[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79802-79809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-812]


Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Order 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 duty order on honey from Argentina. The review covers 
four firms, three of which were selected as mandatory respondents (see 
``Background'' section of this notice for further explanation). The 
period of review (POR) is December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have 
been made below normal value (NV) by Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik). With 
respect to the other two mandatory respondents, Asociacion de 
Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA) and Seylinco, S.A. (Seylinco), we 
preliminarily determine that their sales of honey have not been made 
below NV during the POR. We also preliminarily intend to revoke 
Seylinco from the antidumping duty order subject to its request dated 
December 31, 2007. Finally, we preliminarily assign the dumping margin 
calculated for Patagonik to the one company subject to this review but 
not selected as a mandatory respondent (i.e., Compania Inversora 
Platense S.A. (CIPSA)). For more information, 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. See 
``Preliminary Results of Review,'' below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke (Seylinco), David 
Cordell (Patagonik), Deborah Scott (ACA), or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-5604, (202) 482-0408, (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 3, 
2007, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 
67889 (December 3, 2007). In response, on December 31,

[[Page 79803]]

2007, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey 
Association (collectively, the petitioners) requested an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the 
period December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007. The petitioners 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
entries of subject merchandise made by 13 Argentine producers/
exporters. In addition, the Department received requests for review 
from four Argentine exporters included in the petitioners' request. 
Furthermore, the Department received one request from an exporter that 
was not included in the petitioners' request for review.
    On January 28, 2008, the Department initiated a review of the 14 
companies\1\ for which an administrative review was requested. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners requested reviews of Compania Apicola Argentina 
S.A. (CAA) and Mielar S.A. (Mielar) as separate entities. Counsel 
for CAA and Mielar filed a single request for review of 
Mielar and CAA (or either of them). However, 
in a previous segment of this proceeding, the Department treated 
these two companies as a single entity. See Honey from Argentina: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 19926 
(April 15, 2005). Thus, while the notice of initiation for this 
review lists 15 companies, CAA and Mielar are currently being 
treated as single entity based on that prior decision. Accordingly, 
there were a total of 14 companies for which reviews were initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 5, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum indicating 
its intention to limit the number of respondents selected for review 
and to select mandatory respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports 
of Argentine honey during the POR. On February 19, 2008, two companies, 
ACA and Seylinco, submitted comments in response to the Department's 
intended respondent selection methodology. ACA argued the Department 
must choose the largest exporters as respondents. Seylinco asserted the 
Department must select Seylinco as a mandatory respondent because it 
had requested revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty order. 
Seylinco also argued that failure to choose Seylinco would deny it the 
benefits it believes it has earned under the regulation governing 
revocations based on an absence of dumping. On February 19, 2008, the 
petitioners also filed comments regarding the Department's intended 
respondent selection methodology. The petitioners maintained that based 
on the CBP data as well as publicly-available data, the Department 
should select ACA, Nexco S.A. and, possibly, Honeymax S.A. as mandatory 
respondents. The petitioners also argued that to the extent Seylinco 
was requesting to be reviewed as a mandatory respondent on the basis of 
its request for revocation, the Department should reject that request. 
In addition, in their February 19, 2008, letter, the petitioners timely 
withdrew their requests for review of the following six companies: AGLH 
S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Bomare S.A. (Bodegas Miguel 
Armengol), Mercoline S.A., Productos Afer S.A., and Seabird Argentina 
S.A.
    On March 3, 2008, Seylinco submitted comments rebutting the 
petitioners' contention that Seylinco should not be chosen as a 
mandatory respondent. Seylinco reiterated that it should be a mandatory 
respondent because of its request for revocation in part, and not to 
select Seylinco would be equivalent to denying that request.
    On March 18, 2008, the petitioners timely withdrew their requests 
for an administrative review of El Mana S.A., HoneyMax S.A., and Nexco 
S.A.
    On March 20, 2008, the Department determined that, because it was 
not feasible to examine all five of the remaining producers/exporters 
of subject merchandise, the most appropriate methodology for purposes 
of this review was to select the four largest of these producers/
exporters by export volume. These four respondents were ACA, CAA/
Mielar, Patagonik and Seylinco. The Department stated it would apply a 
review-specific average margin to the company not selected, i.e., 
CIPSA. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, ``Selection of Respondents,'' dated March 
20, 2008. On March 25, 2008, the Department issued sections A, B, and C 
of the antidumping questionnaire to all four exporters chosen as 
mandatory respondents in this review.
    On May 22, 2008, both the petitioners and CAA/Mielar submitted 
letters withdrawing their requests for an administrative review of CAA/
Mielar.
    On June 16, 2008, the Department published a notice of partial 
rescission in response to the petitioners' February 19, 2008, and March 
18, 2008, withdrawals of their review requests, as well as the 
petitioners' and CAA/Mielar's request for withdrawal of the review of 
CAA/Mielar. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 33975 (June 16, 2008).
    On July 7, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of this review from September 2, 2008, to December 
19, 2008. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 
FR 38396 (July 7, 2008).
    With respect to the three remaining mandatory respondents, ACA, 
Patagonik, and Seylinco, the chronology of this review is as follows: 
ACA filed its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire 
on April 22, 2008 and its response to sections B and C of the 
Department's questionnaire on May 28, 2008. On June 20, 2008, the 
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 and on June 24, 2008, the petitioners filed comments 
regarding ACA's responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's 
questionnaire. ACA submitted comments regarding the petitioners' cost 
allegation on June 30, 2008. The Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to ACA for sections A, B, and C of the questionnaire on 
July 15, 2008. ACA provided a response to two of the items in the 
supplemental questionnaire on July 30, 2008, and a response to the 
remainder of the supplemental questionnaire on August 19, 2008. On 
August 27, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum stating the 
petitioners had not provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
ACA sold honey in the comparison market at prices below the COP during 
the POR and, based on this reason, did not initiate a sales-below-cost 
investigation for ACA. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, 
Office 7, ``Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production in the December 1, 2006 - November 30, 2007 Administrative 
Review of Honey from Argentina,'' dated August 27, 2008 (ACA Cost 
Allegation Memorandum). The Department issued a second supplemental 
questionnaire to ACA for sections A, B, and C on September 22, 2008, to 
which ACA responded on October 23, 2008. The Department issued another 
supplemental questionnaire to ACA for sections A, B, and C on November 
25, 2008. ACA submitted its response to this third supplemental 
questionnaire on December 3, 2008.
    With respect to Patagonik, we received its response to section A of 
the Department's questionnaire on April 22, 2008. On May 16, 2008, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Patagonik for section 
A. Patagonik filed its response to sections B and C of the Department's 
questionnaire on May 22,

[[Page 79804]]

2008, and its response to the section A supplemental questionnaire on 
May 22, 2008, and June 6, 2008. On June 13, 2008, the petitioners 
submitted deficiency comments regarding Patagonik's responses to 
sections A through C of the Department's questionnaire. The Department 
issued Patagonik a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C 
on June 30, 2008, to which Patagonik responded on July 24, 2008. On 
September 12, 2008, the petitioners filed deficiency comments regarding 
various submissions by Patagonik. On September 19, 2008, the Department 
issued another supplemental questionnaire to Patagonik for sections A, 
B, and C. Patagonik submitted its response to that supplemental 
questionnaire on October 20, 2008. On October 30, 2008, the petitioners 
filed comments on Patagonik's October 20, 2008, response, as well as on 
the section D response from the selected beekeepers and middleman. The 
Department issued further supplemental questionnaires to Patagonik on 
November 3, 2008, and November 10, 2008, to which Patagonik responded 
on November 21, 2008.
    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding to which 
Patagonik was a party, i.e., the new shipper review of Patagonik for 
the period December 1, 2004, to December 31, 2005, the Department 
disregarded certain below-cost sales from its analysis. See Honey From 
Argentina: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 67850 
(November 24, 2006) (New Shipper Preliminary Results), unchanged in 
Honey from Argentina: Final Results of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 19177 
(April 17, 2007) (New Shipper Final Results). As is our practice in 
such instances, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we initiated a sales-below-
cost investigation for this segment of the proceeding and notified 
Patagonik that certain suppliers would be requested to respond to 
section D of the questionnaire. On June 10, 2008, the Department 
notified Patagonik of the beekeepers and middleman the Department had 
selected to provide COP information. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, 
Director, Office 7, ``Selection of Cost of Production Respondents,'' 
dated June 10, 2008 (COP Respondents Memorandum).
    The Department issued section D of the antidumping duty 
questionnaire to solicit COP data from two selected beekeeper 
suppliers\2\, as well as the largest middleman, Colmenares Santa Rosa 
S.R.L. (CSR) on June 24, 2008. On that same date, Patagonik informed 
the Department that one of the selected beekeepers was in fact three 
independent beekeepers. As a result, the Department replaced that 
beekeeper with the next largest one and asked the newly-selected 
beekeeper to complete section D of the questionnaire. See Memorandum to 
Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, ``Revision of Cost of Production 
Respondent Selection: Addendum to Memorandum of June 10, 2008,'' dated 
July 2, 2008 (COP Respondent Selection Addendum). The Department issued 
section D of the questionnaire to the newly selected beekeeper on July 
7, 2008. We received responses from the beekeepers and middleman on 
August 21, 2008. On November 20, 2008, we issued a supplemental 
questionnaire for section D to the beekeepers and the middleman, which 
is due on December 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The beekeepers' names are proprietary information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received Seylinco's response to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire on April 22, 2008, and its response to sections B and C 
of the Department's questionnaire on May 22, 2008. On June 11, 2008, 
the petitioners submitted a letter alleging that Seylinco's comparison 
market sales of honey had been made at prices below the COP during the 
POR. Then, on June 13, 2008, the petitioners filed comments regarding 
Seylinco's responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's 
questionnaire. On June 20, 2008, Seylinco submitted comments regarding 
the petitioners' cost allegation and on June 23, 2008, Seylinco 
responded to the petitioners' June 13, 2008, deficiency comments. On 
June 30, 2008, the petitioners submitted a reply to Seylinco's June 20, 
2008 letter regarding the cost allegation.
    On July 3, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
to Seylinco for sections A, B, and C of the questionnaire. Seylinco 
responded to the section A supplemental questionnaire on July 28, 2008, 
and to the supplemental questionnaire for sections B and C on August 1, 
2008. The Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire for 
sections A, B, and C on August 22, 2008, to which Seylinco responded on 
August 29, 2008. Finally, on August 27, 2008, the Department issued a 
memorandum in which it stated the petitioners had not provided a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect Seylinco sold honey in the 
comparison market at prices below the COP during the POR and, based on 
this, did not initiate a sales-below-cost investigation for Seylinco. 
See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, ``2006-2007 
Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina; Petitioners' Allegation 
of Sales Below the Cost of Production by Seylinco, S.A.,'' dated August 
27, 2008 (Seylinco Cost Allegation Memorandum).
    On November 25, 2008, the petitioners submitted pre-preliminary 
results comments for each of the three mandatory respondents. ACA 
submitted comments in response to the petitioners' submission on 
December 4, 2008.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by the 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 the 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 the order 
is dispositive.

Intent To Revoke In Part

    As noted above, on December 31, 2007, Seylinco requested revocation 
of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of subject 
merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Seylinco's request was 
accompanied by certifications that it: (1) has sold subject merchandise 
at not less than NV in the current review period; (2) has sold subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities during each of the consecutive 
three years forming the basis for its request for revocation; and (3) 
agrees to reinstatement of the antidumping duty order if the Department 
concludes Seylinco has sold subject merchandise at less than NV 
subsequent to revocation. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    We preliminarily determine that the request from Seylinco meets all 
of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) and that revocation is 
warranted pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). With regard to the criteria 
of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculation shows 
Seylinco sold honey at not less than NV during the current review 
period. See

[[Page 79805]]

``Preliminary Results of the Review'' section below. In addition, 
Seylinco sold honey at not less than NV (i.e., its dumping margins were 
zero or de minimis) in the two previous administrative reviews in which 
it was involved. See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 73 
FR 24220 (May 2, 2008) (2005-2006 Final Results) and Honey from 
Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke In Part, 72 FR 25245 (May 4, 2007).
    Furthermore, based on our examination of the sales data submitted 
by Seylinco, we preliminarily determine that it sold subject 
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of 
the three consecutive years cited to support its request for 
revocation. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, 
``Request by Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco) for Revocation in the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina,'' dated December 
19, 2008 (Revocation Memorandum). Thus, we preliminarily find Seylinco 
had zero or de minimis dumping margins for three consecutive years and 
sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of these 
years. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(A). As indicated above, Seylinco agreed 
to immediate reinstatement of the order, if the Department concludes 
that Seylinco sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value 
subsequent to revocation. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(B). Finally, we 
preliminarily determine that the application of the antidumping duty 
order with respect to honey exported by Seylinco is no longer warranted 
for the following reasons: (1) the company had zero or de minimis 
margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the 
company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the 
Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and 
(3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary 
to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(C). Therefore, we 
preliminarily find Seylinco qualifies for revocation of the order 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). See Revocation Memorandum. If these 
preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke 
the order in part with respect to honey exported by Seylinco and, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the suspension of 
liquidation for any merchandise in question that is entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 2007, 
and instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such entries.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(2)(ii), from September 23, 2008, through September 27, 2008, 
we verified sales information provided by Seylinco, using standard 
procedures such as the examination of company 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 1117 of the main Commerce 
Department building. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the 
Sales Response of Seylinco S.A. (Argentina) in the Antidumping Review 
of Honey from Argentina,'' dated December 10, 2008.

Product Comparison

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the 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, Patagonik 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 Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV 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 NV LOT is based on the starting 
price of the sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, 
that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative expenses and profit. See also 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). 
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 Act. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii). For EP, it is the 
starting price. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, ACA, 
Patagonik 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 Act.
    ACA reported that all of its third-country sales were made to 
packers and all of its U.S. sales were made to importers, and that the 
LOT for each market corresponded to these two channels of distribution. 
The Department has determined that differing channels of distribution, 
alone, do not qualify as separate LOTs when selling functions performed 
for each customer class are sufficiently similar. See Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017 (August 8, 2006) 
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7061 (February 14, 2007); see also 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(2). We find the selling functions ACA provided to packer 
customers in the third-country market and importer customers in the 
U.S. market 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 an LOT adjustment. 
See Memorandum to the File, ``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, 2008.
    Patagonik reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country 
sales. Patagonik claimed that its selling activities in both markets 
are essentially identical, and nothing on the record

[[Page 79806]]

appears to suggest otherwise. For Patagonik, we preliminarily determine 
that all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and we have not made 
an LOT adjustment. See Memorandum to the File, ``Analysis Memorandum 
for Patagonik S.A.'' (Patagonik Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), dated 
December 19, 2008.
    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 offered 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 an LOT adjustment. See Memorandum 
to the File, ``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, 2008.

Affiliation

    For purposes of this review, as we have done in prior segments of 
the proceeding, we determine that CSR and Patagonik are affiliated 
within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. As we have done in 
prior segments of the proceeding we also determine the two companies 
should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this 
administrative review and that the companies should receive a single 
antidumping duty rate. See New Shipper Preliminary Results and New 
Shipper Final Results for our analysis regarding the treatment of CSR 
and Patagonik. In the instant review, we find there continues to be a 
significant overlap of management positions, an intertwining of 
Patagonik and CSR's operations, and a close supplier relationship-
ownership structure. See Patagonik's April 22, 2008, section A response 
at A-4 to A-7 and Exhibit A.2. See also Patagonik's June 6, 2008, 
response at A1-2 through 8, and Patagonik's July 24, 2008, response at 
A2-1, 2, and 7. Therefore, there are no facts in this segment of the 
proceeding that warrant reconsideration of our decision to treat CSR 
and Patagonik as a single entity for the purposes of this 
administrative review.

Transactions Reviewed

    19 CFR 351.401(i) 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, the 
Department used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both 
the third-country and U.S. market.\3\ In the original investigation of 
honey from Argentina, we thoroughly examined the date of sale issue for 
ACA and found that changes to the essential terms of sale can and did 
occur between the contract date and the time of the actual shipment by 
ACA. The same was true for each subsequent POR, and we continued to use 
the date of shipment for ACA as the date of sale. Furthermore, in the 
instant POR, we found changes did, in fact, occur between contract date 
and shipment date with respect to the type of honey sold to the 
customer. Consequently, we preliminarily find that shipment date 
continues to be the appropriate date of sale with respect to ACA's 
sales in the U.S. and comparison markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both Patagonik and Seylinco, the Department used the invoice 
date as the date of sale for both its comparison and U.S. market sales 
for these preliminary results. With respect to Patagonik, we found that 
during the POR, there were rare occasions when discussions took place 
on the product not being delivered in the quantity, color, or timing 
that was originally ordered. See Patagonik's July 24, 2008, 
supplemental questionnaire response at B1-5. Moreover, Patagonik 
asserts that changes in ordered terms have occurred in the past and 
Patagonik's customers know they can request changes to an order prior 
to shipment. The petitioners asserted the terms of sale are set at the 
time of order and that all sales be reported based on the order date 
because there is no indication that any material terms of sale change 
after the date of order. See the petitioners' comments, dated June 13, 
2008. As in past segments of this proceeding, we determine that there 
is potential for change to the essential terms of sale between the 
contract date and invoice date and therefore invoice date continues to 
be the appropriate date of sale with respect to Patagonik's sales in 
the U.S. and comparison markets. 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. Concerning Seylinco, we find that 
changes to price were made between order date and invoice date and 
determine invoice date as the appropriate date of sale because the 
commercial invoice reflected final price and quantity. Also, Seylinco 
stated it usually invoices customers soon after shipment of the 
merchandise from the warehouse; however, in some circumstances 
invoicing occurs before shipment. For situations where shipment 
occurred before invoicing we set the date of sale to shipment date 
which is consistent with previous reviews of this case.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the 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 subsection (c).'' Section 772(b) of the 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, Patagonik 
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, 
Patagonik and Seylinco, we based EP on prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the United States and made adjustments for movement expenses.

Normal Value

1. Selection of Comparison Market

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 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.,

[[Page 79807]]

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 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. Although ACA made some sales in the home 
market, the volume of ACA's 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. Patagonik and Seylinco did not have any home 
market sales and, therefore, we preliminarily find the home market does 
not provide a viable basis for calculating NV for either Patagonik or 
Seylinco.
    When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the 
basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the 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. In 
addition to looking at volume, we also examined product similarity and 
found that for each respondent, product similarity with respect to the 
largest market was equal to that of other third country markets. Thus, 
the Department determines that for each respondent it is appropriate to 
select the largest third-country market for comparison purposes.
     ACA reported its sales to the United Kingdom, the largest third-
country market in terms of sales volume. The record shows the aggregate 
quantity of ACA's sales to the United Kingdom is greater than five 
percent of ACA's sales to the United States. In addition, the 
Department preliminarily determines there is no evidence on the record 
to demonstrate that ACA's prices in the United Kingdom are not 
representative. Further, we find there is no particular market 
situation that would prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, we 
preliminarily find ACA's sales to the United Kingdom serve as the most 
appropriate basis for NV.
    Patagonik also reported its sales to the United Kingdom, the 
largest third-country market on the basis of sales volume. The 
petitioners have claimed the Department should select one of 
Patagonik's other reported third-country markets as the comparison 
market, claiming the merchandise sold in the other third-country market 
was more similar to the U.S. product in terms of product standards 
(i.e., permissible levels of contamination) and not homogenized. See, 
e.g., the petitioners' letters dated June 13, 2008 and September 11, 
2008. However, the Department does not consider homogenization in 
determining matches of such or similar merchandise and does not include 
homogenization amongst the product characteristics in its model 
matching. Furthermore, no party has suggested that the product matching 
criteria be changed for this segment of the proceeding to include 
homogenization.
    The record shows the aggregate quantity of Patagonik's sales to the 
United Kingdom is greater than five percent of Patagonik's sales to the 
United States. In addition, the Department preliminarily determines 
there is no evidence on the record to demonstrate that Patagonik's 
prices in the United Kingdom are not representative. Further, we find 
there is no particular market situation that would prevent a proper 
comparison to EP. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that 
Patagonik's sales to the United Kingdom serve as the most appropriate 
basis for NV.
    Seylinco reported its sales to Germany, the largest third-country 
market in terms of sales volume. The record shows the aggregate 
quantity of Seylinco's sales to Germany is greater than five percent of 
Seylinco's sales to the United States. In addition, the Department 
preliminarily determines there is no evidence on the record to 
demonstrate that Seylinco's prices in Germany are not representative. 
Further, we find there is no particular market situation that would 
prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, we preliminarily find 
Seylinco's sales to Germany serve as the most appropriate basis for NV.
    In summary, therefore, NV for ACA, Patagonik and Seylinco is based 
on each exporter's third-country 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, infra.

2. Cost of Production

    The petitioners alleged that both ACA and Seylinco made comparison 
market sales of honey at prices less than the COP during the POR. See 
the petitioners' letters dated June 20, 2008 and June 11, 2008, 
respectively. However, the Department determined that the petitioners 
did not provide a reasonable basis on which to believe or suspect 
either ACA or Seylinco had sold honey in the comparison market at 
prices below the COP during the POR. As a result, the Department did 
not initiate a sales-below-cost investigation for ACA or Seylinco. See 
ACA Cost Allegation Memorandum and Seylinco Cost Allegation Memorandum.
    With respect to Patagonik, because we found sales below cost in the 
most recently completed segment of this proceeding, the Department 
automatically initiated a sales-below-cost investigation in this 
administrative review.

A. Cost of Production Analysis

    To calculate a COP and CV for the merchandise under consideration, 
the Department selected the two largest beekeepers by volume and the 
largest middleman, all of whom provided honey to Patagonik during the 
POR. See COP Respondents Memorandum and COP Respondent Selection 
Addendum.

B. Calculation of COP

    We relied on the COP data submitted by the two beekeeper 
respondents and the middleman in their cost questionnaire responses, 
except as follows:
    1. We adjusted Beekeeper 2's costs to include a market value for 
bartered rent.
    2. We adjusted the middleman's costs to exclude income taxes.
    3. We reallocated the middleman's collector costs based on 
production quantities.
    For additional details, see Memoranda to Neal M. Halper, Director 
of Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Patagonik S.A.'s 
Beekeeper Respondents/ Collector of Honey,'' dated December 19, 2008.

C. Test of Third-Country Prices and Results of the Cost of Production 
Test

    We calculated a simple average COP using the COP of Patagonik's two 
respondent suppliers (Beekeeper 1 and Beekeeper 2) and the costs of the 
middleman supplier. This average COP which was applied to these 
beekeepers as well as all other beekeeper suppliers from whom 
information was not

[[Page 79808]]

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 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 during the POR, we did 
not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined 
that the below-cost sales were not made 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 during the POR, 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 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 Act.
    We found Patagonik 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 Patagonik's third-country sales 
and included all such sales in our calculation of NV.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

ACA
    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 Act. Where appropriate, we 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, 
for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the 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 2005-2006 administrative review. 
See 2005-2006 Final Results and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. Thus, we have not included certain of ACA's 
testing expenses among the direct selling expenses for which we made 
adjustments in these preliminary results. For more information, see ACA 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

Patagonik

    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 Act. Where appropriate, we 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, 
for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Additionally, we adjusted gross unit price for 
billing adjustments, where applicable. See 19 CFR 351.401(c).
    We preliminarily reclassified some of Patagonik's reported direct 
selling expenses (namely, certain testing expenses) as indirect selling 
expenses, consistent with our treatment of testing expenses in the 
2004-2005 new shipper review. See New Shipper Preliminary Results, 
unchanged in New Shipper Final Results. Thus, we have not included 
certain of Patagonik's testing expenses among the direct selling 
expenses for which we made adjustments in these preliminary results. 
Furthermore, we have also preliminarily determined Patagonik has failed 
to support its warranty claims with respect to the third-country 
market. For more information, see Patagonik Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum.

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 Act. Where appropriate, we 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, 
for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. See Seylinco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 
Additionally, we adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, 
where applicable. See 19 CFR 351.401(c).

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), unchanged in Notice of 
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 prices and 
expenses 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 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, 2006 
through November 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                      Exporter                              Margin
                                                         (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas...............                0.00
Compania Inversora Platense S.A.....................             0.72\4\
Patagonik S.A. / Colmenares Santa Rosa S.R.L........                0.72
Seylinco, S.A.......................................                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This rate is normally based on the weighted average of the margins
  calculated for those companies selected for individual review,
  excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely AFA. We
  preliminarily determine to assign to the non-selected respondent in
  this review the margin calculated for Patagonik, which is the only
  margin in this review that is neither de minimis nor based entirely on
  AFA. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and
  Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
  40492 (July 15, 2008).

    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

[[Page 79809]]

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), where entered values were reported, 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. Where entered values were not 
reported, we calculated importer-specific per-unit 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 quantity of the sales used to calculate those duties. These rates 
will be assessed uniformly on all ACA, Patagonik and Seylinco entries 
made during the POR. For entries made during the POR from the non-
reviewed company, i.e., CIPSA, we will assess duties based on the 
weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Patagonik. The 
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 
Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for all companies covered by this 
review (i.e., ACA, Seylinco, Patagonik, and CIPSA) 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 for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review or the less-than-fair-value 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 Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 
(December 10, 2001). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during 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 Act.

    Dated: December 19, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-30996 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S