP, the Department 
initiated a sales below cost investigation of ACA. With respect to 
Seylinco, 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 Seylinco made sales in the comparison market at prices 
below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. Therefore, 
the Department did not initiate a sales below cost investigation of 
Seylinco.
A. Cost of Production Analysis
    To calculate a COP and CV for the merchandise under consideration, 
the Department selected the three largest beekeepers by volume who 
supplied honey to ACA during the POR. See Cost Selection Memorandum.
B. Calculation of COP
    We calculated a simple average COP for ACA based on the costs of 
the three respondent suppliers, Beekeeper 1, Beekeeper 2, and Beekeeper 
3. For additional detail, see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director of 
Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Asociacion de 
Cooperativas Argentinas' Beekeeper Respondents,'' dated December 19, 
2007.
    We relied on the COP data submitted by the three respondent 
beekeepers in their cost questionnaire responses, with the following 
adjustments. We adjusted the reported feed costs for Beekeepers 1, 2, 
and 3 to reflect the data available from public sources, as the 
Beekeepers provided insufficient documentation to support their 
reported feed costs. In addition, we revised Beekeeper 1's reported 
general and administrative (G&A) and financial expenses by including 
the land use cost for Beekeeper 1's dairy and beekeeping activities, as 
well as the adjusted feed cost and revenue from the sale of by-
products, in the denominator used to calculate the G&A and financial 
expense rate for this beekeeper so that the ratio would be on the same 
basis as the costs to which it was applied. For Beekeepers 2 and 3 we 
also adjusted the denominator of the G&A ratio to include the adjusted 
feed costs.
C. Test of Third-Country Prices and Results of the Cost of Production 
Test
    We calculated a simple average COP using the COP of ACA's three 
respondent suppliers (Beekeeper 1, Beekeeper 2, and Beekeeper 3) which 
was applied to these beekeepers as well as all other beekeeper 
suppliers from whom information was not requested. In determining 
whether to disregard third-country market sales made at prices below 
the COP, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff 
Act, we examined: (1) whether, within an extended period of time, such 
sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) whether such sales 
were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less 
than 20 percent of the respondent's third-country market sales of a 
given model (i.e., control number, or CONNUM) were at prices below the 
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made

[[Page 73763]]

within an extended period of time and in ``substantial quantities.'' 
Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's third-country market sales 
of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended period 
of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act; and (2) based on our comparison 
of prices to the COP for the POR, they were at prices which would not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act.
    We found ACA did not have any models for which 20 percent or more 
of sales volume (by weight) were below cost during the POR. Therefore 
we did not disregard any of ACA's third-country market sales and 
included all such sales in our calculation of normal value.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

ACA

    We based normal value 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. We 
preliminarily reclassified some of ACA's reported direct selling 
expenses (namely, certain of its expenses related to testing) as 
indirect selling expenses, consistent with our treatment of testing 
expenses in the 2003-2004 administrative review. See Honey from 
Argentina: Final Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 71 FR 
26333 (May 4, 2006) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2. In addition, for those direct selling expenses which ACA 
reported as being associated with the homogenization process, we 
preliminarily find these are properly considered as production costs, 
not selling expenses. Thus, we have not included ACA's testing and 
homogenization expenses among the direct selling expenses for which we 
made adjustments in these preliminary results. For more information, 
see ACA Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

Seylinco

    We based normal value 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 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Additionally, we adjusted gross unit 
price for billing adjustments, where applicable.

Currency Conversions

    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), remaining unchanged in 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 
2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish 
exchange rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions from Argentine pesos to U.S. dollars 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. For variables 
that ACA reported in pounds sterling or euros, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, 
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act.

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, 2005 
through November 30, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                      Exporter                       Margin (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentina...............                 0.00
Seylinco S.A.......................................                 0.00
Patagonik S.A......................................                 0.00
Naiman S.A.........................................                 0.00
El Mana S.A........................................                 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has, for these preliminary results, applied the 
average of the rates calculated for the two remaining mandatory 
respondents, ACA and Seylinco, to the non-reviewed companies, 
Patagonik, Naiman, and El Mana.
    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, parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, 
and written comments should 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. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all ACA and Seylinco 
entries made during the POR. For entries made during the POR from the 
non-reviewed companies, i.e., Patagonik, Naiman, and El Mana, we will 
apply the average of the assessment rates calculated for ACA and 
Seylinco. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to 
CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of 
review.

[[Page 73764]]

    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies 
included in these final results of review for which the reviewed 
companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

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 covered by 
this review (i.e., ACA, Seylinco, Patagonik, Naiman, and El Mana) 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 (October 4, 2001); see also Notice of Amended 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From 
Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (November 21, 2001), and Notice of Antidumping 
Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001).

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 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.

    Dated: December 19, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-25261 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S