Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 52764-52766 [E6-14846]

Download as PDF 52764 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices Authority: Pub. L. 94–582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E6–14817 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment. AGENCY: Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. EDA has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm’s workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR THE PERIOD JULY 27, 2006 THROUGH AUGUST 30, 2006 Date petition accepted Firm Address GasTech Engineering, Inc ........................ 1007 E. Admiral Boulevard, Tulsa, OK 74145. 5400 South Delaware Street, Littleton, CO 80120. 401 S. Washington Street, Hutchinson, KS 67501. 14401 W 65th Way, Arvada, CO 80004 .. 7/27/06 Oil and gas production equipment. 8/4/06 Motion and fluid control equipment. 8/4/06 Metal shearing and fabrication machinery. 8/4/06 2001 4th Street SW., Albuquerque, NM 87102. 7050 97th Plaza Circle, Omaha, NE 68122. 11189 Murray Road, Meadville, PA ......... 4532 Route 982, Latrobe, PA 15650 ....... 3715 Mayflower Drive, Lynchburg, VA 24501. 337 West Walnut Street, North Wales, PA 19454. 2711 Miami Street, St. Louis, MO 63118 3607 28th Avenue, NE., Miami, OK 74354. 12 Continental Boulevard, Merrimack, NH 03054. 8/7/06 Electrosurgical products used in open heart surgery. Vegetable products, spices, tortillas. Norgren, Inc .............................................. Mega Manufacturing, Inc .......................... COBE Cardiovascular, Inc ........................ El Encanto, Inc. dba Bueno Foods (JV) ... Valley Oak Cabinets, Inc .......................... Bra-Vor Tool and Die Company, Inc ........ Alumina Ceramic Components, Inc .......... Capps Shoe Company, Inc ....................... Metal Edge International, Inc .................... National Graphics, Inc .............................. Discovery Plastics, LLC ............................ rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES George Gordon Associates, Inc ............... Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Office of Chief Counsel, Room 7005, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the procedures set forth in Section 315.9 of EDA’s interim final rule (70 FR 47002) for procedures for requesting a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 Dated: August 30, 2006. Barry Bird, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. E6–14815 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–24–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–863] Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. SUMMARY: On June 21, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received a request to AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Product 8/14/06 Wood kitchen cabinets and wood doors. 8/23/06 8/23/06 8/23/06 Stamped metal parts. Industrial ceramic components. Men’s and women’s shoes. 8/23/06 Specialty packaging products. 8/29/06 8/29/06 Coated inkjet media. Automotive plastic injection molding parts. Packing and wrapping machinery. 8/29/06 conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People=s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) from Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Bloom’’). We have determined that this request meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the initiation of a new shipper review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy or Anya Naschak, 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) 482–5403 or (202) 482– 6375, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received a timely request from Shanghai Bloom in E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, which has a December annual anniversary month, and a June semi–annual anniversary month. Shanghai Bloom identified itself as the exporter of honey produced by Linxiang Jindeya Bee–Keeping Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jindeya’’). As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii)(A), Shanghai Bloom certified that it did not export honey to the United States during the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported honey to the United States during the POI. Jindeya also certified that it did not export honey to the United States during the POI, and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported honey to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, the two companies have also certified that their activities are not controlled by the government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai Bloom submitted documentation establishing the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted Customs database queries and analyzed Customs entry packages to confirm that the shipment of Shanghai Bloom had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the Customs database by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). In addition, the Department confirmed the existence of Shanghai Bloom and its U.S. customer. We note that although Shanghai Bloom submitted documentation regarding the volume of its shipment, and the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States, CBP entry documents and our Customs database query show that Shanghai Bloom’s shipment entered the United States shortly after the anniversary month. Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the period of review (‘‘POR’’), but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department’s regulations. The preamble to the Department’s regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 during the POR, and that under ‘‘appropriate’’ circumstances the Department has the flexibility to extend the POR. Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27319–27320 (May 19, 1997). In this instance, Shanghai Bloom’s shipment entered in the month following the end of the POR. The Department does not find that this delay prevents the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department’s regulations. On June 22, 2006, we requested from CBP the entry package for Shanghai Bloom, and we received the entry documentation from CBP. However, we found certain discrepancies between the documentation provided by Shanghai Bloom in its request for a new shipper review and the entry package we received from CBP.1 On July 20, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the time limit to initiate this new shipper review until August 31, 2006, in order to provide Shanghai Bloom an opportunity to explain or resolve the inconsistencies in the entry documentation.2 On August 7, 2006, we received documentation from Shanghai Bloom, including invoice and shipment documentation, to demonstrate that Jindeya was the producer of the subject merchandise, and a revised Producer Certificate, which contains a Food and Drug Administration (‘‘FDA’’) registration number and lists Jindeya as the producer. Shanghai Bloom explained that listing Shanghai Bloom on the Producer Certificate was an inadvertent error. On August 9, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Shanghai Bloom, noting that section 801(m) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 381(m)), amended by section 307 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, requires prior notification and the use of an FDA registration number, which should be assigned to ‘‘the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a domestic or foreign facility that manufactures/processes, packs, or holds food for human or animal consumption in the U.S., or an individual authorized by one of them, must register that facility with FDA’’ 1 See Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, Senior Case Analyst, through Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, Re: Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Entry Packages from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’), dated July 20, 2006 (‘‘CBP Memo’’). 2 See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Extension of Initiation Date of New Shipper Review of Honey from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), dated July 20, 2006 (‘‘Initiation Extension Letter’’). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52765 (see https://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/ fsbtac12.html), and requesting that Shanghai Bloom submit a copy of the completed online FDA Registration that generated the FDA Registration number appearing on Shanghai Bloom’s Producer Certifications.3 On August 11, 2006, Shanghai Bloom submitted the FDA Registration information, which listed Shanghai Bloom as the foreign facility, and contained the same FDA Registration number appearing on the Producer Certification. On August 17, 2006, the Department requested that Shanghai Bloom explain the discrepancy between the Producer Certification that lists Jindeya as the producer, and the FDA Registration number that was issued to Shanghai Bloom.4 On August 21, 2006, Shanghai Bloom submitted a revised Producer Certification, which listed Jindeya’s recently acquired FDA Registration number, and explained that, due to a misunderstanding of the requirements of the form, Shanghai Bloom inadvertently put its own name and FDA Registration number on the Producer Certificate, but that Jindeya was the actual producer of the merchandise exported to the United States during the POR. Based on the information submitted by Shanghai Bloom on August 7, 2006, August 11, 2006, and August 21, 2006, we find that Shanghai Bloom has sufficiently demonstrated for purposes of initiation that Jindeya was the producer of the honey it exported to the United States. In the course of this new shipper review, we will further examine this issue. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are initiating a new shipper review for Shanghai Bloom. See Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, New Shipper Initiation Checklist, dated August 25, 2006. The Department will conduct this new shipper review according to the deadlines set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the POR for a new 3‘‘See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Request for Clarification on Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.’s Request for Initiation of a New Shipper Review of Honey from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), dated August 9, 2006. 4 See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Request for Clarification on Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.’s Request for Initiation of a New Shipper Review of Honey from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), dated August 17, 2006. E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 52766 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semi–annual anniversary month, will be the sixmonth period immediately preceding the semi–annual anniversary month. As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper review of Shanghai Bloom is December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Pursuant to the Department’s regulations, in cases involving non– market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country– wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company’s export activities. Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom, including a separate rates section. The review will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Shanghai Bloom is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of honey. However, if Shanghai Bloom does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI and the new shipper review will be rescinded as to Shanghai Bloom. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Bloom and manufactured by Jindeya must continue to post a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC–wide rate of 212.39 percent. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department’s regulations. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 Dated: August 30, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–14846 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–841] Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from the Committee for Fair Beam Imports, Nucor Corp., Nucor–Yamato Steel Co., Steel Dynamics, Inc. and TXI–Chaparral Steel Co., (collectively, petitioners), INI Steel Company (INI), and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers INI and DSM, manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that INI has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that DSM has not sold subject merchandise at less than NV. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. AGENCY: EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke or Steve Bezirganian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5604 or (202) 482–1131 respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Background On August 1, 2005 the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005 petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of DSM, a Korean producer of subject merchandise. Also, on August 31, 2005, DSM and INI requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of subject merchandise during the POR. On September 28, 2005 the Department published a notice of initiation of a review of structural steel beams from Korea covering the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 3, 2005 the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaires to INI and to DSM. Because we disregarded sales of certain products made by INI at prices below the cost of production (COP) in what was, at that time, the most recently completed review of structural steel beams from Korea (see Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6837 (February 9, 2005)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect INI made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, from the outset of this review we required INI to respond to section D of the questionnaire. On November 4, 2005, the Department granted approval of INI’s October 12, 2005 request to shift its cost reporting period for section D. The Department had not disregarded sales of structural steel beams made by DSM at prices below the COP in the most recently completed review of DSM; therefore, DSM was not initially required to respond to section D of the questionnaire. However, on December 19, 2005 petitioners alleged that DSM sold the foreign like product at prices below its COP. On January 9, 2006, the Department initiated a cost investigation of DSM based upon the determination that petitioners’ allegation established reasonable grounds to believe or suspect sales below cost, and instructed DSM to E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 173 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52764-52766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14846]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New 
Shipper Antidumping Duty Review

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006.
SUMMARY: On June 21, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') received a request to conduct a new shipper review of the 
antidumping duty order on honey from the People=s Republic of China 
(``PRC'') from Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. 
(``Shanghai Bloom''). We have determined that this request meets the 
statutory and regulatory requirements for the initiation of a new 
shipper review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy or Anya Naschak, 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-
5403 or (202) 482-6375, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department received a timely request from Shanghai Bloom in

[[Page 52765]]

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act'') and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review 
of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, which has a 
December annual anniversary month, and a June semi-annual anniversary 
month. Shanghai Bloom identified itself as the exporter of honey 
produced by Linxiang Jindeya Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd. (``Jindeya''). As 
required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii)(A), Shanghai Bloom 
certified that it did not export honey to the United States during the 
period of investigation (``POI''), and that it has never been 
affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported honey to the 
United States during the POI. Jindeya also certified that it did not 
export honey to the United States during the POI, and that it has never 
been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported honey to 
the United States during the POI. Furthermore, the two companies have 
also certified that their activities are not controlled by the 
government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai 
Bloom submitted documentation establishing the date on which the 
subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United 
States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, 
and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the 
United States.
    The Department conducted Customs database queries and analyzed 
Customs entry packages to confirm that the shipment of Shanghai Bloom 
had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry 
date in the Customs database by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP''). In addition, the Department confirmed the existence of 
Shanghai Bloom and its U.S. customer. We note that although Shanghai 
Bloom submitted documentation regarding the volume of its shipment, and 
the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United 
States, CBP entry documents and our Customs database query show that 
Shanghai Bloom's shipment entered the United States shortly after the 
anniversary month.
    Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject 
merchandise occurs within the period of review (``POR''), but the entry 
occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be 
likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits 
set by the Department's regulations. The preamble to the Department's 
regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur during 
the POR, and that under ``appropriate'' circumstances the Department 
has the flexibility to extend the POR. Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27319-27320 (May 19, 
1997). In this instance, Shanghai Bloom's shipment entered in the month 
following the end of the POR. The Department does not find that this 
delay prevents the completion of the review within the time limits set 
by the Department's regulations.
    On June 22, 2006, we requested from CBP the entry package for 
Shanghai Bloom, and we received the entry documentation from CBP. 
However, we found certain discrepancies between the documentation 
provided by Shanghai Bloom in its request for a new shipper review and 
the entry package we received from CBP.\1\ On July 20, 2006, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the time limit to 
initiate this new shipper review until August 31, 2006, in order to 
provide Shanghai Bloom an opportunity to explain or resolve the 
inconsistencies in the entry documentation.\2\ On August 7, 2006, we 
received documentation from Shanghai Bloom, including invoice and 
shipment documentation, to demonstrate that Jindeya was the producer of 
the subject merchandise, and a revised Producer Certificate, which 
contains a Food and Drug Administration (``FDA'') registration number 
and lists Jindeya as the producer. Shanghai Bloom explained that 
listing Shanghai Bloom on the Producer Certificate was an inadvertent 
error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, Senior Case 
Analyst, through Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, Re: Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Entry Packages from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP''), dated July 20, 2006 (``CBP Memo'').
    \2\ See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Extension of 
Initiation Date of New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''), dated July 20, 2006 (``Initiation 
Extension Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Shanghai 
Bloom, noting that section 801(m) of the Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Sec.  381(m)), amended by section 307 of the 
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act 
of 2002, requires prior notification and the use of an FDA registration 
number, which should be assigned to ``the owner, operator, or agent in 
charge of a domestic or foreign facility that manufactures/processes, 
packs, or holds food for human or animal consumption in the U.S., or an 
individual authorized by one of them, must register that facility with 
FDA'' (see https://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/fsbtac12.html), and requesting 
that Shanghai Bloom submit a copy of the completed online FDA 
Registration that generated the FDA Registration number appearing on 
Shanghai Bloom's Producer Certifications.\3\ On August 11, 2006, 
Shanghai Bloom submitted the FDA Registration information, which listed 
Shanghai Bloom as the foreign facility, and contained the same FDA 
Registration number appearing on the Producer Certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\``See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Request for 
Clarification on Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.'s 
Request for Initiation of a New Shipper Review of Honey from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), dated August 9, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 17, 2006, the Department requested that Shanghai Bloom 
explain the discrepancy between the Producer Certification that lists 
Jindeya as the producer, and the FDA Registration number that was 
issued to Shanghai Bloom.\4\ On August 21, 2006, Shanghai Bloom 
submitted a revised Producer Certification, which listed Jindeya's 
recently acquired FDA Registration number, and explained that, due to a 
misunderstanding of the requirements of the form, Shanghai Bloom 
inadvertently put its own name and FDA Registration number on the 
Producer Certificate, but that Jindeya was the actual producer of the 
merchandise exported to the United States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter to Shanghai Bloom from Carrie Blozy: Request for 
Clarification on Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.'s 
Request for Initiation of a New Shipper Review of Honey from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), dated August 17, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information submitted by Shanghai Bloom on August 7, 
2006, August 11, 2006, and August 21, 2006, we find that Shanghai Bloom 
has sufficiently demonstrated for purposes of initiation that Jindeya 
was the producer of the honey it exported to the United States. In the 
course of this new shipper review, we will further examine this issue.

Initiation of Review

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are 
initiating a new shipper review for Shanghai Bloom. See Memorandum to 
the File through James C. Doyle, New Shipper Initiation Checklist, 
dated August 25, 2006. The Department will conduct this new shipper 
review according to the deadlines set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) 
of the Act.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the POR for a new

[[Page 52766]]

shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semi-
annual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately 
preceding the semi-annual anniversary month. As discussed above, under 
19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise 
occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the 
POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper review of 
Shanghai Bloom is December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.
    Pursuant to the Department's regulations, in cases involving non-
market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to 
establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the 
country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of 
government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, 
we will issue a questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom, including a separate 
rates section. The review will proceed if the responses provide 
sufficient indication that Shanghai Bloom is not subject to either de 
jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of 
honey. However, if Shanghai Bloom does not demonstrate its eligibility 
for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from 
other companies that exported during the POI and the new shipper review 
will be rescinded as to Shanghai Bloom.
    On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was 
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the 
authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other 
security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, 
the posting of a bond under Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in 
lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of 
subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Bloom and manufactured by 
Jindeya must continue to post a cash deposit of estimated antidumping 
duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC-wide 
rate of 212.39 percent.
    Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in 
this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 
351.306.
    This initiation notice is issued and published in accordance with 
section 751(a) of the Act and sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i) 
of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: August 30, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-14846 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.