[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68249-68253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Seventh Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Intent to Rescind, In Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period of review 
(``POR'') of December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008. As discussed 
below, we have preliminarily determined to rescind this administrative 
review because we have found the sales made by Dongtai Peak Honey 
Industry Co., Ltd. (``Dongtai Peak'') that entered during the POR were 
not bona fide. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to apply 
adverse facts available (``AFA'') with respect to the PRC-wide entity 
which includes Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corp. (``Anhui 
Native''), as it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and 
impeded the proceeding. We are also preliminarily finding that 
Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd. (``QMD''), Inner 
Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. (``Inner Mongolia''), and 
Wuhu Qinshgi Tangye (``Wuhu Qinshgi'') did not demonstrate their 
eligibility for a separate rate and thus are considered to be part of 
the PRC-wide entity. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on appropriate 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which importer-
specific assessment rates are above de minimis. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Wiltse, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 19, 2008, we received a request from Dongtai Peak, and 
on December 31, 2008, we received a request from Petitioners\1\ to 
conduct administrative reviews for a total of 38 companies.\2\ On 
February 2, 2009, the

[[Page 68250]]

Department initiated an administrative review of these 38 producers/
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are the members of the American Honey 
Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (hereinafter 
referred to as ``Petitioners'').
    \2\ Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Anhui Honghui Foodstuff 
(Group) Co., Ltd., Anhui Native Produce Imp & Exp Corp., Cheng Du 
Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd., Chengdu Stone Dynasty Art Stone, 
Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd., Eurasia Bee's Products Co., 
Ltd., Fresh Honey Co., Ltd. (formerly Mgl. Yun Shen), Golden Tadco 
Int'l., Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd., Haoliluck 
Co., Ltd., Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping, 
Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Kanghong 
Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & 
Exp (Group) Corp., Jilin Province Juhui Import, Maersk Logistics 
(China) Company Ltd., Nefelon Limited Company, Ningbo Shengye 
Electric Appliance, Ningbo Shunkang Health Food Co., Ltd., Qingdao 
Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd., Qinhuangdao 
Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd., Renaissance India Mannite, 
Shaanxi Youthsun Co., Ltd., Shanghai Bloom International Trading 
Co., Ltd., Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd., Shanghai Hui Ai Mal 
Tose Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Sichuan-
Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd., Silverstream 
International Co., Ltd., Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee 
Healthy Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd., Wuhu Qinshi 
Tangye, Wuhu Qinshgi Tangye, and Xinjiang Jinhui Food Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 6, 2009, in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), the Department selected Anhui 
Native and QMD as mandatory respondents in this review, because they 
were the two largest exporters by volume during the POR, based on CBP 
data of U.S. imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90 and 
2106.90.99.\3\ On March 9, 2009, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to Anhui Native and QMD.\4\ Due to the fact that the 
questionnaire was undeliverable to QMD, the Department requested 
parties to submit new address information for QMD. On March 18, 2009, 
Petitioners provided the Department with five additional addresses. On 
March 20, 2009, the Department sent its questionnaire to the five 
addresses Petitioners provided for QMD.\5\ However, we were again 
unable to confirm delivery of these questionnaires.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Blaine Wiltse, International Trade 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, re; Seventh Administrative 
Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Respondent 
Selection Memorandum, dated March 6, 2009.
    \4\ See Memorandum to the File, from Blaine Wiltse, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, re; Seventh 
Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''): Delivery of Questionnaires, dated March 16, 2009.
    \5\ See Memorandum to the File, from Blaine Wiltse, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, re; Seventh 
Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''): Additional Addresses for QMD, dated March 20, 2009.
    \6\ See Memorandum to the File, from Blaine Wiltse, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, re; Seventh 
Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''): Incorrect Addresses for QMD, dated March 27, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2009, and April 10, 2009, Dongtai Peak submitted 
voluntary responses to the Department's questionnaire and requested to 
be selected as a voluntary respondent, pursuant to section 782(a) of 
the Act. The Department determined that, because its questionnaire was 
not deliverable to QMD in this administrative review, it would not be 
unduly burdensome to select Dongtai Peak as a voluntary respondent 
pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act. Therefore, Dongtai Peak was 
selected as a voluntary respondent in the current review on April 13, 
2009.\7\ On April 15, 2009, Anhui Native submitted a letter informing 
the Department that it would not participate in the current review.
    Between May 2009 and December 2009, the Department received timely 
filed supplemental questionnaire responses from Dongtai Peak and 
comments from Petitioners. On August 7, 2009, the Department requested 
the entry document packages from CBP for Dongtai Peak's sales that 
entered the United States during the POR, which the Department received 
on September 14, 2009, and September 15, 2009, and placed on the record 
of the current review on December 16, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, re; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Voluntary 
Respondent, dated April 13, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rescission of Reviews

    On February 23, 2009, Petitioners withdrew their request for review 
of 33 companies\8\ for which they were the only party to request a 
review. On March 16, 2009, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of 
the Department's regulations, we rescinded the administrative review 
with respect to these 33 companies.\9\ Therefore, five producers/
exporters\10\ of the subject merchandise and the PRC-wide entity, 
remain under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Anhui Honghui Foodstuff 
(Group) Co., Ltd., Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd., Chengdu 
Stone Dynasty Art Stone, Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd., Fresh 
Honey Co., Ltd. (formerly Mgl. Yun Shen), Golden Tadco Int'l, 
Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd., Haoliluck Co., 
Ltd., Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping, 
Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Light 
Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp., Jilin Province Juhui 
Import, Maersk Logistics (China) Company Ltd., Nefelon Limited 
Company, Ningbo Shengye Electric Appliance, Ningbo Shunkang Health 
Food Co., Ltd., Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., QHD Sanhai Honey Co., 
Ltd., Renaissance India Mannite, Shaanxi Youthsun Co. Ltd., Shanghai 
Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., 
Ltd., Shanghai Hui Ai Mal Tose Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside Trading 
Co., Ltd., Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd., 
Silverstream International Co., Ltd., Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd., 
Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd., Wuhu 
Qinshi Tangye, and Xinjiang Jinhui Food Co., Ltd.
    \9\ See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Partial 
Rescission of the Seventh Antidumping Administrative Review, 74 FR 
11087 (March 16, 2009).
    \10\ Anhui Native, Dongtai Peak, Inner Mongolia Youth Trade 
Development Co., Ltd., QMD, and Wuhu Qinshgi Tangye. Of these 5 
producer/exporters, Anhui Native and QMD were selected as mandatory 
respondents, and Dongtai Peak was selected as a voluntary 
respondent, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department instructed parties that 
the Separate Rate Certification and the Separate Rate Application were 
available on its website at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. No company submitted a separate rate application or 
certification. For further discussion, see the ``PRC-wide Entity'' 
section of this notice.

Preliminary Extension

    On August 18, 2009, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 
60 days, until November 2, 2009.\11\ On October 7, 2009, the Department 
further extended the deadline for the preliminary results to December 
16, 2009.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Seventh Administrative Review of Honey From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the 
Preliminary Results, 74 FR 41679 (August 18, 2009).
    \12\ See Seventh Administrative Review of Honey From the 
People's Republic of China: Second Extension of Time Limit for the 
Preliminary Results, 74 FR 51566 (October 7, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial 
honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, 
preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural 
honey by weight and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes 
all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut 
comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90 and 2106.90.99 of the HTSUS. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under 
order is dispositive.

Bona Fide Analysis

    In evaluating whether or not a sale subject to review is 
commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the

[[Page 68251]]

Department considers, inter alia, such factors as (1) the timing of the 
sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the 
transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) 
whether the transaction was made on an arms-length basis.\13\ 
Therefore, the Department considers a number of factors in its bona 
fides analysis, ``all of which may speak to the commercial realities 
surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 05-29, at 9 (``TTPC'') (CIT March 9, 2005), citing 
Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 
2000).
    \14\ See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 05-70, at 16, (``New Donghua'') citing Fresh Garlic 
from the PRC: Final Results of Administrative Review and Rescission 
of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although some bona fides issues may share commonalities across 
various Department cases, the Department examines the bona fide nature 
of a sale on a case-by-case basis, and the analysis may vary with the 
facts surrounding each sale.\15\ In TTPC, Slip Op. 05-29, at 9, the 
court affirmed the Department's practice of considering that ``any 
factor which indicates that the sale under consideration is not likely 
to be typical of those which the producer will make in the future is 
relevant,'' (see TTPC, citing Windmill Int'l Pte., Ltd. v. United 
States, F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1307 (CIT 2002)), and that ``the weight given 
to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances 
surrounding the sale.'' See TTPC, Slip Op. 05-29, at 39. The Court 
stated that the Department's practice makes clear that the Department 
is highly likely to examine objective, verifiable factors to ensure 
that a sale is not being made to circumvent an antidumping duty order. 
See New Donghua, Slip Op. 05-70, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See New Donghua, Slip Op. 05-70 at 12, citing Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire instructs 
respondents to ``report each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for 
consumption during the POR'' when performing its bona fide analysis, 
the Department reviews the circumstances surrounding a respondent's 
sales of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the 
POR.\16\ Concurrent with this notice, we are issuing a memorandum\17\ 
detailing our analysis of the bona fides of Dongtai Peak's U.S. entries 
and our preliminary decision to rescind the administrative review of 
Dongtai Peak based on the totality of the circumstances of its sales. 
Although much of the information relied upon by the Department to 
analyze the issues is business proprietary, the Department based its 
determination that the sales made by Dongtai Peak were not bona fide on 
the following: 1) the difference in the sales prices and subsequent 
entered values of Dongtai Peak's entries to the United States during 
the POR as compared to the entered values of other U.S. entries of 
honey during the POR; 2) the quantities of Dongtai Peak's POR sales as 
compared to the quantities of other U.S. entries of honey during the 
POR; 3) information regarding Dongtai Peak's U.S. customer during the 
POR; and 4) other indicia of a non-bona fide commercial transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Dongtai Peak's Sections C and D Questionnaire, 
submitted April 14, 2009, at C-1.
    \17\ See Memorandum from Blaine Wiltse, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, re; 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from the People's 
Republic of China: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale Under Review for 
Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd., dated December 16, 2009 
(``Dongtai Bona Fides Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the bona fides nature of these sales, our 
analysis of the totality of the circumstances, and taking into 
consideration the information provided by parties, information obtained 
from CBP and other publicly available information resources, we 
preliminarily find that Dongtai Peak's sales that entered the United 
States during the POR are not bona fide commercial transactions. 
Therefore, Dongtai Peak's sales entering the United States during the 
POR do not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a 
dumping margin.

Preliminary Intent To Rescind

    During the course of this review, we found evidence\18\ that 
Dongtai Peak's U.S. sales were not bona fide commercial transactions; 
accordingly, Dongtai Peak has not met the requirements to qualify for 
an administrative review during the POR. Therefore, the Department is 
preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Dongtai Peak 
because Dongtai Peak has no reviewable entries during the POR.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Dongtai Bona Fides Memo.
    \19\ See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1249 (CIT 2005) (``{P{time} ursuant to 
the rulings of the Court, Commerce may exclude sales from the export 
price calculation where it finds that they are not bona fide'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    The Initiation Notice specifically initiated by name the reviews of 
Anhui Native, Inner Mongolia, QMD and Wuhu Qinshgi, and notified all 
parties that they must file either the application or certification for 
separate rate status, as appropriate. As none of these companies 
submitted a separate rate application or certification,\20\ the 
Department finds that these companies failed to demonstrate their 
eligibility for separate-rate status. Accordingly, we consider these 
companies part of the PRC-wide entity.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted above, Anhui Native was selected as a mandatory 
respondent and did not submit full questionnaire responses as it was 
required to do, QMD was also selected as a mandatory respondent and 
did not submit any information with regard to separate rates.
    \21\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 05.1, available 
on the Department's website at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) 
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the administering authority or the Commission, the 
administering authority or the Commission . . . , in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available.'' See also Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316 at 870 (1994). Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure 
that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' Id. An adverse inference 
may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any 
other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act.

[[Page 68252]]

    For these preliminary results, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 782(c)(1) of the Act, we have determined 
that the use of facts available is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity 
which includes Anhui Native. As discussed in the ``Supplementary 
Information'' section above, Anhui Native was selected as a mandatory 
respondent in the current review but did not submit a response to the 
initial antidumping duty questionnaires issued by the Department on 
March 9, 2009. On March 30, 2009, Anhui Native filed a request for an 
extension of time to submit its responses to the Department's initial 
antidumping duty questionnaires, which the Department granted, in part. 
However, on April 15, 2009, Anhui Native submitted a letter informing 
the Department that it would not participate in the current review. As 
Anhui Native was selected as a mandatory respondent but did not submit 
its response to the questionnaire, Anhui Native is considered part of 
the PRC-wide entity for purposes of this review. Because Anhui Native, 
as part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to respond to the Department's 
requests for information, the Department finds that the PRC-wide entity 
did not cooperate to the best of its ability, and its non-
responsiveness necessitates the use of facts available, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.
    In summary, based upon Anhui Native's failure to submit responses 
to the Department's questionnaires, the Department finds that the PRC-
wide entity, which includes Anhui Native, withheld requested 
information, failed to provide the information in a timely manner and 
in the form requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. Therefore, 
the Department must rely on the facts otherwise available in order to 
determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Anhui Native, as part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the requested 
information, as discussed above, we find it appropriate, in accordance 
with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as section 776(b), of 
the Act, to assign total AFA to the PRC-wide entity.\23\ By doing so, 
we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had 
they cooperated fully in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\  See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) 
(decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity unchanged in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 
2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act authorized the Department to use, as AFA, 
information derived from the petition, the final determination in the 
less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, any previous review, or 
any other information placed on the record. In selecting an AFA rate, 
the Department's practice has been to assign non-cooperative 
respondents the highest margin determined for any party in the LTFV 
investigation or in any administrative review.\24\ When selecting an 
AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, the 
Department's practice has been to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse to induce respondents to provide the Department 
with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 
33977 (June 16, 2008); see also Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002), 
and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9, citing 
Sigma Corp. v. U.S., 117 F. 3d 1401, 1411 (July 7, 1997) (noting 
Commerce has a ``long-standing practice of assigning to respondents 
who fail to cooperate with Commerce's investigation the highest 
margin calculated for any party in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation or in any administrative review''); see also Sparklers 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 43293, 43294 (July 13, 2000) 
(where the Department assigned the PRC-wide entity ``the highest 
rate from this or any previous segment of the proceeding.'').
    \25\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As total AFA, we have assigned to exports of subject merchandise 
produced and/or exported by the PRC-wide entity, which includes Anhui 
Native, the rate of $2.63 per kilogram, which is the highest 
transaction-specific rate we calculated in the most recently completed 
administrative review, Sixth AR Final Results.\26\ We further note, 
that his rate was calculated with respect to Anhui Native. We find that 
this rate is sufficiently adverse to serve the purposes of facts 
available and is appropriate. In choosing the appropriate balance 
between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately 
and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's 
prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior transaction-
specific margin reflects a common sense inference that the highest 
prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, 
because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would 
have produced current information showing the margin to be less.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Honey From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 796, 797 (January 8, 2009) (``Sixth AR Final 
Results'').
    \27\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 
1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, to the extent practicable, 
the Department shall corroborate secondary information used for facts 
available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 
Information from a prior segment of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information.\28\ The word ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value.\29\ To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and 
relevance of the information used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994)at 
870; see also Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, 
et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and Determination To 
Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574, 55577 (September 15, 2004).
    \29\ Id.; see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, 
From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In selecting the AFA rate for PRC-wide entity, we assigned the rate 
of $2.63 per kilogram, which is based on information Anhui Native, who 
we have found to be part of the PRC-wide entity in this administrative 
review, submitted in the most recent administrative review of the Order 
on Honey from the PRC. Thus, we find that the AFA rate of $2.63 per 
kilogram is reliable and relevant because the AFA rate of $2.63 per 
kilogram is based on Anhui Native's own questionnaire responses and 
accompanying data from the immediately preceding administrative

[[Page 68253]]

review. Therefore, we find that the rate is relevant for use in this 
administrative review and, therefore, it has probative value for use as 
AFA. As such, the Department finds this rate to be corroborated to the 
extent practicable consistent with section 776(c) of Act.
    Therefore, as AFA, we have selected the rate of $2.63 per kilogram 
for PRC-wide entity, the highest margin we calculated for a respondent 
in the immediately preceding administrative review. We consider the 
$2.63 per kilogram rate to be sufficiently high so as to encourage 
participation in future segments of this proceeding.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2007 through November 
30, 2008:

                           Honey from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Margin (per
                Manufacturer/Exporter                      kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide Entity\30\.................................               $2.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The PRC-wide entity includes: Anhui Native Produce Import and
  Export Corp., Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.,
  Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd., and Wuhu Qinshgi
  Tangye.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). The Department urges interested parties to provide an 
executive summary of each argument contained within the case briefs and 
rebuttal briefs.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 
Requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for 
a hearing, we intend to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline 
for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Consistent with the Sixth AR Final Results, we will direct CBP to 
assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-
unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject 
merchandise during the POR.\31\ The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP 
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For 
assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates 
for honey from the PRC. Specifically, we divided the total duties for 
each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that 
importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. We 
will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on 
the resulting per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the 
subject merchandise during the POR if any importer-specific assessment 
rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de 
minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Sixth AR Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the fact that this review of Dongtai Peak is preliminarily 
rescinded, if this preliminary rescission is adopted in our final 
results of review, Dongtai Peak's antidumping duties shall be assessed 
at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties 
required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for 
consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results for shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise exported by 
Dongtai Peak the cash deposit rate will be $0.98 per kilogram; (2) for 
Anhui Native, QMD, Inner Mongolia, Wuhu Qinshgi and all other PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be 
entitled to a separate rate and, thus, are a part of the PRC-wide 
entity, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $2.63 per-
kilogram; (3) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; and, (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that 
non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification of Interested Parties

    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.
    This administrative review, and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: December 16, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-30530 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S