[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2127-2130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00579]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-833]


Raw Honey From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines 
that critical circumstances exist regarding all imports of raw honey 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).

DATES: Applicable January 13, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hill or Paola Aleman Ordaz, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518 or (202) 
482-4031, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 23, 2021, Commerce published its preliminary 
determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation of raw honey 
from Vietnam.\1\ On December 3, 2021, the American Honey Producers 
Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, the 
petitioners) filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant 
to section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) 
and 19 CFR 351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of raw honey from Vietnam.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Raw Honey From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of 
Provisional Measures, 86 FR 66526 (November 23, 2021) (Preliminary 
Determination).
    \2\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigation of Raw Honey from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--
Petitioners' Allegation of Critical Circumstances,'' dated December 
3, 2021 (Petitioners' Allegation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), when a critical 
circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the scheduled 
date of the final determination, Commerce will issue a preliminary 
finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
critical circumstances exist. Because the critical circumstances 
allegation in this case was submitted after the preliminary 
determination was published, Commerce must issue its preliminary 
findings of critical circumstances no later than 30 days after the 
allegation was filed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Framework

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce, upon receipt 
of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will determine 
whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) 
There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped 
imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, 
or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there 
have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively 
short period.
    Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether 
imports of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' Commerce 
normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) 
seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted 
for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that, 
``{i{time} n general, unless the imports during the `relatively short 
period' . . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports 
during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the 
Secretary will not consider the imports massive.'' Section 351.206(i) 
of Commerce's regulations defines ``relatively short period'' generally 
as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the 
date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. 
This section of the regulations further provides that, if Commerce 
``finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to 
believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a 
proceeding was likely,'' then Commerce may consider a period of not 
less than three months from that earlier time.

Critical Circumstances Allegation

    In its allegation, the petitioners claim there is a history of 
dumping and material injury based on Commerce's issuance of the 
antidumping duty orders on honey from the People's Republic of China 
(China) and Argentina, the countervailing duty order on honey from 
Argentina, and the final results of its expedited third sunset review 
of the antidumping duty order on honey from China (which remains in 
place today).\4\ Additionally, the petitioners claim that although the 
scope for the previously mentioned orders was broader as each covered 
processed honey, the scope of the orders did also cover raw honey which 
is subject to the scope of the instant investigation. Finally, the 
petitioners contend that although the antidumping and countervailing 
duty orders on honey from Argentina were

[[Page 2128]]

revoked in December 2021, the fact that the orders were in effect for 
over a decade demonstrates a history of dumping and material injury.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR63670 (December 10, 2001); see also Notice 
of Antidumping Duty Order: Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 63672 
(December 10, 2001); Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Honey from 
Argentina, 66 FR 63673 (December 10, 2001); and Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Third 
Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 83 FR 10432 (March 9, 
2018).
    \5\ See Honey from Argentina; Final Results of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances reviews; Revocation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 77029 (December 
31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the petitioners state that based on the dumping 
margins assigned by Commerce upon initiating its investigation and the 
Preliminary Determination (i.e., 47.56-138.23 and 410.93-413.99 
percent, respectively), importers knew or should have known that 
imports of raw honey from Vietnam was being sold at less than fair 
value (LTFV) and there was likely material injury. The petitioners 
further state that these margins exceed the 25 and 15 percent 
thresholds established for export price (EP) and constructed export 
price (CEP), respectively.\6\ Additionally, the petitioners also 
contend that the U.S. International Trade Commission affirmative 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of raw 
honey from Argentina, Brazil, India, Vietnam, and Ukraine is sufficient 
to impute knowledge of the likelihood of material injury.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small 
Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 
FR 2049 (January 14, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (IDM) at 42-44 (acknowledging that the existence of 
dumping margins in excess of 25 percent can indicate importers' 
knowledge of dumping and the likelihood of resultant material 
injury); see also Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 80 FR 51783 (August 26, 2015), and accompanying IDM 
at 15 (stating that the ``Department normally considers margins of 
25 percent or more for EP sales and 15 percent or more for CEP sales 
sufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales at LTFV.''); and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount 
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 
17413 (March 26, 2012), and accompanying IDM at the ``Critical 
Circumstances'' Section (``The final dumping margin calculated for 
LG exceeds the threshold sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping 
(i.e., 15 percent for CEP sales, which are the majority of the sales 
on which the calculation is based).'').
    \7\ See Raw Honey from Argentina, Brazil, India, Ukraine, and 
Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1560-1564 (Preliminary), 86 FR 
30980 (June 10, 2021) (ITC Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as part of their allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2), the petitioners submitted import statistics for the HTS 
numbers included in the scope for the period between December 2020 and 
September 2021 as evidence of massive imports of raw honey from Vietnam 
during a relatively short period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Petitioners' Allegation at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis

    Commerce's normal practice in determining whether critical 
circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria has been to 
examine evidence available to Commerce, such as: (1) The evidence 
presented in the petitioners' allegation; (2) import statistics 
released by the International Trade Commission (ITC); and (3) shipment 
information submitted to Commerce by the respondents selected for 
individual examination.\9\ Therefore, as further provided below, in 
determining whether the above statutory criteria have been satisfied in 
this case, we have examined: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners' 
Allegation; (2) information obtained since the initiation of this 
investigation; and (3) the ITC's preliminary injury determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972-73 (June 5, 2008); 
and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter 
Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 2049, 
2052-53 (January 14, 2009) (Graphite Electrodes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act: History of Dumping and Material 
Injury by Reason of Dumped Imports in the United States or Elsewhere of 
the Subject Merchandise

    In determining whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers 
current or previous antidumping duty (AD) orders on subject merchandise 
from the country in question in the United States and current AD orders 
imposed by another country with regard to imports of the same 
merchandise.\10\ While the petitioners identified such proceedings with 
respect to Argentine and Chinese honey, the petitioners did not 
identify, nor are is Commerce aware of, an AD order in any country on 
raw honey from Vietnam, and there has been no previous U.S. AD order on 
raw honey from Vietnam. Therefore, Commerce preliminarily finds that 
there is no history of dumping of the subject merchandise; thus, this 
criterion is not met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972-73 (June 5, 2008); 
and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter 
Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 2049, 
2052-53 (January 14, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii): The Importer Knew or Should Have Known That 
the Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair Value and That There Was 
Likely To Be Material Injury

    In determining whether importers knew or should have known that 
exporters were selling the subject merchandise at LTFV pursuant section 
733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, we typically consider the magnitude of 
dumping margins, including dumping margins alleged in the petition.\11\ 
Commerce has

[[Page 2129]]

found dumping margins of 15 percent or more (for CEP sales) to 25 
percent or more (EP sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.\12\ For 
purposes of this investigation, Commerce preliminarily determines that 
for Ban Me Thuot Honey Bee Joint Stock Company (Ban Me Thuot), Dak Lak 
Honey Bee Joint Stock Company (DakHoney), eligible separate rate 
respondent companies in Vietnam, and ``Vietnam-wide entity,'' the 
preliminary dumping margins exceed the 25 percent threshold for EP 
sales and, therefore, Commerce further preliminarily determines that 
the knowledge standard has been met based on the magnitude of the 
dumping margins.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, 
Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and 
Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 
68504 (November 5, 2015) (CORE Critical Circumstances Prelim); 
Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from India: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 35329 (June 2, 2016) 
(CORE India Final); Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from 
Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 
81 FR 35320 (June 2, 2016) (CORE Italy Final); Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 35303 (June 2, 2016) 
(CORE Korea Final); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances 
Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35316 (June 2, 2016); Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 81 FR 35313 (June 2, 2016) (CORE 
Taiwan Final); Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 
Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative 
Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35308 (June 2, 
2016) (CORE China CVD Final); Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Final 
Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 81 FR 35299 (June 2, 
2016) (CORE Taiwan CVD Final); Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from Italy: Final 
Affirmative Determination and Final Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances, in Part, 81 FR 35326 (June 2, 2016) (CORE Italy CVD 
Final); Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35310 (June 2, 2016) 
(CORE Korea CVD Final); Notice of Preliminary Determinations of 
Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the 
Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 
FR 19157, 19158 (April 18, 2002), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, 67 FR 47509 (July 19, 
2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 62107 (October 3, 2002); Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 67 FR 47518 (July 19, 
2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea, 67 
FR 62124 (October 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 67 FR 62112 
(October 3, 2002); and Notice of the Final Determination Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation, 67 FR 62121 
(October 3, 2002).
    \12\ Id.; see also Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic 
of China, 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997); and Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
    \13\ See Preliminary Determination; see also Memorandum, ``Less-
Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Raw Honey from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Calculation of the Dumping Margin for 
Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination,'' dated 
November 17, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such 
imports, Commerce normally will look to the preliminary injury 
determination of the ITC.\14\ If the ITC finds a reasonable indication 
of present material injury (rather than the threat of injury) to the 
relevant U.S. industry, Commerce will determine that a reasonable basis 
exists to impute importer knowledge that material injury is likely by 
reason of such imports. Here, the ITC found that there is a 
``reasonable indication'' of material injury to the domestic industry 
because of the imported subject merchandise from Vietnam.\15\ 
Therefore, the ITC's preliminary injury determination is sufficient to 
impute knowledge to importers of the likelihood of material injury. 
Thus, Commerce preliminarily determines that importers knew, or should 
have known, that there was likely to be material injury caused by 
reason of such imports, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate 
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical 
Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).
    \15\ See ITC Preliminary Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There Have Been Massive Imports of the 
Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively Short Period

    Pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR 
351.206(h), Commerce will not consider imports to be massive unless 
imports during a relatively short period (comparison period) have 
increased by at least 15 percent over imports in an immediately 
preceding period of comparable duration (base period). As noted above, 
the ``relatively short period'' that we examine to determine whether 
there have been massive imports normally begins on the date the 
petition is filed and ends at least three months later. Furthermore, 
Commerce may consider the comparison period to begin at an earlier time 
if it finds that importers, exporters, or foreign producers had a 
reason to believe that proceedings were likely before the petition was 
filed.\16\ However, Commerce has previously considered a ``relatively 
short period'' beginning with the filing of the petition and ending 
with the preliminary determination.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \17\ See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from 
Indonesia: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and 
Extension of Provisional Measures, 85 FR 73676 (November 19, 2020). 
and accompanying PDM; and Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, 
and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India, 69 FR 76916 
(December 23, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We typically compare this period (the comparison period) to a 
period of equal duration immediately prior to the filing of the 
petition (the base period) to determine whether imports have been 
``massive'' over a relatively short period of time.\18\ Commerce 
typically determines whether or not to include the month in which the 
petition was filed in the base or comparison period depending on 
whether the petition was filed in the first half of the month (included 
in the comparison period) or the second half of the month (included in 
the base period).\19\ In the instant investigation, since the petition 
was filed on April 21, 2021, we included April in the base period. 
Therefore, we compared the quantity of Ban Me Thuot's and DakHoney's 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
October 2020 through April 2021 to the quantity of its shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States from May 2021 through November 
2021 to determine whether imports have been massive. This comparison 
shows that imports over the comparison period have been massive (there 
has been an increase of 15 percent or more) for Ban Me Thuot and 
DakHoney. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that there were massive 
imports of subject merchandise from Ban Me Thuot and DakHoney into the 
United States over a relatively short period pursuant to section 
773(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ See, e.g., Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether 
or Not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 77 FR 31309, 31312 (May 25, 
2012).
    \20\ See Memorandum, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Raw 
Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Critical Circumstances Surge 
Analysis,'' dated November 17, 2021 (Critical Circumstances Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether there have been massive imports of subject 
merchandise into the United States over a relatively short period from 
the eligible separate rate respondent companies in Vietnam and the 
``Vietnam-wide entity,'' consistent with Commerce's practice, we 
compared the quantity of imports into the United States under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule numbers listed in the scope, as reported by 
Global Trade Atlas, for the same periods noted above (i.e., October 
2020 through April 2021 and May 2021 through November 2021) less the 
quantity of shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
reported by Ban Me Thuot and DakHoney for those periods.\21\ Based on 
this comparison, we preliminarily find that imports of subject 
merchandise into the United States from the eligible

[[Page 2130]]

separate rate respondent companies in Vietnam and the ``Vietnam-wide 
entity'' increased by more than 15 percent in the comparison period 
compared to the base period.\22\ Therefore, we preliminarily find that 
there were massive imports of subject merchandise from the eligible 
separate rate respondent companies in Vietnam and the ``Vietnam-wide 
entity'' over a relatively short period pursuant to section 
773(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CORE Critical Circumstances Prelim; see also CORE India 
Final; CORE Italy Final; CORE Korea Final; CORE China Final; CORE 
Taiwan Final; CORE China CVD Final; CORE Taiwan CVD Final; CORE 
Italy CVD Final; and CORE Korea CVD Final. Commerce notes that it 
preliminarily determined that the ``Vietnam-wide entity'' was a 
cooperating entity. See Preliminary Determination.
    \22\ See Critical Circumstances Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    Record evidence indicates that importers of raw honey from Vietnam 
knew, or should have known, that exporters were selling the merchandise 
at LTFV, and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of 
such sales. In addition, we have found that Ban Me Thuot, DakHoney, the 
eligible separate rate respondent companies in Vietnam, and the 
``Vietnam-wide entity'' had massive imports during a relatively short 
period. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, we 
preliminarily find that there is reason to believe or suspect that 
critical circumstances exist for imports of the merchandise under 
consideration from Ban Me Thuot, DakHoney, the eligible separate rate 
respondent companies in Vietnam, and the ``Vietnam-wide entity.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See section 733(f) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 
351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation 
of any unliquidated entries of the merchandise under consideration from 
Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after August 25, 2021, which is 90 days prior to the date of 
publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
determination.

Public Comment

    In the Preliminary Determination, Commerce stated that case briefs 
or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary 
for Enforcement and Compliance.\24\ A timeline for the submission of 
case briefs and written comments on non-scope issues will be announced 
at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline 
for case briefs.\25\ Note that Commerce has temporarily modified 
certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business 
proprietary information, until further notice.\26\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal 
briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each 
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Preliminary Determination.
    \25\ See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general 
filing requirements).
    \26\ See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements 
Due to COVID-19, 85 FR 17006 (March 26, 2020); and Temporary Rule 
Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID-19; Extension of 
Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).

    Dated: December 30, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the 
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-00579 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P