[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 247 (Monday, December 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68570-68575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30689]


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

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 
one company (see ``Background'' section of this notice for further 
explanation). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2007, through 
November 30, 2008.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have 
not been made below normal value (NV) by Asociacion de Cooperativas 
Argentinas (ACA) during the POR. We also preliminarily intend to revoke 
ACA from the antidumping duty order pursuant to its request dated 
December 30, 2008. 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.

DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, Dena Crossland, or 
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7850, Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-0195, (202) 482-3362, or (202) 482-3019, 
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, 
2008, 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, 73 FR 
72764 (December 1, 2008). In response, on December 30, 2008, ACA 
requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2007, through November 
30, 2008. On December 31, 2008, the American Honey Producers 
Association and Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) 
requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2007, through November 
30, 2008. Specifically, petitioners requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made 
by 17 Argentine producers/exporters.\1\ Also on December 31, 2008, 
Nexco S.A. (Nexco) requested an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December

[[Page 68571]]

1, 2007, through November 30, 2008. ACA and Nexco were included in the 
petitioners' request for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners requested Compania Apicola Argentina S.A. (CAA) 
and Mielar S.A. (Mielar) as separate entities. However, in a 
previous segment of this proceeding, the Department treated these 
two companies as a single entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 2009, the Department initiated a review of the 17 
companies for which an administrative review was requested. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 
2009) (Initiation Notice).
    The Department received a request for administrative review from 
Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik) in response to the December 1, 2008, 
opportunity to request an administrative review. However, its request 
was dated January 2, 2009, after the December 31, 2008, deadline. On 
January 23, 2009, the Department returned the letter requesting an 
administrative review to Patagonik, stating that the request was 
untimely and that the Department would not initiate a review based on 
this request. See Letter from the Department of Commerce to Patagonik 
S.A., dated January 23, 2009. On February 23, 2009, Patagonik submitted 
a letter requesting that the Department reconsider its decision not to 
initiate a review based on Patagonik's request. Patagonik provided 
information to the Department indicating the reasons for the untimely 
filing of the request. After examining the information, the Department 
again declined to initiate an administrative review based on 
Patagonik's request. See Letter from the Department of Commerce to 
Patagonik S.A., dated March 17, 2009.
    On February 9, 2009, Compania Invesora Platense S.A. (CIPSA) 
submitted a letter certifying that during the POR, it had no exports, 
sales, or entries of subject merchandise, and requested that the 
Department rescind the administrative review with respect to CIPSA.
    On February 10, 2009, the Department issued a memorandum indicating 
its intention to limit the number of respondents selected for review 
and to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of Argentine honey during the 
POR. See Memorandum to File through Richard Weible, Office Director, 
Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, regarding ``Honey from Argentina--United 
States Customs and Border Protection Entry Data for Selection of 
Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated February 10, 2009. On 
February 17, 2009, HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax), an exporter of subject 
merchandise, submitted comments in response to the Department's 
intended respondent selection methodology. HoneyMax requested that for 
the purpose of mandatory respondent selection in the instant review, 
the Department issue quantity and value questionnaires to parties for 
whom a review had been requested, rather than rely on CBP entry data.
    On February 18, 2009, Mielar and CAA submitted a letter certifying 
that during the POR, neither had made any shipment, sale, or U.S. entry 
of subject merchandise, and requested that the Department rescind the 
administrative review with respect to Mielar and CAA.
    On March 4, 2009, HoneyMax submitted a letter certifying that 
during the POR, it had no sales of subject merchandise, and requested 
that the Department rescind the administrative review with respect to 
HoneyMax.
    On March 6, 2009, petitioners timely withdrew their requests for 
review of the following companies: AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda 
S.A., Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods, Alma Pura, Bomare S.A. 
(Bodegas Miguel Armengol), Compania Apicola Argentina S.A. and Mielar 
S.A., CIPSA, EL Mana S.A., HoneyMax, Interrupcion S.A., Miel Ceta SRL, 
Patagonik S.A., Productos Afer S.A., Seabird Argentina S.A., and 
Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco).
    On March 9, 2009, Seylinco submitted a letter certifying that 
during the POR, it had no sales of subject merchandise, and requested 
that the Department rescind the administrative review with respect to 
Seylinco.
    On April 17, 2009, the Department rescinded the administrative 
review with respect to AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Alimentos 
Naturales-Natural Foods, Alma Pura, Bomare S.A. (Bodegas Miguel 
Armengol), Compania Apicola Argentina S.A. and Mielar S.A., CIPSA, EL 
Mana S.A., HoneyMax, Interrupcion S.A., Miel Ceta SRL, Patagonik S.A., 
Productos Afer S.A., Seabird Argentina S.A., and Seylinco because 
petitioners were the only party to request an administrative review of 
each of these companies. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 17815 
(April 17, 2009).
    On April 21, 2009, the Department issued sections A, B, and C of 
the antidumping questionnaire to the remaining respondents, ACA and 
Nexco.
    ACA and Nexco filed their responses to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire on May 26, 2009, and ACA filed its response 
to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire on June 18, 2009.
    On June 10, 2009, both petitioners and Nexco submitted letters 
withdrawing their requests for an administrative review of Nexco. On 
July 16, 2009, the Department published a notice of partial rescission 
in response to petitioners' and Nexco's June 10, 2009, withdrawal of 
their requests for review of Nexco. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
34550 (July 16, 2009).
    On July 8, 2009, 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. ACA submitted comments regarding the 
petitioners' cost allegation on July 20, 2009.
    The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to ACA for 
sections A, B, and C of the questionnaire on July 24, 2009, to which 
ACA responded on August 24, 2009.
    On August 7, 2009, 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 with Respect to Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas in the 
December 1, 2007--November 30, 2008 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina,'' dated August 7, 2009 
(ACA Cost Allegation Memorandum).
    The Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to ACA 
for sections B and C on September 4, 2009, to which ACA responded on 
September 14, 2009.
    On September 9, 2009, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of this review from September 2, 2009, to December 
18, 2009. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 
FR 46418 (September 9, 2009).
    On December 4, 2009, ACA submitted a letter requesting that the 
Department correct an error to the Department's verification report 
dated November 25, 2009. On December 11, 2009, the Department rejected 
ACA's December 4, 2009, letter in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d) 
because it contained untimely and unsolicited new factual information.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by the order is honey from Argentina. The 
products covered are natural honey, artificial

[[Page 68572]]

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 30, 2008, ACA requested revocation of 
the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of subject 
merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). ACA's request was 
accompanied by certifications that it: (1) Has sold subject merchandise 
at not less than NV in the current review period and will not sell 
subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (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 ACA 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 ACA 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 ACA 
sold honey at not less than NV during the current review period. See 
``Preliminary Results of the Review'' section below. In addition, ACA 
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 to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 32107 (July 7, 2009) 
(2006-2007 Final Results).
    Furthermore, based on our examination of ACA's sales data, we 
preliminarily determine that ACA 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 Asociacion de Cooperativas 
Argentinas (ACA) for Revocation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Honey from Argentina,'' dated December 18, 2009 (Revocation 
Memorandum). Thus, we preliminarily find ACA 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)(i)(A). As indicated above, ACA agreed to immediate 
reinstatement of the order, if the Department concludes that ACA sold 
the subject merchandise at less than normal value subsequent to 
revocation. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B). In sum, we preliminarily 
determine that the application of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to honey exported by ACA 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)(i). Therefore, we preliminarily find ACA 
qualifies for revocation of the order pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2).\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 ACA 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, 2008, and instruct CBP to 
refund any cash deposits for such entries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only exports by ACA in which ACA is the first party with 
knowledge of the U.S. destination of the merchandise will be covered 
by this revocation. See 2006-2007 Final Results (at footnote 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(2)(ii), from September 21, 2009, through September 25, 2009, 
we verified sales information provided by ACA, 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 
Third Country Market and Export Price Sales Responses of Asociacion de 
Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA) in the Antidumping Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina,'' dated November 25, 
2009.

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. 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 comparison 
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 
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

[[Page 68573]]

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 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, 45022 (August 8, 
2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (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 a 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 18, 2009.

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. markets.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 has 
classified its U.S. sales as EP because all of its 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. 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., 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 ACA'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.
    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 ACA, product similarity with respect to the largest 
market was equal to that of other third country markets. Thus, the 
Department determines that for ACA it is appropriate to select the 
largest third-country market for comparison purposes.
    ACA reported its sales to Germany, the largest third-country market 
in terms of sales volume. The record shows the aggregate quantity of 
ACA's sales to Germany 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 
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 ACA's sales to Germany serve as the most 
appropriate basis for NV.
    Therefore, NV for ACA is based on its third-country sales to 
unaffiliated

[[Page 68574]]

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 ACA made comparison market sales of 
honey at prices less than the COP during the POR. See the petitioners' 
letters dated July 8, 2009. However, the Department determined that 
petitioners did not provide a reasonable basis on which to believe or 
suspect ACA 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. See ACA Cost Allegation 
Memorandum.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    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 and 2006-2007 
administrative reviews. See 2005-2006 Final Results and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and 2006-2007 
Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 5. 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.

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 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 margin exists for the period December 1, 2007, 
through November 30, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                      Exporter                       margin (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas..............                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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), 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 entries made during the POR. 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 rate for the company covered by this review 
(i.e., ACA) will be the rate established in the final results of 
review, except that, if our preliminary determination to revoke in part 
becomes

[[Page 68575]]

final, no cash deposit will be required of ACA; (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 18, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-30689 Filed 12-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P