Honey From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2890-2900 [E8-671]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2890
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the final results
of the administrative review of helical
spring lock washers from the People’s
Republic of China within the 120-day
period due to complex issues the parties
have raised regarding which countries
to exclude from certain surrogate values.
In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act, the Department is extending
the time period for completion of the
final results of this review by 5 days to
125 days after the date on which the
preliminary results were published.
Therefore, the final results are now due
no later than January 15, 2008.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: January 10, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–687 Filed 1–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–863]
Honey From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is currently conducting
the aligned semi-annual 2005–2006 new
shipper review and 2005–2006
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) for both
the new shipper review and
administrative review is December 1,
2005, through November 30, 2006. Five
respondents reported that they had no
exports or sales of the subject
merchandise during the POR; therefore,
we are preliminarily rescinding our
review of these companies. We
preliminarily determine that Wuhu
Qinshi Tangye Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wuhu
Qinshi’’); Jiangsu Light Industry
Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp.
(‘‘Jiangsu Light’’); Qinhuangdao
Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd.
(‘‘QMD’’); and Inner Mongolia Altin
Bee-Keeping (‘‘IMA’’) have failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of
their ability to comply with our requests
for information and, as a result, should
be assigned a rate based on adverse facts
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
available. Additionally, we have
preliminarily determined that, because
the Department has not calculated
antidumping duty margins in this
segment of the proceeding, the two
separate rate companies in the
administrative review will be assigned
the separate rate margin from the most
recent segment of this proceeding in
which such a rate was calculated, which
in this case is the less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation. Finally, we
have preliminarily determined that
QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd. (‘‘QHD
Sanhai’’), the new shipper respondent,
did not make sales of subject
merchandise to the United States below
normal value. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results no later
than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bobby Wong or Michael Quigley, 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) 482–0409 or (202) 482–
4047, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 1, 2006, the Department
published a notice of Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). On
December 27, 2007, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department
received timely requests from QMD,
IMA, and Dongtai Peak Honey Industry
Co, Ltd. (‘‘Dongtai Peak’’), for
administrative reviews. On December
29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), the Department received a
timely request from Zhejiang Native
Produce & Animal By-Products I/E
Group Corporation (‘‘Zhejiang Native’’),
for an administrative review. On
December 28, 2006, the Department
received a timely request from QHD
Sanhai, in 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. Also on December 29,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2006, the American Honey Producers
Association and the Sioux Honey
Association (collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’),
requested, in accordance with section
351.213(b) of the Department’s
regulations, an administrative review of
entries of subject merchandise made
during the POR by 30 Chinese
producers/exporters.1
On February 2, 2007, the Department
published a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from
the PRC covering the period December
1, 2005, through November 30, 2006.
See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007)
(‘‘AR Initiation Notice’’). On February 5,
2007, the Department published a notice
of initiation of a new shipper review of
the antidumping duty order on honey
from the PRC covering the period
December 1, 2005, through November
30, 2006. See Honey from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of New
Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews, 72
FR 5265 (February 5, 2007) (‘‘NSR
Initiation Notice’’). On February 22,
2007, QHD Sanhai agreed to waive the
new shipper review time limits, and on
February 23, 2007, the Department
aligned the new shipper review with the
corresponding administrative review.
On February 12, 2007, the Department
sent a request for quantity and value
(‘‘Q&V’’) information to the 31
companies named in the AR Initiation
Notice. On February 23, 2007, the
Department received quantity and value
questionnaire responses (‘‘Q&V
response’’) from Dongtai Peak; QMD;
IMA; and Chiangmai Healthy Product
Co., Ltd. On February 26, 2007, the
Department received a Q&V response
and a separate rates certification from
1 Petitioners’ request included: Anhui Honghui
Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.; Beijing
World Trade Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee
Products Co., Ltd.; Chiangmai Healthy Product Co.,
Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing;
Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd.; Eurasia
Bee’s Products Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Harvest
Health Industry Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Dragon
Group Corporation Ltd.; Hangzhou Xinsheng (or
Xinyun) Shipping Agency Co., Ltd.; Inner Mongolia
Altin Bee-Keeping; Inner Mongolia Youth Trade
Development Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Kanghong Natural
Healthfoods Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry
Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp.; Kunshan Xinrui
Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation;
Mgl Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Aolan
Trade Co., Ltd.; Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng
Industrial Co., Ltd.; Rich Shipping Company;
Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai
Xinyun International Transportation Co., Ltd.;
Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd.; United Logistics
Group Inc.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan
Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd.; and Wuhu Qinshi
Tangye Co., Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
Zhejiang Native. On April 12, 2007, the
Department received a separate rate
application from Dongtai Peak, QMD,
and IMA. On April 13, 2007, the
Department received a separate rate
application from Cheng Du Wai Yuan
Bee Products Co., Ltd.
On March 21, 2007, the Department
received and granted a deadline
extension request to respond to the
Department’s Q&V questionnaire from
Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Ltd., Co. (‘‘Wuhu
Qinshi’’). See March 21, 2007, letter
from Christopher Riker, Program
Manager, to Wuhu Qinshi Tangye,
regarding the 2005/2006 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Honey from the People’s Republic of
China. Subsequently, Wuhu Qinxhi did
not submit its certified Q&V response.
On April 10, 2007, petitioners
withdrew their request for review on 22
of the 30 Chinese companies in the
administrative review: Anhui Honghui
Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Apiarist
Co.; Beijing World Trade Co., Ltd.;
Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co.,
Ltd.; Chiangmai Healthy Product Co.,
Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency
Beijing; Eurasia Bee’s Products Co., Ltd.;
Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health
Industry Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden
Dragon Group Corporation Ltd.;
Hangzhou Xinsheng (or Xinyun)
Shipping Agency Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu
Kanghong Natural Health Foods Co.,
Ltd.; Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd.; M&H
Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation;
Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd.; Rich
Shipping Company; Shanghai Taiside
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Xinyun
International Transportation Co., Ltd.;
Sichuan Dujiangyan Dubao Bee
Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Eulia Honey
Co., Ltd.; United Logistics Group Inc.;
Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan
Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. Of the nine
remaining companies named in the AR
Initiation Notice, IMA, QMD, Dongtai
Peak, and Zhejiang Native provided
Q&V data and claimed shipments. Given
the Department’s limited resources and
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the
Act, in order to cover the greatest
possible export volume, the Department
selected IMA and QMD as mandatory
respondents in the administrative
review, which are the two largest
producer/exporters by export volume
during the POR.2 On April 17, 2007, the
Department selected IMA and QMD as
mandatory respondents and issued
antidumping duty questionnaires to
IMA and QMD (‘‘AR original
questionnaire’’). See April 17, 2007,
2 Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak remained
separate rate respondents in the administrative
review.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
Memorandum to James Doyle, Office
Director, from Anya Naschak, Senior
International Compliance Analyst,
Through Christopher Riker, Program
Manager, regarding the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Honey
from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of Respondents. On April 23,
2007, Zhejiang Native requested that the
Department reconsider Zhejiang Native
as either a mandatory or voluntary
respondent for the administrative
review.3
On March 7, 2007, the Department
sent ‘‘second chance’’ Q&V
questionnaires to Wuhu Qinshi Tanye;
Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co.,
Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co.,
Ltd.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Xinyun International
Transportation Co.; Shanghai Taiside
Trading Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping
(Shanghai) Corporation; Jiangsu
Kanghong; Hangzhou Golden; Eurasia
Bee’s Products Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.;
United Logistics Group; Rich Shipping
Company; Mgl Yung Sheng Honey Co.,
Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry Products
Imp & Exp (Group) Corp.; China Ocean
Shipping Agency Beijing; and Tianjin
Eulia Honey.
On May 3, 2007, the Department
published a notice of partial rescission
in the administrative review regarding
the 22 companies for which petitioners
withdrew their request for review in the
administrative review. See Honey from
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
24561 (May 3, 2007) (‘‘AR Partial
Rescission Notice’’). On May 21, 2007,
the Department invited interested
parties to comment on the Department’s
surrogate country selection and/or
significant production in the other
potential surrogate countries and to
submit publicly available information to
value the factors of production in the
new shipper and administrative
reviews. See May 21, 2007, Letter to
‘‘All Interested Parties’’ from
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
regarding Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China: Letter
enclosing the Office of Policy list of
economically comparable countries and
schedule for comments on surrogate
country, and see also May 21, 2007,
Letter to ‘‘All Interested Parties’’ from
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
regarding Antidumping Duty
3 See June 7, 2007, Memorandum to the File,
From James Doyle, Director, Office 9, Regarding:
Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Phone
call with Counsel Regarding April 23, 2007,
Submission.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2891
Administrative Review of Honey from
the People’s Republic of China: Letter
enclosing the Office of Policy list of
economically comparable countries and
schedule for comments on surrogate
country (collectively, ‘‘Surrogate
Country Letters’’).
On July 31, 2007, the Department also
published an extension of the time
limits to complete the preliminary
results. See Honey From the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
72 FR 41710 (July 31, 2007).
On August 15, 2007, the Department
received notification from IMA that it
intended to withdraw its request for a
review in the administrative review. See
August 15, 2007, letter to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, from IMA,
regarding Honey from the People’s
Republic of China. On October 18, 2007,
the Department received notification
from QMD, stating that it would not
participate in the Department’s
scheduled verification of its
questionnaire responses in
Qinhuangdao, Hebei China. See October
18, 2007, letter to the U.S. Department
of Commerce, from Qinghuangdao
Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd.,
regarding: Honey from the People’s
Republic of China. See infra for further
discussion.
Questionnaires
On February 5, 2007, the Department
issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to QHD Sanhai in the new
shipper review (‘‘NSR original
questionnaire’’). On March 19, 2007, the
Department received QHD Sanhai’s
section A response to the Department’s
NSR original questionnaire. On March
30, 2007, the Department issued a
supplemental section A questionnaire.
On April 11, 2007, the Department
received QHD Sanhai’s section C and D
response to the Department’s NSR
original questionnaire. On April 13,
2007, the Department received QHD
Sanhai’s section A response to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire. On May 18, 2007, the
Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to QHD
Sanhai. On June 15, 2007, the
Department received QHD Sanhai’s
response to section A, C, and D of the
Department’s second supplemental
questionnaire. On July 26, 2007, the
Department issued an additional
supplemental questionnaire to QHD
Sanhai. On August 20, 2007, the
Department received QHD Sanhai’s
supplemental questionnaire responses.
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
2892
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
On April 17, 2007, the Department
issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to IMA and QMD in the
administrative review. On May 7, 2007,
the Department received IMA and
QMD’s responses to section A of the
Department’s original questionnaire. On
June 7, 2007, the Department received
IMA and QMD’s timely responses to
section C and D of the Department’s
original questionnaire. On July 19, 2007,
the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to QMD. On July 31, 2007,
the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to IMA. However, IMA
did not respond to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaire. On August
21, 2007, the Department issued a letter
to IMA, requesting that it respond to the
Department’s outstanding supplemental
questionnaire; furthermore, the
Department extended the deadline for
IMA to reply to the supplemental
questionnaire. See August 21, 2007,
letter to IMA, from Catherine Bertrand,
Acting Program Manager, regarding the
2005/2006 Administrative Review of
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China. Subsequently, the Department
received no further correspondence
from IMA. On August 14, 2007, the
Department received a timely
submission of QMD’s response to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire.
Non-Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See, e.g.,
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
34893 (June 16, 2006), and the Fourth
Honey AR Final Results, 72 FR 37715
(July 11, 2007). Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
a NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish
Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006);
and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) unchanged in
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 26589
(May 10, 2007). None of the parties to
this proceeding have contested such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Surrogate Country and Factors
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires
the Department to value an NME
producer’s factors of production, to the
extent possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (1) are at a level
of economic development comparable to
that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. India is among the
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of overall economic development.
See Memorandum to Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, AC/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Ron
Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy,
regarding the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Honey from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC):
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries
(April 2, 2007); and Memorandum to
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of
Policy, regarding the New Shipper
Review of Honey from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC): Request for a
List of Surrogate Countries (April 2,
2007) (‘‘Surrogate Country Letters’’). In
addition, based on publicly available
information placed on the record (e.g.,
production data), India is a significant
producer of the subject merchandise.
See Memorandum to The File, through
James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, and Scot T. Fullerton,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Michael J. Quigley, Case
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding Antidumping Duty
Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews of Honey from the People’s
Republic of China: Selection of a
Surrogate Country (December 17, 2007).
Accordingly, we have selected India as
the primary surrogate country for
purposes of valuing the factors of
production because it meets the
Department’s criteria for surrogatecountry selection. See id.
On May 21, 2007, the Department
provided parties with an opportunity to
submit publicly available information
on surrogate countries and values for
consideration in these preliminary
results in the administrative and new
shipper reviews. See Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China: Letter
enclosing the Office of Policy list of
economically comparable countries and
schedule for comments on surrogate
country, dated May 21, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On October 17, 2007, QHD Sanhai
submitted comments on surrogate
information for the record of the new
shipper review (see letter to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Regarding:
QHD Sanhai Regarding the First
Surrogate Value Submission in the New
Shipper Review of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China (October 17,
2007)). On October 19, 2007, petitioners
submitted their comments on surrogate
information for the record of the new
shipper and administrative review (see
letter to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Regarding: 5th
Administrative Review and 10th New
Shipper Review of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China, dated
October 17, 2007). On October 29, 2007,
the Department received rebuttal
comments on surrogate information
from QHD Sanhai and Zhejiang Native
(see October 29, 2007, letters to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, from:
Zhejiang Native, Regarding: Rebuttal to
Petitioners’ Surrogate Value Submission
for the Fifth Antidumping Review of
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China (A–570–863); and QHD Sanhai,
Regarding: Rebuttal to Petitioners’
Surrogate Value Submission for the New
Shipper Review of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China). On
November 6, 2007, QHD Sanhai and
Zhejiang Native submitted additional
comments on surrogate information to
value factors of production in both the
administrative and new shipper
reviews.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2005/
2006 Administrative Review
Mgl Yun Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.4;
Inner Mongolia Youth Trade
Development Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai
Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.,
certified that they did not export honey
from China to the United States during
the POR. To corroborate these
certifications, the Department reviewed
PRC honey shipment data maintained
by CBP, and found no discrepancies
with the statements made by these
companies. Moreover, the Department
also requested that CBP forward any
information regarding entries of honey
from these companies during the POR
and received no reply.
4 See August 13, 2007, Memorandum to the File,
from Catherine Bertrand, Senior International Trade
Analyst, regarding: Administrative Review on
Honey from the People’s Republic of China for the
period December 1, 2005 through November 30,
2006; and August 15, 2007, Memorandum to the
File, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior International
Trade Analyst, regarding: Administrative Review on
Honey from the People’s Republic of China for the
period December 1, 2005 through November 30,
2006.
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
Therefore, for the reasons noted
above, we are preliminarily rescinding
the administrative review with respect
to Inner Mongolia Youth Trade
Development Co., Ltd.; Mgl Yung Sheng
Honey Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai Bloom
International Trading Co., Ltd., because
the Department was unable to reach the
companies, or the company reported
that it did not make shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR,
and the Department found no
information to indicate otherwise.5
Separate Rates
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Administrative Review
Based on timely requests from
individual exporters and petitioners, the
Department originally initiated this
review with respect to 31 companies in
the administrative review.
Subsequently, petitioners withdrew
their review request for certain of these
companies and thus the Department
rescinded the review with respect to 22
companies. Of the nine companies
remaining in the review, only four
companies provided Q&V data and
claimed shipments. Those four
companies (Dongtai Peak Honey
Industry Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Altin
Bee-Keeping, Qinhuangdao Municipal
Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang
Native Produce & Animal By-Products I/
E Group Corporation) comprised the
pool of companies considered in the
selection of respondents for this review.
However, due to its limited resources,
the Department was unable to examine
all companies for which a review
request was made. Therefore, as
previously stated, the Department
selected two producers/exporters as
mandatory respondents: QMD and IMA.
Two additional companies, Zhejiang
Native and Dongtai Peak, submitted
timely information as requested by the
Department and remain subject to
review as cooperative separate rate
respondents.
Ultimately, both QMD and IMA
ceased participating in the
administrative review, and both Wuhu
Qinshi and Jiangsu Light did not
respond to the Department’s multiple
requests for information. Therefore, for
these preliminary results, the
Department finds that these four entities
are not entitled to a separate rate and
5 The Department requested shipment
information for Shanghai Bloom International
Trading Co., Ltd. solely for the period July 1, 2006,
through November 30, 2006. The Department had
previously reviewed Shanghai Bloom International
Trading Co., Ltd. as a new shipper for the period
December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. See
Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
72 FR 67702, November 30, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
thus are considered part of the PRCwide entity, which is preliminarily
assigned an adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’) rate of 221.02 percent, as
further discussed below.
The Department must also assign a
rate to the remaining two cooperative
separate rate respondents not selected
for individual examination. We note
that the statute and the Department’s
regulations do not directly address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for
examination where the Department
limited its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department’s practice in this regard, in
cases involving limited selection based
on exporters accounting for the largest
volumes of trade, has been to weightaverage the rates for the selected
companies excluding zero and de
minimis rates and rates based entirely
on adverse facts available. In the instant
administrative review, however, the rate
for the mandatory respondents is the
rate for the PRC-wide entity based on
total AFA.
While the statute does not specifically
address this particular set of
circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of
the Act does specify the methodology to
be followed when a similar fact pattern
arises in the context of the all-others
rate established in an investigation.
While not entirely analogous to the
determination of a rate to be applied to
responsive separate rate respondents in
the context of a NME review, we find it
to be instructive in these circumstances.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act states
that in situations where the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins
established for all exporters and
producers individually investigated are
zero or de minimis, or are determined
entirely under section 776 (facts
available section), ‘‘the administering
authority may use any reasonable
method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers
not individually investigated, including
averaging the weighted-average
dumping margins determined for the
exporters and producers individually
investigated.’’
The SAA states that in using any
reasonable method to calculate the allothers rate, ‘‘the expected method in
such cases will be to weight-average the
zero and de minimis margins and
margins determined pursuant to the
facts available, provided that volume
data is available.’’ See SAA at 203.
However, the SAA also provides that:
[If] this method is not feasible, or if it
results in an average that would not be
reasonably reflective of potential
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2893
dumping margins for non-investigated
exporters or producers, Commerce may
use other reasonable means.’’ Id.
In the instant administrative review,
the Department preliminarily concludes
that it cannot accurately determine a
margin based on information provided
by the separate rate entities.
Furthermore, we preliminarily find that
we cannot employ alternative methods
such as applying AFA, de minimis and
zero rates, or partial use of the
information on the record. Specifically,
while the separate rates entities have
given us total volume and value
information with respect to subject
merchandise, we note that processed
honey prices vary dramatically
depending on the quality and packaging
of the honey. Margins calculated on the
basis of average prices without regard to
quality and other factors do not reflect
a meaningful, accurate comparison, and
therefore we find we must look to other
reasonable means to determine an
appropriate margin for the separate rate
entities subject to this review. In the
case of Zhejiang Native and Dongtai
Peak, we received voluntary
questionnaire responses, but we have
not examined these submissions
because of the Department’s resource
constraints and its decision to review
only two exporters.
The Department has therefore
preliminarily determined to assign
Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak the
separate rate margin calculated in the
most recent segment of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China in which a
separate margin was calculated. 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 FR
63670 (December 10, 2001) (‘‘Honey
Investigation’’). The rate of 45.46
percent calculated in the LTFV
investigation was based on the
Department’s thorough examination of
cooperative companies during the
period of investigation. Therefore, we
find it a reasonable means by which to
determine a rate for non-examined
cooperative separate entities and have
employed this methodology for
purposes of these preliminary results.
Given that the most recent rate
calculated in the antidumping duty
order on honey from the PRC for
unexamined separate rate companies is
from the LTFV investigation, we invite
comments on the selection of this rate
for purposes of the final results.
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
2894
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Separate Rates
New Shipper Review
With respect to the new shipper
review for QHD Sanhai, QHD Sanhai
has asserted the following: (1) It is a
privately owned company; (2) there is
no government participation in its
setting of export prices; (3) its executive
director has the authority to sign
binding sales contracts; (4) the
company’s executive director appoints
the company’s management and it does
not have to notify government
authorities of its management selection;
(5) there are no restrictions on the use
of its export revenue; and (6) its
executive director decides how profits
will be used.
In support of its claim that QHD
Sanhai independently set its sales
prices, QHD Sanhai stated that sales
negotiations were conducted primarily
through e-mails; QHD Sanhai placed
copies on the record of its e-mail
correspondence and price negotiation
between itself and its U.S. customer
during the POR.6 Furthermore, QHD
Sanhai company officials stated that the
sales price and quantity are finalized
when the sales invoice is issued.
At the verification of QHD Sanhai,
prior to presenting the documentation to
Chinese Customs, the Department found
that the company’s sales invoices
required a ‘‘pre-review stamp’’ from the
Chinese Chamber of Commerce for
Commerce for Import and Export of
Foodstuffs, Native Produce and Animal
By-Products (‘‘the Chamber’’). See QHD
Sanhai Verification Report at Exhibit 8.
Additionally, company officials
provided documentation of all products
that require the ‘‘pre-review stamp’’
from various sub-chambers of the
Chinese Chamber of Commerce. QHD
Sanhai explained that obtaining a ‘‘prereview stamp’’ from the Chamber is an
administrative formality, and it has no
authority over QHD Sanhai’s ability to
negotiate or set prices. See QHD Sanhai
Verification Report at Section III(A)(5)
and Exhibit 8.
The Department successfully verified
that QHD Sanhai is a privately owned
company; independently negotiated and
set prices; independently selected
management; and that QHD Sanhai had
authority to determine the use of sales
revenue (see QHD Sanhai Verification
Report at Section III(A) and (B) and at
exhibit 8 & 12). Moreover, the
Department found no indications of
restrictions on the use of export revenue
(id.). QHD Sanhai supplied sales
6 See, e.g., QHD Sanhai’s Section A response at
Exhibit A–5; and the QHD Verification Report at
Exhibit 8 & 12.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
negotiation documentation including a
purchase order, sales contract, and sales
invoices between it and unaffiliated
third party customers, demonstrating its
independent setting of export prices.
See QHD Sanhai Verification Report at
exhibit 12.
As the evidence on the record
indicates an absence of government
control, both in law and in fact, over
QHD Sanhai’s export activities, we
preliminarily determine that it has met
the criteria for the application of a
separate rate. However, we will
continue to carefully examine these
issues for the purposes of the final
results.
PRC-Wide Rate and Facts Otherwise
Available
The PRC-wide rate applies to all
entries of subject merchandise except
for entries from PRC producers/
exporters that have their own calculated
rate. See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section
above.
Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, IMA, and
QMD are appropriately considered to be
part of the PRC-wide entity because they
failed to establish their eligibility for a
separate rate. Because the PRC-wide
entity did not provide requested
information necessary to the instant
proceeding, it is necessary that we
review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so,
we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Act
mandates that the Department use the
facts available if necessary information
is not available on the record of an
antidumping proceeding. In addition,
section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that if an interested party or any other
person: (A) Withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the
Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this
title. Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
promptly inform the party submitting
the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
additionally states that if the party
submits further information that is
unsatisfactory or untimely, the
administering authority may, subject to
subsection (e), disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all the applicable requirements
established by the administering
authority if: (1) The information is
submitted by the deadline established
for its submission; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
administering authority with respect to
the information; and (5) the information
can be used without undue difficulties.
As addressed below separately for
each non-responsive company, we find
that the PRC-wide entity, which
includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light,
IMA, and QMD, did not respond to our
request for information and that
necessary information either was not
provided, or the information provided
could not be verified and is not
sufficiently complete to enable the
Department to use it for these
preliminary results. Therefore, we find
it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of
the Act, to use facts otherwise available
as the basis for the preliminary results
of this review for the PRC-wide entity.
1. Wuhu Qinshi
On March 7, 2007, the Department
sent a Q&V questionnaire to Wuhu
Qinshi. On March 21, 2007, the
Department received an e-mail
correspondence from Mr. William E.
Kentor, president of Great Foods, Inc.,
requesting an extension of the deadline
to respond to the Department’s Q&V
questionnaire. Mr. Kentor stated in the
extension request that Mr. Qin Yi Cai,
president of Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Co.,
Ltd., would confirm that Wuhu Qinshi
never exported honey to the United
States. On March 21, 2007, the
Department granted a partial extension
of the deadline until March 26, 2007, to
respond. However, Wuhu Qinshi did
not file a certified Q&V response with
the Department nor provide any further
correspondence.
We note that, although Great Foods,
Inc.’s extension request indicated that
Wuhu Qinshi would confirm that it did
not export subject merchandise to the
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
United States during the POR, the
Department did not receive any
correspondence from Wuhu Qinshi
during this POR, and therefore find that
Wuhu Qinshi is non-responsive in the
administrative review. Consequently,
because Wuhu Qinshi withheld
requested information, failed to provide
information in a timely manner, and
thus significantly impeded the
Department’s proceeding, the
Department preliminarily finds that it
did not cooperate to the best of its
ability. Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act,
and because Wuhu Qinshi did not
respond to the Department’s Q&V
questionnaire, sections 782(d) and (e) of
the Act are not applicable.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
2. Jiangsu Light
On February 12, 2007, the Department
sent a Q&V questionnaire to Jiangsu
Light; however, the Department did not
receive a response from Jiangsu Light by
the noted deadline. According to the
delivery tracking information, the
delivery of the package was ‘‘refused’’
by Jiangsu Light. See April 17, 2007,
Memorandum to the file, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
from Anya Naschak, Senior
International Trade Analyst, regarding:
2005/2006 Administrative Review of
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Results of Tracking Information
for Quantity and Value Questionnaire.
On March 6, 2007, petitioners provided
an alternative address for Jiangsu Light,
thus on March 7, 2007, the Department
resent the Q&V questionnaire to the
alternative address; however, the
Department again did not receive a
response. According to the delivery
tracking information, the alternate
address was undeliverable. On March
21, 2007, the Department again sent the
Q&V questionnaire to the original
address.7 Again, the Department did not
receive a response from Jiangsu Light by
the noted deadline. According to the
delivery tracking information, Jiangsu
Light again refused the attempted
delivery of the Q&V questionnaire. See
id.
Therefore, because the Department
twice attempted to deliver, and Jiangsu
Light twice refused to receive and
respond to the Department’s Q&V
questionnaire, the Department
preliminarily finds that Jiangsu Light
withheld requested information, failed
to provide information in a timely
7 See March 21, 2007, letter to Jiangsu Light
Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp., from
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, regarding
2005/2006 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the
People’s Republic of China.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
manner, and thus significantly impeded
the Department’s proceeding, and did
not cooperate to the best of its ability.
Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, and
because Jiangsu Light did not respond to
the Department’s Q&V questionnaire,
sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not
applicable.
3. IMA:
On July 31, 2007, the Department
identified deficiencies in IMA’s
questionnaire response and issued a
supplemental questionnaire, due by
August 14, 2007. On August 15, 2007,
the Department received notification
from IMA that it intended to withdraw
its request for a review in the
administrative review. However, as
petitioners did file a timely request for
a review of IMA,8 the Department
issued a letter to IMA on August 21,
2007, notifying it that, irrespective of its
withdrawal request, the Department
would continue to consider IMA a
mandatory respondent and that it was
required to respond to the Department’s
questionnaires; and that if IMA did not
participate, the Department may be
required to base its findings on total
AFA for the preliminary results.9
Furthermore, the Department, of its own
volition, extended the deadline for IMA
to respond to the Department’s July 31,
2007, supplemental questionnaire until
August 28, 2007. Subsequently, the
Department received no response or
further correspondence from IMA.
Consequently, because IMA did not
respond to the Department’s
questionnaire, request an extension of
the deadline to respond, or otherwise
correspond with the Department, the
Department preliminarily finds that
IMA withheld requested information,
failed to provide information in a timely
manner, and thus significantly impeded
the Department’s proceeding, and did
not cooperate to the best of its ability.
Because the Department finds that
IMA did not cooperate, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the
Act, and because IMA did not respond
to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire,
sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not
applicable.
4. QMD
On October 18, 2007, having finalized
verification dates, the Department
received a notification from QMD
stating that QMD would not participate
8 See
AR Initiation Notice.
Letter from August 21, 2007, from Catherine
E. Bertrand, Acting Program Manager, to Inner
Mongolia Altin Bee Keeping Co., Ltd.; Regarding
the 2005/2006 Administrative Review of Honey
From the People’s Republic of China.
9 See
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2895
in the scheduled verification, and QMD
provided no alternative verification
dates. See October 18, 2007, letter to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, from
Qinghuangdao Municipal Dafeng
Industrial Co., Ltd., regarding: Honey
from the People’s Republic of China.
Because QMD did not allow
verification of its questionnaire
response, the company denied the
Department an opportunity to verify the
completeness and accuracy of any of its
sales and production records. Because
QMD denied the Department the
opportunity to verify its questionnaire
responses, the Department has
preliminarily determined that QMD
significantly impeded the Department’s
proceeding by providing information
that could not be verified, and thus
QMD has not cooperated to the best of
its ability. Therefore, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the
Act, the Department preliminarily finds
that the application of facts available is
appropriate for these preliminary
results.
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
we find that the PRC-wide entity, which
includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light,
IMA, and QMD, failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability. As
noted above, the PRC-wide entity
informed the Department that it would
not participate in this review, or
otherwise did not provide the requested
information, despite repeated requests
that it do so. This information was in
the sole possession of the respondents,
and could not be obtained otherwise.
Thus, because the PRC-wide entity
refused to participate fully in this
proceeding, we find it appropriate to
use an inference that is adverse to the
interests of the PRC-wide entity in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available. By doing so, we
ensure that the companies that are part
of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than had they cooperated
fully in this review.
Selection of AFA Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the
Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any information placed on the
record. In reviews, the Department
normally selects, as AFA, the highest
rate on the record of any segment of the
proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
2896
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504,
19506 (April 21, 2003). The Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the
Federal Circuit have consistently
upheld the Department’s practice in this
regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v.
United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed.
Circ. 1990) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd.
v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312,
1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55
percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a LTFV
investigation); see also Kompass Food
Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT
678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16
percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent);
and Shanghai Taoen International
Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360
F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005)
(upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in a
previous administrative review).
The Department’s practice when
selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to
ensure that the margin is sufficiently
adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of
the facts available role to induce
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors from
Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932
(February 23, 1998). The Department’s
practice also ensures ‘‘that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870; see
also Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December
23, 2004); D&L Supply Co. v. United
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir.
1997). In choosing the appropriate
balance between providing respondents
with an incentive to respond accurately
and imposing a rate that is reasonably
related to the respondent’s prior
commercial activity, selecting the
highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common
sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of
current margins, because, if it were not
so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
would have produced current
information showing the margin to be
less.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190.
Consistent with the statute, court
precedent, and its normal practice, the
Department has assigned the rate of
221.02 percent, the highest rate on the
record of any segment of the proceeding,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
to the PRC-wide entity, which includes
Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, QMD, and
IMA as AFA. See, e.g., Honey from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 37715, 37717 (July 11,
2007) (‘‘Fourth Honey AR Final
Results’’). As discussed further below,
this rate has been corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information Used as AFA
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, where the Department selects from
among the facts otherwise available and
relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the
Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information
from independent sources reasonably at
the Department’s disposal. Secondary
information is described in the SAA as
‘‘[i]nformation derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise.’’
See SAA at 870. The SAA states that
‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that
the information used has probative
value. The Department has determined
that to have probative value information
must be reliable and relevant. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
from Japan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391,
57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged
in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings,
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
From Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR
11825 (March 13, 1997). The SAA also
states that independent sources used to
corroborate such evidence may include,
for example, published price lists,
official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage
Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003)
unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage
Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003);
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and, Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From
Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11,
2005).
To be considered corroborated,
information must be found to be both
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types
of information, such as input costs or
selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated
dumping margins. The only sources for
calculated margins are administrative
determinations. The AFA rate we are
applying for the current review was
calculated during the immediately
preceding, fourth administrative review
of honey from the PRC. See Fourth
Honey AR Final Results. Furthermore,
no information has been presented in
the current review that calls into
question the reliability of this
information. Thus, the Department finds
that the information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as adverse
facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61
FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996).
Similarly, the Department does not
apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use
a margin that has been judicially
invalidated). The AFA rate we are
applying for the current review was
corroborated in the proceeding that
immediately precedes the current POR,
the fourth administrative review of
honey from the PRC. See Fourth Honey
AR Final Results. Moreover, as there is
no information on the record of this
review that demonstrates that this rate
is not appropriately used as adverse
facts available, we determine that this
rate has relevance.
As the Fourth Honey AR Final Results
margin is both reliable and relevant, we
find that it has probative value. As a
result, the Department determines that
the Fourth Honey AR Final Results
margin is corroborated for the purposes
of this administrative review and may
reasonably be applied to the PRC wide
entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi,
Jiangsu Light, QMD, and IMA. Because
these are the preliminary results of the
review, the Department will consider all
margins on the record at the time of the
final results of review for the purpose of
determining the most appropriate final
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
margin for Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light,
QMD, and IMA. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade
Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian
Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7,
2000) unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade
Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian
Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Bona Fide Sale Analysis—QHD Sanhai
For the reasons stated below, we
preliminarily find that QHD Sanhai’s
reported U.S. sale during the POR to be
bona fide based on the totality of the
facts on the record. Specifically, we find
that: (1) The price and quantity of QHD
Sanhai’s sale are indicative of its normal
business practices, as the U.S. sales
price and quantity was within the range
of its sales price and quantity to POR
and post-POR customers; (2) QHD
Sanhai’s sale was made to an
unaffiliated party at arm’s length; and
(3) there is no record evidence that
indicates that QHD Sanhai’s sale was
not based on commercial principles.
While the quantity of QHD Sanhai’s sale
was small compared to other entries of
subject merchandise from the PRC into
the United States during the POR,
absent other factors, single sales of small
quantities are not inherently
commercially unreasonable. See
Memorandum to James C. Doyle,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, through Scot T.
Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Michael
Quigley, Senior International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Honey
from the People’s Republic of China:
Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale Reported
by QHD Sanhai Co., Ltd. (December 17,
2007).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), from
November 5, through November 7, 2007,
the Department verified the
questionnaire responses of QHD Sanhai
for the new shipper review. For QHD
Sanhai, the Department used standard
verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s
and exporter’s facilities, and
examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification
results are outlined in the verification
report for each company. For a further
discussion, see Memorandum to the
File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
from Bobby Wong, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, and Erin Begnal,
Senior International Trade Compliance
Analyst, regarding Verification of the
Questionnaire Responses of QHD
Sanhai Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping
New Shipper Review of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘QHD
Verification Report’’).
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order
are natural honey, artificial honey
containing more than 50 percent natural
honey by weight, preparations of natural
honey containing more than 50 percent
natural honey by weight, and flavored
honey. The subject merchandise
includes all grades and colors of honey
whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut
comb, or chunk form, and whether
packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under
subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90,
and 2106.90.99 of the 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
order is dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
In the new shipper review, to
determine whether QHD Sanhai’s sale to
the United States was made at less than
fair value, we compared the export price
(‘‘EP’’) to normal value (‘‘NV’’), as
described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
We compared NV to weighted-average
EPs in accordance with section
777A(d)(1) of the Act.
U.S. Price-Export Price
For QHD Sanhai, we based U.S. price
on EP in accordance with section 772(a)
of the Act, because the first sale to an
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior
to importation, and constructed export
price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. We
calculated EP based on the packed price
from the exporter to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States. Where
applicable, we deducted foreign
movement expenses, foreign brokerage
and handling expenses, and
international freight expenses from the
starting price (gross unit price), in
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act.
Where foreign movement was
provided by PRC service providers or
paid for in Renminbi (‘‘RMB’’), we
valued these services using surrogate
values (see ‘‘Factors of Production’’
section below for further discussion).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2897
For a complete discussion of the
calculation of the U.S. price for QHD
Sanhai, see Memorandum to the File,
through Scot T. Fullerton, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Bobby Wong, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding ‘‘Honey
From the People’s Republic of China—
Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review of QHD Sanhai Food Co., Ltd.,’’
dated December 17, 2007 (‘‘QHD Sanhai
Analysis Memorandum’’).
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using a factors-of-production
(‘‘FOP’’) methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOP because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of non-market economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the
Department’s normal methodologies.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP
data reported by QHD Sanhai for the
POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied
the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
surrogate values (except as discussed
below).
In selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to each Indian import surrogate value, a
surrogate freight cost calculated from
the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the nearest seaport to
the factory, where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed
description of all surrogate values used
for respondents can be found in the
Memorandum to the File, Through Scot
T. Fullerton, Program Manager, From
Michael Quigley, Senior International
Trade Analyst, regarding,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative and
New Shipper Review of Honey from the
People’s Republic of China: Selection of
Factor Values,’’ dated December 17,
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
2898
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
2007 (‘‘Factor Value Memorandum’’),
and the QHD Sanhai Analysis
Memorandum.
For this preliminary determination, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, we used data from the Indian
Import Statistics in order to calculate
surrogate values for QHD Sanhai’s
material inputs. In selecting the best
available information for valuing FOP in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable,
surrogate values which are non-export
average values, most contemporaneous
with the POI, product-specific, and taxexclusive. See, e.g., 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, 42682 (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). The record
shows that the Indian import statistics
represent import data that is
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.
Where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
to the POR with which to value factors,
we adjusted the surrogate values, where
appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale
Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund.
Furthermore, with regard to the
Indian import-based surrogate values,
we have disregarded import prices that
we have reason to believe or suspect
may be subsidized. We have found in
other proceedings that Indonesia, South
Korea, and Thailand may maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific
export subsidies and, therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that all exports to all
markets from these countries may be
subsidized. See, e.g., Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields from the People’s Republic
of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative
Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7 (‘‘CTVs
from the PRC’’). We are also guided by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
the legislative history not to conduct a
formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep.
100–576 (1988) at 590. Rather, Congress
indicated that the Department base its
decision on information that is available
to it at the time it makes its
determination. Therefore, we have not
used prices from these countries either
in calculating the Indian import-based
surrogate values or in calculating
market-economy input values. In
instances where a market-economy
input was obtained solely from
suppliers located in these countries, we
used Indian import-based surrogate
values to value the input. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields From
The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
6482 (February 12, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
For QHD Sanhai, the company
reported that it purchased all of its
inputs consumed in the production of
the subject merchandise under review
from non-market economy suppliers
and paid for such inputs in RMB.
Therefore, the Department used the
Indian Import Statistics to value all raw
material and packing material inputs
consumed by QHD Sanhai in the
production of the subject merchandise
during the POR.
To value unfiltered/unprocessed
honey (‘‘raw honey’’), the Department
used the raw honey price 10 published
by the Regional Centre for Development
Cooperation (‘‘RCDC’’) (on its Web site:
www.banajata.org) for these preliminary
results. The Department finds that the
RCDC raw honey price is reliable, as the
organization collects its own raw and
processed honey price information
directly from various Indian honey
markets. On December 6, 2007, the
Department contacted RCDC
representatives via e-mail and requested
information regarding how the
unprocessed honey price information
was collected. Mr. Manoranjan
Mohanty, an RCDC official in Orissa,
India, explained that RCDC’s field
officers collect honey prices from the
local markets. See December 17, 2007,
Memorandum to the file, from Michael
Quigley, Senior International Trade
Analyst, regarding RCDC telephone
conversation. Furthermore, the
Department recognizes that RCDC is a
non-governmental organization, which
works to strengthen the communitybased management of natural resources
in Orissa and surrounding states, and
10 The honey price published by RCDC can be
found at https://www.banajata.org/m/a1.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
maintains updated market prices of
various non-timber forest products for
various major markets in India.
Additionally, the Department finds that
RCDC-published unprocessed honey
prices are more contemporaneous to the
instant POR than the EDA Rural System
Pvt. Ltd., data that the Department used
in previous segments of the review.
However, because the unprocessed
honey price data published by RCDC are
not contemporaneous to the POR, we
deflated the price to be
contemporaneous with the instant POR
using WPI.
To value electricity, the Department
used rates from Key World Energy
Statistics 2003, published by the
International Energy Agency. Because
these data were not contemporaneous to
the POR, we adjusted for inflation using
WPI.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3),
we valued direct, indirect, and packing
labor, using the most recently calculated
regression-based wage rate, which relies
on 2004 data. This wage rate can
currently be found on the Department’s
Web site on Import Administration’s
home page, Import Library, Expected
Wages of Selected NME Countries,
revised in January 2007, https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. The
source of these wage-rate data on the
Import Administration’s Web site is the
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO
(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in
Manufacturing. Because this regressionbased wage rate does not separate the
labor rates into different skill levels or
types of labor, we have applied the same
wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by QHD Sanhai.
To value water, the Department used
data from the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (https://
www.midindia.orgwww.midcindia.org)
since it includes a wide range of
industrial water tariffs. This source
provides 386 industrial water rates
within the Maharashtra province from
June 2003: 193 of the water rates were
for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage
category and 193 of the water rates were
for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ usage
category. Because the value was not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted the rate for inflation.
To value coal, the Department
calculated a POR contemporaneous
value of steam coal by deriving a
weighted-average per unit price based
on the Indian import volume and value
as published by Indian Import Statistics.
We used Indian transport information
to value the foreign freight-in costs of
the raw materials. The Department
determined the best available
information for valuing truck freight to
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
be from www.infreight.com. This source
provides daily rates from six major
points of origin to five destinations in
India during the POR. The Department
obtained a price quote on the first day
of each month of the POR from each
point of origin to each destination and
averaged the data accordingly. See
Factor Value Memorandum. Consistent
with the calculation of inland truck
freight, the Department used the same
freight distances used in the calculation
of inland truck freight, as reported by
www.infreight.com to derive a value in
Rupees per kilogram per kilometer.
To value the cost of brokerage and
handling expenses, the Department
calculated a simple average based on the
public version responses of two
companies, (1) Kejriwal Paper Ltd.’s
January 9, 2006, submission in the
antidumping duty investigation of Lined
Paper from India (See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Negative Determination
of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012
(August 8, 2006) (‘‘Kejriwal’’)); and (2)
Agro Dutch Industries Limited (‘‘Agro
Dutch’’), submitted in the course of
2004/2005 Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Lined Paper from India
and the 2004/2005 {Sixth}
Administrative Review of Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from India,
respectively. The Department derived
the average per-unit amount from each
source and adjusted each average rate
for inflation. Finally, the Department
averaged the average per-unit amounts
to derive an overall average rate for the
POR.
To value factory overhead; sales,
general, and administrative expenses
(‘‘SG&A’’); and profit; we relied upon
publicly available information in the
2004–2005 annual report of MHPC, a
producer of the subject merchandise in
India. See Factor Value Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists during the
period December 1, 2005, through
November 30, 2006:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
HONEY FROM THE PRC
Percent
New Shipper Review Respondent:
• QHD Sanhai ...................
Administrative Review Separate
Rate Respondents:
• Zhejiang Native ..............
• Dongtai Peak .................
0.0
45.46
45.46
We will disclose our analysis to
parties to these proceedings within five
days of the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b) (2007).
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of issues to be discussed. See 19
CFR 351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in case and
rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from
interested parties may be submitted not
later than 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, will be due five days later,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit case or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Parties are also encouraged to
provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will issue the final
results of this review, including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
any such written briefs or at the hearing,
if held, not later than 120 days after the
date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of
this review. We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review if any assessment rate calculated
in the final results of this review is
above de minimis. The final results of
this review shall be the basis for the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2899
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the
final results of this review and for future
deposits of estimated duties, where
applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Administrative Review
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate will be established in the
final results of this review (except, if the
rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than
0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 221.02 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
New Shipper Review
The following cash-deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
new shipper review for all shipments of
subject merchandise from QHD Sanhai
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject
merchandise produced and exported by
QHD Sanhai, the cash-deposit rate will
be de minimis; (2) for subject
merchandise exported by QHD Sanhai
but not manufactured by QHD Sanhai,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 221.02 percent);
and (3) for subject merchandise
exported by QHD Sanhai, but
manufactured by any other party, the
cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide
rate (i.e., 221.02 percent).
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
2900
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Notices
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative and new shipper
review and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213
and 351.214.
(‘‘Shanghai AJ’’). No other parties
requested a review. The Department
published a notice of the initiation of
the antidumping duty administrative
review of persulfates from the PRC for
the period July 1, 2006, through June 30,
2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). On
November 21, 2007 the Department
issued a memorandum to the file
extending the deadline for FMC to
withdraw its request for a review of
Shanghai AJ until December 17, 2007.
On December 17, 2007, FMC submitted
a letter withdrawing its request for
review of Shanghai AJ.
Dated: December 17, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–671 Filed 1–15–08; 8:45 am]
Rescission of Review
Because FMC, the sole party which
had requested a review, submitted a
timely letter withdrawing its request for
review of Shanghai AJ., pursuant to 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1) we are rescinding
this administrative review of persulfates
from the PRC.
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Assessment
International Trade Administration
[A–570–847]
Persulfates From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marin Weaver or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, Room 1870,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–2336 and (202) 482–4207,
respectively.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On July 3, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on persulfates
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’). See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 72
FR 36420 (July 3, 2007). On July 31,
2007, FMC Corporation (‘‘FMC’’)
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of Shanghai AJ
Import and Export Corporation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:55 Jan 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Department will instruct
U.S.Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. Antidumping
duties shall be assessed at rates equal to
the cash deposit of estimated
antidumping duties required at the time
of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse,
for consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
will issue assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication
of this notice.
Dated: January 10, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–661 Filed 1–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
The Manufacturing Council: FactFinding Meeting
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a Fact-Finding
Meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Manufacturing Council
will hold a fact-finding meeting to
collect information on the problems
manufacturers face in using or adopting
renewable energies. The Council is
gathering this information for later use
for deliberation by the Council in
preparing a report for the Secretary of
Commerce.
DATES: February 5, 2008.
Time: 1:45 p.m. (EDT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Manufacturing Council Executive
Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC
20230 (Phone: 202–482–1124), or visit
the Council’s Web site at https://
www.manufacturing.gov/council.
Dated: January 10, 2008
Kate Worthington,
Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing
Council.
[FR Doc. 08–139 Filed 1–11–08; 4:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XF01
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Take of Anadromous Fish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Receipt of an application for a
scientific research permit; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
NMFS has received two applications for
scientific research permits from the
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), one from CDFG Region 1 and
one from CDFG Region 3. The permits
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2890-2900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-671]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-863]
Honey From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is currently
conducting the aligned semi-annual 2005-2006 new shipper review and
2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review
(``POR'') for both the new shipper review and administrative review is
December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. Five respondents reported
that they had no exports or sales of the subject merchandise during the
POR; therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding our review of these
companies. We preliminarily determine that Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Co., Ltd.
(``Wuhu Qinshi''); Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group)
Corp. (``Jiangsu Light''); Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co.,
Ltd. (``QMD''); and Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping (``IMA'') have
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to
comply with our requests for information and, as a result, should be
assigned a rate based on adverse facts available. Additionally, we have
preliminarily determined that, because the Department has not
calculated antidumping duty margins in this segment of the proceeding,
the two separate rate companies in the administrative review will be
assigned the separate rate margin from the most recent segment of this
proceeding in which such a rate was calculated, which in this case is
the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation. Finally, we have
preliminarily determined that QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd. (``QHD
Sanhai''), the new shipper respondent, did not make sales of subject
merchandise to the United States below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Wong or Michael Quigley, 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-
0409 or (202) 482-4047, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR
69543 (December 1, 2006). On December 27, 2007, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b), the Department received timely requests from QMD, IMA,
and Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co, Ltd. (``Dongtai Peak''), for
administrative reviews. On December 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Zhejiang
Native Produce & Animal By-Products I/E Group Corporation (``Zhejiang
Native''), for an administrative review. On December 28, 2006, the
Department received a timely request from QHD Sanhai, in 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. Also on December 29,
2006, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey
Association (collectively, ``petitioners''), requested, in accordance
with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an
administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made during the
POR by 30 Chinese producers/exporters.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners' request included: Anhui Honghui Foodstuff
(Group) Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.; Beijing World Trade Co., Ltd.;
Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Chiangmai Healthy Product
Co., Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing; Dongtai Peak Honey
Industry Co., Ltd.; Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou
Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Dragon
Group Corporation Ltd.; Hangzhou Xinsheng (or Xinyun) Shipping
Agency Co., Ltd.; Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping; Inner Mongolia
Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Kanghong Natural
Healthfoods Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp
(Group) Corp.; Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping (Shanghai)
Corporation; Mgl Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Aolan Trade
Co., Ltd.; Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd.; Rich
Shipping Company; Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Xinyun International
Transportation Co., Ltd.; Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial
Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd.; United Logistics Group
Inc.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd.;
and Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2005, through
November 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR
5005 (February 2, 2007) (``AR Initiation Notice''). On February 5,
2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the
period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. See Honey from the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty
Reviews, 72 FR 5265 (February 5, 2007) (``NSR Initiation Notice''). On
February 22, 2007, QHD Sanhai agreed to waive the new shipper review
time limits, and on February 23, 2007, the Department aligned the new
shipper review with the corresponding administrative review.
On February 12, 2007, the Department sent a request for quantity
and value (``Q&V'') information to the 31 companies named in the AR
Initiation Notice. On February 23, 2007, the Department received
quantity and value questionnaire responses (``Q&V response'') from
Dongtai Peak; QMD; IMA; and Chiangmai Healthy Product Co., Ltd. On
February 26, 2007, the Department received a Q&V response and a
separate rates certification from
[[Page 2891]]
Zhejiang Native. On April 12, 2007, the Department received a separate
rate application from Dongtai Peak, QMD, and IMA. On April 13, 2007,
the Department received a separate rate application from Cheng Du Wai
Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.
On March 21, 2007, the Department received and granted a deadline
extension request to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire from
Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Ltd., Co. (``Wuhu Qinshi''). See March 21, 2007,
letter from Christopher Riker, Program Manager, to Wuhu Qinshi Tangye,
regarding the 2005/2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China. Subsequently, Wuhu
Qinxhi did not submit its certified Q&V response.
On April 10, 2007, petitioners withdrew their request for review on
22 of the 30 Chinese companies in the administrative review: Anhui
Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.; Beijing World Trade
Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Chiangmai Healthy
Product Co., Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing; Eurasia Bee's
Products Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd.;
Hangzhou Golden Dragon Group Corporation Ltd.; Hangzhou Xinsheng (or
Xinyun) Shipping Agency Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Health
Foods Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping (Shanghai)
Corporation; Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd.; Rich Shipping Company;
Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Xinyun International
Transportation Co., Ltd.; Sichuan Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co.,
Ltd.; Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd.; United Logistics Group Inc.; Wuhan
Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. Of the nine
remaining companies named in the AR Initiation Notice, IMA, QMD,
Dongtai Peak, and Zhejiang Native provided Q&V data and claimed
shipments. Given the Department's limited resources and pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, in order to cover the greatest
possible export volume, the Department selected IMA and QMD as
mandatory respondents in the administrative review, which are the two
largest producer/exporters by export volume during the POR.\2\ On April
17, 2007, the Department selected IMA and QMD as mandatory respondents
and issued antidumping duty questionnaires to IMA and QMD (``AR
original questionnaire''). See April 17, 2007, Memorandum to James
Doyle, Office Director, from Anya Naschak, Senior International
Compliance Analyst, Through Christopher Riker, Program Manager,
regarding the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents. On April 23,
2007, Zhejiang Native requested that the Department reconsider Zhejiang
Native as either a mandatory or voluntary respondent for the
administrative review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak remained separate rate
respondents in the administrative review.
\3\ See June 7, 2007, Memorandum to the File, From James Doyle,
Director, Office 9, Regarding: Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Phone call with
Counsel Regarding April 23, 2007, Submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 2007, the Department sent ``second chance'' Q&V
questionnaires to Wuhu Qinshi Tanye; Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group)
Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co.,
Ltd.; Shanghai Xinyun International Transportation Co.; Shanghai
Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; M&H Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation; Jiangsu
Kanghong; Hangzhou Golden; Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd.; Apiarist
Co.; United Logistics Group; Rich Shipping Company; Mgl Yung Sheng
Honey Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group)
Corp.; China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing; and Tianjin Eulia Honey.
On May 3, 2007, the Department published a notice of partial
rescission in the administrative review regarding the 22 companies for
which petitioners withdrew their request for review in the
administrative review. See Honey from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
72 FR 24561 (May 3, 2007) (``AR Partial Rescission Notice''). On May
21, 2007, the Department invited interested parties to comment on the
Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production
in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit publicly
available information to value the factors of production in the new
shipper and administrative reviews. See May 21, 2007, Letter to ``All
Interested Parties'' from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
regarding Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey from the
People's Republic of China: Letter enclosing the Office of Policy list
of economically comparable countries and schedule for comments on
surrogate country, and see also May 21, 2007, Letter to ``All
Interested Parties'' from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from the
People's Republic of China: Letter enclosing the Office of Policy list
of economically comparable countries and schedule for comments on
surrogate country (collectively, ``Surrogate Country Letters'').
On July 31, 2007, the Department also published an extension of the
time limits to complete the preliminary results. See Honey From the
People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 72 FR 41710 (July 31, 2007).
On August 15, 2007, the Department received notification from IMA
that it intended to withdraw its request for a review in the
administrative review. See August 15, 2007, letter to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, from IMA, regarding Honey from the People's
Republic of China. On October 18, 2007, the Department received
notification from QMD, stating that it would not participate in the
Department's scheduled verification of its questionnaire responses in
Qinhuangdao, Hebei China. See October 18, 2007, letter to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, from Qinghuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial
Co., Ltd., regarding: Honey from the People's Republic of China. See
infra for further discussion.
Questionnaires
On February 5, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to QHD Sanhai in the new shipper review (``NSR original
questionnaire''). On March 19, 2007, the Department received QHD
Sanhai's section A response to the Department's NSR original
questionnaire. On March 30, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental
section A questionnaire. On April 11, 2007, the Department received QHD
Sanhai's section C and D response to the Department's NSR original
questionnaire. On April 13, 2007, the Department received QHD Sanhai's
section A response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On
May 18, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire
to QHD Sanhai. On June 15, 2007, the Department received QHD Sanhai's
response to section A, C, and D of the Department's second supplemental
questionnaire. On July 26, 2007, the Department issued an additional
supplemental questionnaire to QHD Sanhai. On August 20, 2007, the
Department received QHD Sanhai's supplemental questionnaire responses.
[[Page 2892]]
On April 17, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to IMA and QMD in the administrative review. On May 7,
2007, the Department received IMA and QMD's responses to section A of
the Department's original questionnaire. On June 7, 2007, the
Department received IMA and QMD's timely responses to section C and D
of the Department's original questionnaire. On July 19, 2007, the
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to QMD. On July 31,
2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to IMA.
However, IMA did not respond to the Department's supplemental
questionnaire. On August 21, 2007, the Department issued a letter to
IMA, requesting that it respond to the Department's outstanding
supplemental questionnaire; furthermore, the Department extended the
deadline for IMA to reply to the supplemental questionnaire. See August
21, 2007, letter to IMA, from Catherine Bertrand, Acting Program
Manager, regarding the 2005/2006 Administrative Review of Honey from
the People's Republic of China. Subsequently, the Department received
no further correspondence from IMA. On August 14, 2007, the Department
received a timely submission of QMD's response to the Department's
supplemental questionnaire.
Non-Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See,
e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006), and the Fourth Honey AR Final Results, 72
FR 37715 (July 11, 2007). Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act,
any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g.,
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71
FR 7013 (February 10, 2006); and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) unchanged in Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007). None of the parties
to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country and Factors
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic
development. See Memorandum to Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AC/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of
Policy, regarding the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey
from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries (April 2, 2007); and Memorandum to Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy,
regarding the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of
China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries (April 2, 2007)
(``Surrogate Country Letters''). In addition, based on publicly
available information placed on the record (e.g., production data),
India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. See
Memorandum to The File, through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, and Scot T. Fullerton,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. Quigley,
Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Antidumping Duty
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Honey from the People's
Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country (December 17,
2007). Accordingly, we have selected India as the primary surrogate
country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it
meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See
id.
On May 21, 2007, the Department provided parties with an
opportunity to submit publicly available information on surrogate
countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results in
the administrative and new shipper reviews. See Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Letter
enclosing the Office of Policy list of economically comparable
countries and schedule for comments on surrogate country, dated May 21,
2007.
On October 17, 2007, QHD Sanhai submitted comments on surrogate
information for the record of the new shipper review (see letter to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Regarding: QHD Sanhai Regarding the First
Surrogate Value Submission in the New Shipper Review of Honey from the
People's Republic of China (October 17, 2007)). On October 19, 2007,
petitioners submitted their comments on surrogate information for the
record of the new shipper and administrative review (see letter to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Regarding: 5th Administrative Review and
10th New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China,
dated October 17, 2007). On October 29, 2007, the Department received
rebuttal comments on surrogate information from QHD Sanhai and Zhejiang
Native (see October 29, 2007, letters to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, from: Zhejiang Native, Regarding: Rebuttal to Petitioners'
Surrogate Value Submission for the Fifth Antidumping Review of Honey
from the People's Republic of China (A-570-863); and QHD Sanhai,
Regarding: Rebuttal to Petitioners' Surrogate Value Submission for the
New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China). On
November 6, 2007, QHD Sanhai and Zhejiang Native submitted additional
comments on surrogate information to value factors of production in
both the administrative and new shipper reviews.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2005/2006 Administrative Review
Mgl Yun Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.\4\; Inner Mongolia Youth Trade
Development Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co.,
Ltd., certified that they did not export honey from China to the United
States during the POR. To corroborate these certifications, the
Department reviewed PRC honey shipment data maintained by CBP, and
found no discrepancies with the statements made by these companies.
Moreover, the Department also requested that CBP forward any
information regarding entries of honey from these companies during the
POR and received no reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See August 13, 2007, Memorandum to the File, from Catherine
Bertrand, Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding:
Administrative Review on Honey from the People's Republic of China
for the period December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006; and
August 15, 2007, Memorandum to the File, from Catherine Bertrand,
Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding: Administrative Review
on Honey from the People's Republic of China for the period December
1, 2005 through November 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2893]]
Therefore, for the reasons noted above, we are preliminarily
rescinding the administrative review with respect to Inner Mongolia
Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.; Mgl Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd.; and
Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., because the Department
was unable to reach the companies, or the company reported that it did
not make shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and the
Department found no information to indicate otherwise.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Department requested shipment information for Shanghai
Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. solely for the period July 1,
2006, through November 30, 2006. The Department had previously
reviewed Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. as a new
shipper for the period December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. See
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 72 FR 67702, November 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
Administrative Review
Based on timely requests from individual exporters and petitioners,
the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 31
companies in the administrative review. Subsequently, petitioners
withdrew their review request for certain of these companies and thus
the Department rescinded the review with respect to 22 companies. Of
the nine companies remaining in the review, only four companies
provided Q&V data and claimed shipments. Those four companies (Dongtai
Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping,
Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Native
Produce & Animal By-Products I/E Group Corporation) comprised the pool
of companies considered in the selection of respondents for this
review. However, due to its limited resources, the Department was
unable to examine all companies for which a review request was made.
Therefore, as previously stated, the Department selected two producers/
exporters as mandatory respondents: QMD and IMA. Two additional
companies, Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak, submitted timely
information as requested by the Department and remain subject to review
as cooperative separate rate respondents.
Ultimately, both QMD and IMA ceased participating in the
administrative review, and both Wuhu Qinshi and Jiangsu Light did not
respond to the Department's multiple requests for information.
Therefore, for these preliminary results, the Department finds that
these four entities are not entitled to a separate rate and thus are
considered part of the PRC-wide entity, which is preliminarily assigned
an adverse facts available (``AFA'') rate of 221.02 percent, as further
discussed below.
The Department must also assign a rate to the remaining two
cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual
examination. We note that the statute and the Department's regulations
do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section
777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in this regard, in
cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the
largest volumes of trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the
selected companies excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based
entirely on adverse facts available. In the instant administrative
review, however, the rate for the mandatory respondents is the rate for
the PRC-wide entity based on total AFA.
While the statute does not specifically address this particular set
of circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act does specify the
methodology to be followed when a similar fact pattern arises in the
context of the all-others rate established in an investigation. While
not entirely analogous to the determination of a rate to be applied to
responsive separate rate respondents in the context of a NME review, we
find it to be instructive in these circumstances.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that in situations where the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all
exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de
minimis, or are determined entirely under section 776 (facts available
section), ``the administering authority may use any reasonable method
to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers
not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted-average
dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually
investigated.''
The SAA states that in using any reasonable method to calculate the
all-others rate, ``the expected method in such cases will be to weight-
average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant
to the facts available, provided that volume data is available.'' See
SAA at 203. However, the SAA also provides that: [If] this method is
not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be
reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated
exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable means.'' Id.
In the instant administrative review, the Department preliminarily
concludes that it cannot accurately determine a margin based on
information provided by the separate rate entities. Furthermore, we
preliminarily find that we cannot employ alternative methods such as
applying AFA, de minimis and zero rates, or partial use of the
information on the record. Specifically, while the separate rates
entities have given us total volume and value information with respect
to subject merchandise, we note that processed honey prices vary
dramatically depending on the quality and packaging of the honey.
Margins calculated on the basis of average prices without regard to
quality and other factors do not reflect a meaningful, accurate
comparison, and therefore we find we must look to other reasonable
means to determine an appropriate margin for the separate rate entities
subject to this review. In the case of Zhejiang Native and Dongtai
Peak, we received voluntary questionnaire responses, but we have not
examined these submissions because of the Department's resource
constraints and its decision to review only two exporters.
The Department has therefore preliminarily determined to assign
Zhejiang Native and Dongtai Peak the separate rate margin calculated in
the most recent segment of Honey from the People's Republic of China in
which a separate margin was calculated. 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 FR 63670 (December
10, 2001) (``Honey Investigation''). The rate of 45.46 percent
calculated in the LTFV investigation was based on the Department's
thorough examination of cooperative companies during the period of
investigation. Therefore, we find it a reasonable means by which to
determine a rate for non-examined cooperative separate entities and
have employed this methodology for purposes of these preliminary
results. Given that the most recent rate calculated in the antidumping
duty order on honey from the PRC for unexamined separate rate companies
is from the LTFV investigation, we invite comments on the selection of
this rate for purposes of the final results.
[[Page 2894]]
Separate Rates
New Shipper Review
With respect to the new shipper review for QHD Sanhai, QHD Sanhai
has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately owned company; (2)
there is no government participation in its setting of export prices;
(3) its executive director has the authority to sign binding sales
contracts; (4) the company's executive director appoints the company's
management and it does not have to notify government authorities of its
management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its
export revenue; and (6) its executive director decides how profits will
be used.
In support of its claim that QHD Sanhai independently set its sales
prices, QHD Sanhai stated that sales negotiations were conducted
primarily through e-mails; QHD Sanhai placed copies on the record of
its e-mail correspondence and price negotiation between itself and its
U.S. customer during the POR.\6\ Furthermore, QHD Sanhai company
officials stated that the sales price and quantity are finalized when
the sales invoice is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., QHD Sanhai's Section A response at Exhibit A-5;
and the QHD Verification Report at Exhibit 8 & 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the verification of QHD Sanhai, prior to presenting the
documentation to Chinese Customs, the Department found that the
company's sales invoices required a ``pre-review stamp'' from the
Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Commerce for Import and Export of
Foodstuffs, Native Produce and Animal By-Products (``the Chamber'').
See QHD Sanhai Verification Report at Exhibit 8. Additionally, company
officials provided documentation of all products that require the
``pre-review stamp'' from various sub-chambers of the Chinese Chamber
of Commerce. QHD Sanhai explained that obtaining a ``pre-review stamp''
from the Chamber is an administrative formality, and it has no
authority over QHD Sanhai's ability to negotiate or set prices. See QHD
Sanhai Verification Report at Section III(A)(5) and Exhibit 8.
The Department successfully verified that QHD Sanhai is a privately
owned company; independently negotiated and set prices; independently
selected management; and that QHD Sanhai had authority to determine the
use of sales revenue (see QHD Sanhai Verification Report at Section
III(A) and (B) and at exhibit 8 & 12). Moreover, the Department found
no indications of restrictions on the use of export revenue (id.). QHD
Sanhai supplied sales negotiation documentation including a purchase
order, sales contract, and sales invoices between it and unaffiliated
third party customers, demonstrating its independent setting of export
prices. See QHD Sanhai Verification Report at exhibit 12.
As the evidence on the record indicates an absence of government
control, both in law and in fact, over QHD Sanhai's export activities,
we preliminarily determine that it has met the criteria for the
application of a separate rate. However, we will continue to carefully
examine these issues for the purposes of the final results.
PRC-Wide Rate and Facts Otherwise Available
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise
except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own
calculated rate. See ``Separate Rates'' section above.
Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, IMA, and QMD are appropriately
considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity because they failed to
establish their eligibility for a separate rate. Because the PRC-wide
entity did not provide requested information necessary to the instant
proceeding, it is necessary that we review the PRC-wide entity. In
doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the
Department use the facts available if necessary information is not
available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition,
section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party or
any other person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by
the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by
the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to
section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination under this title. Where the
Department determines that a response to a request for information does
not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that
the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response
of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable,
provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act additionally states that if the
party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely,
the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard
all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of
the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements
established by the administering authority if: (1) The information is
submitted by the deadline established for its submission; (2) the
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted
to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the
requirements established by the administering authority with respect to
the information; and (5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
As addressed below separately for each non-responsive company, we
find that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu
Light, IMA, and QMD, did not respond to our request for information and
that necessary information either was not provided, or the information
provided could not be verified and is not sufficiently complete to
enable the Department to use it for these preliminary results.
Therefore, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to
use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results
of this review for the PRC-wide entity.
1. Wuhu Qinshi
On March 7, 2007, the Department sent a Q&V questionnaire to Wuhu
Qinshi. On March 21, 2007, the Department received an e-mail
correspondence from Mr. William E. Kentor, president of Great Foods,
Inc., requesting an extension of the deadline to respond to the
Department's Q&V questionnaire. Mr. Kentor stated in the extension
request that Mr. Qin Yi Cai, president of Wuhu Qinshi Tangye Co., Ltd.,
would confirm that Wuhu Qinshi never exported honey to the United
States. On March 21, 2007, the Department granted a partial extension
of the deadline until March 26, 2007, to respond. However, Wuhu Qinshi
did not file a certified Q&V response with the Department nor provide
any further correspondence.
We note that, although Great Foods, Inc.'s extension request
indicated that Wuhu Qinshi would confirm that it did not export subject
merchandise to the
[[Page 2895]]
United States during the POR, the Department did not receive any
correspondence from Wuhu Qinshi during this POR, and therefore find
that Wuhu Qinshi is non-responsive in the administrative review.
Consequently, because Wuhu Qinshi withheld requested information,
failed to provide information in a timely manner, and thus
significantly impeded the Department's proceeding, the Department
preliminarily finds that it did not cooperate to the best of its
ability. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B)
of the Act, and because Wuhu Qinshi did not respond to the Department's
Q&V questionnaire, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not
applicable.
2. Jiangsu Light
On February 12, 2007, the Department sent a Q&V questionnaire to
Jiangsu Light; however, the Department did not receive a response from
Jiangsu Light by the noted deadline. According to the delivery tracking
information, the delivery of the package was ``refused'' by Jiangsu
Light. See April 17, 2007, Memorandum to the file, through Christopher
D. Riker, Program Manager, from Anya Naschak, Senior International
Trade Analyst, regarding: 2005/2006 Administrative Review of Honey from
the People's Republic of China: Results of Tracking Information for
Quantity and Value Questionnaire. On March 6, 2007, petitioners
provided an alternative address for Jiangsu Light, thus on March 7,
2007, the Department resent the Q&V questionnaire to the alternative
address; however, the Department again did not receive a response.
According to the delivery tracking information, the alternate address
was undeliverable. On March 21, 2007, the Department again sent the Q&V
questionnaire to the original address.\7\ Again, the Department did not
receive a response from Jiangsu Light by the noted deadline. According
to the delivery tracking information, Jiangsu Light again refused the
attempted delivery of the Q&V questionnaire. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See March 21, 2007, letter to Jiangsu Light Industry
Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp., from Christopher D. Riker, Program
Manager, regarding 2005/2006 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, because the Department twice attempted to deliver, and
Jiangsu Light twice refused to receive and respond to the Department's
Q&V questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that Jiangsu
Light withheld requested information, failed to provide information in
a timely manner, and thus significantly impeded the Department's
proceeding, and did not cooperate to the best of its ability.
Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act,
and because Jiangsu Light did not respond to the Department's Q&V
questionnaire, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.
3. IMA:
On July 31, 2007, the Department identified deficiencies in IMA's
questionnaire response and issued a supplemental questionnaire, due by
August 14, 2007. On August 15, 2007, the Department received
notification from IMA that it intended to withdraw its request for a
review in the administrative review. However, as petitioners did file a
timely request for a review of IMA,\8\ the Department issued a letter
to IMA on August 21, 2007, notifying it that, irrespective of its
withdrawal request, the Department would continue to consider IMA a
mandatory respondent and that it was required to respond to the
Department's questionnaires; and that if IMA did not participate, the
Department may be required to base its findings on total AFA for the
preliminary results.\9\ Furthermore, the Department, of its own
volition, extended the deadline for IMA to respond to the Department's
July 31, 2007, supplemental questionnaire until August 28, 2007.
Subsequently, the Department received no response or further
correspondence from IMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See AR Initiation Notice.
\9\ See Letter from August 21, 2007, from Catherine E. Bertrand,
Acting Program Manager, to Inner Mongolia Altin Bee Keeping Co.,
Ltd.; Regarding the 2005/2006 Administrative Review of Honey From
the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, because IMA did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, request an extension of the deadline to respond, or
otherwise correspond with the Department, the Department preliminarily
finds that IMA withheld requested information, failed to provide
information in a timely manner, and thus significantly impeded the
Department's proceeding, and did not cooperate to the best of its
ability.
Because the Department finds that IMA did not cooperate, pursuant
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, and because IMA did
not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, sections 782(d) and
(e) of the Act are not applicable.
4. QMD
On October 18, 2007, having finalized verification dates, the
Department received a notification from QMD stating that QMD would not
participate in the scheduled verification, and QMD provided no
alternative verification dates. See October 18, 2007, letter to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, from Qinghuangdao Municipal Dafeng
Industrial Co., Ltd., regarding: Honey from the People's Republic of
China.
Because QMD did not allow verification of its questionnaire
response, the company denied the Department an opportunity to verify
the completeness and accuracy of any of its sales and production
records. Because QMD denied the Department the opportunity to verify
its questionnaire responses, the Department has preliminarily
determined that QMD significantly impeded the Department's proceeding
by providing information that could not be verified, and thus QMD has
not cooperated to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the Department
preliminarily finds that the application of facts available is
appropriate for these preliminary results.
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide
entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, IMA, and QMD, failed
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. As noted above,
the PRC-wide entity informed the Department that it would not
participate in this review, or otherwise did not provide the requested
information, despite repeated requests that it do so. This information
was in the sole possession of the respondents, and could not be
obtained otherwise. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to
participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we
ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they
cooperated fully in this review.
Selection of AFA Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally
selects, as AFA, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the
proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
[[Page 2896]]
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 19506 (April 21, 2003). The Court
of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Federal Circuit have
consistently upheld the Department's practice in this regard. See Rhone
Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990)
(``Rhone Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312,
1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV
investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States,
24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative
respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a previous administrative review).
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004); D&L Supply
Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing
the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive
to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to
the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced
current information showing the margin to be less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899
F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its
normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 221.02
percent, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the
proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity, which includes Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu
Light, QMD, and IMA as AFA. See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic
of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 37715, 37717 (July 11, 2007)
(``Fourth Honey AR Final Results''). As discussed further below, this
rate has been corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is
described in the SAA as ``[i]nformation derived from the petition that
gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information
used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have
probative value information must be reliable and relevant. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13,
1997). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate
such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June
16, 2003) unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and, Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada,
70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005).
To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input
costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for
calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are
administrative determinations. The AFA rate we are applying for the
current review was calculated during the immediately preceding, fourth
administrative review of honey from the PRC. See Fourth Honey AR Final
Results. Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of this information.
Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the Department does not apply a
margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not
use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The AFA rate we are
applying for the current review was corroborated in the proceeding that
immediately precedes the current POR, the fourth administrative review
of honey from the PRC. See Fourth Honey AR Final Results. Moreover, as
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates
that this rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available, we
determine that this rate has relevance.
As the Fourth Honey AR Final Results margin is both reliable and
relevant, we find that it has probative value. As a result, the
Department determines that the Fourth Honey AR Final Results margin is
corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may
reasonably be applied to the PRC wide entity, which includes Wuhu
Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, QMD, and IMA. Because these are the preliminary
results of the review, the Department will consider all margins on the
record at the time of the final results of review for the purpose of
determining the most appropriate final
[[Page 2897]]
margin for Wuhu Qinshi, Jiangsu Light, QMD, and IMA. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade
Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7,
2000) unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian
Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000).
Bona Fide Sale Analysis--QHD Sanhai
For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that QHD
Sanhai's reported U.S. sale during the POR to be bona fide based on the
totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that: (1)
The price and quantity of QHD Sanhai's sale are indicative of its
normal business practices, as the U.S. sales price and quantity was
within the range of its sales price and quantity to POR and post-POR
customers; (2) QHD Sanhai's sale was made to an unaffiliated party at
arm's length; and (3) there is no record evidence that indicates that
QHD Sanhai's sale was not based on commercial principles. While the
quantity of QHD Sanhai's sale was small compared to other entries of
subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR,
absent other factors, single sales of small quantities are not
inherently commercially unreasonable. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, through
Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from
Michael Quigley, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of
China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale Reported by QHD Sanhai Co., Ltd.
(December 17, 2007).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.307(b)(iv), from November 5, through November 7, 2007, the
Department verified the questionnaire responses of QHD Sanhai for the
new shipper review. For QHD Sanhai, the Department used standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacturer's and exporter's facilities, and examination of relevant
sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in
the verification report for each company. For a further discussion, see
Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bobby Wong, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, and Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of QHD Sanhai Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper
Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (``QHD Verification
Report'').
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial
honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight,
preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural
honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes
all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut
comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable
under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the
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 order is
dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
In the new shipper review, to determine whether QHD Sanhai's sale
to the United States was made at less than fair value, we compared the
export price (``EP'') to normal value (``NV''), as described in the
``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. We
compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section
777A(d)(1) of the Act.
U.S. Price-Export Price
For QHD Sanhai, we based U.S. price on EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated
purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We
calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we
deducted foreign movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling
expenses, and international freight expenses from the starting price
(gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
Where foreign movement was provided by PRC service providers or
paid for in Renminbi (``RMB''), we valued these services using
surrogate values (see ``Factors of Production'' section below for
further discussion).
For a complete discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for
QHD Sanhai, see Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bobby Wong,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding ``Honey From the People's Republic of China--Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of QHD
Sanhai Food Co., Ltd.,'' dated December 17, 2007 (``QHD Sanhai Analysis
Memorandum'').
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-of-production (``FOP'') methodology if
the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not
permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The
Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the
Department's normal methodologies.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by QHD Sanhai for the POR. To calculate NV,
we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below).
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered
prices. Specifically, we added to each Indian import surrogate value, a
surrogate freight cost calculated from the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from
the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment
is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408
(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used
for respondents can be found in the Memorandum to the File, Through
Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, From Michael Quigley, Senior
International Trade Analyst, regarding, ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative and New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's
Republic of China: Selection of Factor Values,'' dated December 17,
[[Page 2898]]
2007 (``Factor Value Memorandum''), and the QHD Sanhai Analysis
Memorandum.
For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics
in order to calculate surrogate values for QHD Sanhai's material
inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are
non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., 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, 42682 (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). The record shows that the
Indian import statistics represent import data that is contemporaneous
with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Where we could not
obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values, where
appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as
published in the International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund.
Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have found in other
proceedings that Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets
from these countries may be subsidized. See, e.g., Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement
Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 11670
(March 15, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China,
69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7 (``CTVs from the PRC''). We are also guided by
the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure
that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 (1988) at
590. Rather, Congress indicated that the Department base its decision
on information that is available to it at the time it makes its
determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries
either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in
calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-
economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these
countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the
input. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's
Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
For QHD Sanhai, the company reported that it purchased all of its
inputs consumed in the production of the subject merchandise under
review from non-market economy suppliers and paid for such inputs in
RMB. Therefore, the Department used the Indian Import Statistics to
value all raw material and packing material inputs consumed by QHD
Sanhai in the production of the subject merchandise during the POR.
To value unfiltered/unprocessed honey (``raw honey''), the
Department used the raw honey price \10\ published by the Regional
Centre for Development Cooperation (``RCDC'') (on its Web site:
www.banajata.org) for these preliminary results. The Department finds
that the RCDC raw honey price is reliable, as the organization collects
its own raw and processed honey price information directly from various
Indian honey markets. On December 6, 2007, the Department contacted
RCDC representatives via e-mail and requested information regarding how
the unprocessed honey price information was collected. Mr. Manoranjan
Mohanty, an RCDC official in Orissa, India, explained that RCDC's field
officers collect honey prices from the local markets. See December 17,
2007, Memorandum to the file, from Michael Quigley, Senior
International Trade Analyst, regarding RCDC telephone conversation.
Furthermore, the Department recognizes that RCDC is a non-governmental
organization, which works to strengthen the community-based management
of natural resources in Orissa and surrounding states, and maintains
updated market prices of various non-timber forest products for various
major markets in India. Additionally, the Department finds that RCDC-
published unprocessed honey prices are more contemporaneous to the
instant P
