Sixth Administrative Review of Honey From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66221-66228 [E8-26616]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 217 (Friday, November 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66221-66228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26616]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Sixth Administrative Review of 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 conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period of review 
(``POR'') of December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007. As discussed 
below, we preliminarily determine that certain respondents in this 
review made sales in the United States at prices below normal value 
(``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR for which importer-specific assessment rates 
are above de minimis.

DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, 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) 482-0413.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 30, 2006, we received requests from both Petitioners 
\1\ and certain PRC companies to conduct administrative reviews for a 
total of 32 companies.\2\ On January 28, 2008, the Department initiated 
an administrative review of these 32 producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 2008) (``Initiation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are the members of the American Honey 
Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (hereinafter 
referred to as ``Petitioners'').
    \2\ Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Anhui Honghui Foodstuff 
(Group) Co., Ltd., Anhui Native Produce Imp & Exp Corp. (``Anhui 
Native''), Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (``Cheng Du 
Wai''), Chengdu Stone Dynasty Art Stone, Dongtai Peak Honey Industry 
Co., Ltd. (``Dongtai Peak''), Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd., 
Golden Tadco Int'l., Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., 
Ltd., Hanseatische Nahrungsmittel Fabrik R Import-Export GMBH, 
Haoliluck Co., Ltd., Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Altin 
Bee-Keeping, Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. 
(``IMY''), Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd., Jiangsu 
Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp., Mgl Yung Sheng 
Honey Co., Ltd. (also DBA Fresh Honey Co., Ltd.), Nefelon Limited 
Company, OEI International Inc., Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., QHD 
Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd., Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., 
Ltd., Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai 
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd., Shanghai Hui Ai Mal Tose Co., Ltd., 
Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee 
Industrial Co., Ltd., Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee 
Healthy Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd., Wuhu Qinshi 
Tangye Co., Ltd. (``Tangye'') and Xinjiang Jinhui Food Co., Ltd.

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

[[Page 66222]]

Respondent Selection

    On April 2, 2008, in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), the Department selected Cheng 
Du Wai and Anhui Native as mandatory respondents in this review, since 
they were the two largest exporters by volume during the POR, based on 
CBP data of U.S. imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90 and 2106.90.99. 
See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, Office 9, from Toni Dach, 
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, ``Antidumping Administrative 
Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: Respondent 
Selection Memorandum,'' dated April 2, 2008. On April 11, 2008, the 
Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Cheng Du Wai and 
Anhui Native, and provided a courtesy copy of the questionnaire to 
Dongtai Peak.
    On May 5, 2008, the Department issued a second questionnaire to 
Cheng Du Wai because it did not respond to the Department's initial 
antidumping duty questionnaire. Cheng Du Wai did not respond to the 
second questionnaire.
    Between April 30, 2008, and May 16, 2008, Dongtai Peak submitted 
voluntary responses to the Department's questionnaire. Between May 9, 
2008 and October 4, 2008, Anhui Native responded to the Department's 
questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires. On May 28, 
2008, the Department placed on the record a ``no shipments'' letter 
from Tangye.
    Because Cheng Du Wai did not respond to the Department's initial or 
second questionnaire, on June 10, 2008, the Department selected IMY, 
the third largest exporter, according to CBP data, as an additional 
mandatory respondent. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, Office 
9, from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, ``Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of Additional Mandatory 
Respondent,'' dated June 10, 2008. Additionally, on June 10, 2008, the 
Department sent IMY an initial antidumping duty questionnaire. On July 
3, 2008, the Department issued a second questionnaire to IMY because it 
did not respond to the Department's initial antidumping duty 
questionnaire. IMY did not respond to the second questionnaire.

Separate Rates

    On April 23, 2008, the Department sent separate rate applications 
and separate rate certifications to the 29 companies (including IMY) 
which did not receive an antidumping duty questionnaire.\3\ No company 
submitted a separate rate application or certification. On May 15, 
2008, the Department issued a second separate rate application and 
certification to the 29 companies that did not respond to the 
Department's initial separate rate application and certification. No 
company responded to this second opportunity to submit a separate rate 
application or certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that the Department's initial antidumping duty 
questionnaire contained a request for separate rate information. 
Thus, because Anhui Native, Cheng Du Wai and Dongtai Peak had 
already received the Department's initial antidumping duty 
questionnaire, we did not send these companies a separate rate 
application and separate rate certification. Moreover, because IMY 
had not yet been selected as a mandatory respondent as of April 23, 
2008, it received a separate rate application and certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rescission of Reviews

    On June 10, 2008, Petitioners withdrew their request for review for 
21 companies. On June 25, 2008, in accordance with section 
351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we rescinded the 
administrative review with respect to these 21 companies. See Sixth 
Administrative Review of Honey From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
73 FR 36040 (June 25, 2008). Therefore, this review covers 11 
producers/exporters \4\ of the subject merchandise and the PRC-wide 
entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Anhui Native, Cheng Du 
Wai, Dongtai Peak, Haoliluck Co., Ltd., Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd., IMY, 
Mgl. Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd. (also DBA Fresh Honey Co., Ltd.), 
Nefelon Limited Company, Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial 
Co., Ltd. and Tangye. Of these 11 producer/exporters, Anhui Native, 
Cheng Du Wai and IMY were selected as mandatory respondents, as 
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values

    On June 7, 2007, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
requesting comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining 
to valuing factors of production (``FOPs''). On October 16, 2008, 
Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments from various Indian 
sources. No other interested party submitted comments on the surrogate 
country and information pertaining to valuing FOPs.

Case Schedule

    On August 11, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 
75 days, until November 15, 2008.\5\ See Sixth Administrative Review of 
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for 
the Preliminary Results, 73 FR 46588 (August 11, 2008). On October 10, 
2008, the Department informed interested parties that it intends to 
issue the preliminary results of the instant review no later than 
October 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that because November 15, 2008, falls on a weekend, 
the actual date is the first business day following the weekend, 
November 17, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Recission of Review

Dongtai Peak

    As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection above, between 
April 30, 2008, and May 16, 2008, Dongtai Peak submitted voluntary 
responses to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. In 
Dongtai Peak's questionnaire responses, Dongtai Peak requested that the 
Department calculate an individual weighted-average dumping margin for 
Dongtai Peak as a voluntary respondent, pursuant to section 782(a) of 
the Act, arguing that the Department has the resources and time to 
review Dongtai Peak as a voluntary respondent due to Cheng Du Wai's 
lack of participation in this proceeding.
    For these preliminary results, the Department has rescinded the 
review with respect to Dongtai Peak. While Dongtai Peak is correct that 
the Department can choose to review a voluntary respondent, 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3) provides that the Department may rescind an 
administrative review, ``with respect to a particular exporter or 
producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by 
the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject 
merchandise, as the case may be.'' We examined CBP entry data for 
Dongtai Peak, and Dongtai Peak's voluntary submissions, and are 
satisfied that the record indicates that there were no U.S. entries of 
subject merchandise from Dongtai Peak during the POR. Accordingly, 
following the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding 
this review with respect to Dongtai Peak. See, e.g., Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), 
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial

[[Page 66223]]

Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008) (collectively, ``Fish 
Fillets'').

Tangye

    In addition, for these preliminary results, the Department has 
rescinded the review with respect to Tangye. As discussed in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, on May 28, 2008, the 
Department placed on the record a no shipments letter from Tangye. We 
examined CBP entry data for Tangye and are satisfied that the record 
indicates that there were no U.S. entries of subject merchandise from 
Tangye during the POR. Accordingly, following the Department's 
practice, we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to 
Tangye. See, e.g., Fish Fillets.

Scope of the Order

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

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) 
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in 
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department 
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (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 Department; and (5) the 
information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the administering authority or the Commission, the 
administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available.'' See also Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316 at 870 (1994). Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure 
that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' Id. An adverse inference 
may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any 
other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act.

Anhui Native

    In its questionnaire responses, Anhui Native stated that it 
incurred Customs duties and antidumping duties. It is the Department's 
practice to exclude antidumping duties from the margin calculation. 
See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of New Shipper Reviews, 
73 FR 36840 (June 30, 2008). Thus, Anhui Native should have only 
reported non-antidumping Customs duties in its section C database. 
However, a careful review of the CBP form 7501s submitted by Anhui 
Native shows that Anhui Native reported the antidumping duty in its 
section C database.
    For these preliminary results, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 782(c)(1) of the Act, we have determined 
that the use of neutral facts available is appropriate for Anhui 
Native's Customs duties. As neutral facts available, we are applying 
the average of Anhui Native's reported Customs duties, as found in its 
CBP form 7501s, and applying this average to the applicable deduction 
from Anhui Native's reported U.S. price. However, the Department 
intends to provide Anhui Native an opportunity to submit the correct 
data after the preliminary results, in accordance with section 782(d) 
of the Act. In addition, because Anhui Native's Customs duties and U.S. 
price are proprietary, see the Anhui Native Analysis Memo for further 
details. See Memorandum to the File, through Scot Fullerton, Program 
Manager, Office 9, from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, Office 9, 
``Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Company Analysis Memorandum for Anhui Native Produce Import & Export 
Corp.,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Anhui Native Analysis 
Memo'').

Cheng Du Wai and IMY

    As discussed in the ``Supplementary Information'' section above, 
Cheng Du Wai and IMY did not respond to the initial antidumping duty 
questionnaires issued by the Department on April 11, 2008, and June 10, 
2008, respectively. Additionally, the Department issued letters to 
Cheng Du Wai and IMY on May 5, 2008, and July 3, 2008, respectively, 
and confirmed delivery for both letters. In both letters, the 
Department noted that responses to its questionnaires were past due and 
requested that each company notify the Department as to whether it 
intended to participate further in this administrative review. Cheng Du 
Wai and IMY did not respond to either of these letters. Therefore, the 
Department finds that Cheng Du Wai and IMY did not cooperate to the 
best of their abilities, and their non-responsiveness

[[Page 66224]]

necessitates the use of facts available, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.
    Based upon Cheng Du Wai's and IMY's failure to submit responses to 
the Department's questionnaires and follow-up letters, the Department 
finds that Cheng Du Wai and IMY withheld requested information, failed 
to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form 
requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. Further, because Cheng 
Du Wai and IMY failed to demonstrate that they qualify for separate 
rate status, we consider both entities part of the PRC-wide entity. 
Thus, we find that the PRC-wide entity, including Cheng Du Wai and IMY, 
withheld requested information, failed to provide information in a 
timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this 
proceeding. Therefore, the Department must rely on the facts otherwise 
available in order to determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. See Non-
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 69546 
(December 1, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1.

PRC-Wide Entity

    Because Cheng Du Wai and IMY, which are part of the PRC-wide 
entity, failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in providing 
the requested information, as discussed above, we find it appropriate, 
in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as 
section 776(b), of the Act, to assign total adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') to the PRC-wide entity. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the 
First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 
(March 9, 2007) (decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity 
unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 
(September 12, 2007)). 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.
    As discussed above, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. In selecting an AFA rate, the 
Department's practice has been to assign non-cooperative respondents 
the highest margin determined for any party in the LTFV investigation 
or in any administrative review. See Certain Steel Nails from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008). As AFA, we are assigning 
the PRC-wide entity, which includes Cheng Du Wai and IMY, the highest 
rate from any segment of this proceeding, which in this case is $2.65 
per kilogram, as established in this administrative review. See Anhui 
Native Analysis Memo. Corroboration of this rate is not required 
because this rate is based on, and calculated from, information 
submitted by Anhui Native in the course of this administrative review, 
i.e., it is not secondary information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) 
and section 776(c) of the Act.

NME Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 
Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this 
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 
countries.

Separate Rate Determination

    A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by 
the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there 
is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
53079 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless 
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to 
be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test 
established in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    Throughout the course of this administrative review, only Anhui 
Native has placed sufficient evidence on the record that demonstrate an 
absence of de jure control. See Anhui Native's submission of May 9, 
2008 at 2-8 and Exhibit 2; see also Anhui Native's submission of July 
3, 2008 at 2-7 and Exhibit 2. Additionally, Anhui Native has placed on 
the record a number of documents to demonstrate an absence of de jure 
control including the ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of 
China'' and the ``Company Law of the People's Republic of China.'' The 
Department has analyzed such PRC laws and has found that they establish 
an absence of de jure control. See Preliminary Results of New Shipper 
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). We have no information in 
this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. 
Thus, we find that the evidence on the record supports a

[[Page 66225]]

preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government control based 
on: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the 
exporter's business license; (2) the legal authority on the record 
decentralizing control over the respondent, as demonstrated by the PRC 
laws placed on the record of this review; and (3) other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies.

Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 
(December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The 
Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each 
respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export 
functions: (1) Whether the exporter sets its own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts, and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent 
has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of its management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the 
proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 
FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The Department conducted a separate rates analysis for Anhui 
Native, which has asserted the following: (1) There is no government 
participation in setting export prices; (2) sales managers and 
authorized employees have the authority to create binding sales 
contracts; (3) it does not have to notify any government authorities of 
management selections; (4) there are no restrictions on the use of 
export revenue; and (5) it is responsible for financing its own losses. 
The questionnaire responses of Anhui Native do not suggest that pricing 
is coordinated among exporters. During our analysis of the information 
on the record, we found no information indicating the existence of 
government control of export activities. See Anhui Native's submission 
of May 9, 2008, at 2-8, and Exhibit 2; see also Anhui Native's 
submission of July 3, 2008, at 2-7 and Exhibit 2. Consequently, we 
preliminarily determine that Anhui Native has met the criteria for the 
application of a separate rate.
    As discussed above, the Department initiated this administrative 
review with respect to 32 companies, and thereafter rescinded the 
review on 21 of those 32 companies. In addition, we are preliminarily 
rescinding the review with respect to Dongtai Peak and Tangye due to 
the lack of shipments during the POR. Thus, in addition to Anhui 
Native, Cheng Du Wai and IMY, six additional companies remain subject 
to this review. The remaining six companies \6\ (collectively referred 
to as ``the six companies'') were twice issued separate rate 
applications and certifications to which they did not respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Haoliluck Co., Ltd., 
Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd., Mgl. Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd. (also DBA 
Fresh Honey Co., Ltd.), Nefelon Limited Company and Qinhuangdao 
Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these six companies did not provide separate rate 
information, the Department finds that they are not entitled to a 
separate rate. Therefore, these six companies will be considered part 
of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market 
economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 
the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that 
are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country and significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section below and in the Memorandum to the File through James 
Doyle, Director, Office 9, through Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, 
Office 9, from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, ``Sixth 
Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Factor Valuations for the Preliminary Results,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Values Memo'').
    As discussed in the ``NME Country Status'' section, the Department 
considers the PRC to be an NME country. The Department determined that 
India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and Thailand are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum 
from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Scot Fullerton, 
Office 9, Import Administration, ``Antidumping Administrative Review of 
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries,'' dated (March 25, 2008). Moreover, it is the 
Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based 
on the availability and reliability of data from these countries. See 
Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, dated March 1, 2004. The Department finds 
India to be a reliable source for surrogate values because India is at 
a comparable level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the 
Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has 
publicly available and reliable data. Furthermore, the Department notes 
that India has been the primary surrogate country in past segments, and 
the only surrogate value data submitted on the record are from Indian 
sources. Given the above facts, the Department has selected India as 
the primary surrogate country for this review.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the 
export price \7\ (``EP'') for sales to the United States for Anhui 
Native. We calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated 
purchasers foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
customs duties, domestic brokerage and handling and other movement 
expenses incurred. For the services provided by an NME vendor or paid 
for using an NME currency we based the deduction of these movement 
charges on surrogate values. See Surrogate Values Memo for details 
regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. For expenses 
provided by a market economy vendor and paid in U.S. dollars, so we 
used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. See Anhui Native 
Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Though Anhui Native's Section C database lists each of its 
sales as constructed export price, we note that the first U.S. 
customer is unaffiliated with Anhui Native.

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

[[Page 66226]]

Normal Value

Methodology

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an 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 NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by Anhui Native 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. In accordance with Sigma, 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. See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (``Sigma'').
    For these preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to 
calculate surrogate values for most of Anhui Native's material inputs. 
In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs 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 POR, 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 are 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 FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values, where 
appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as 
published in OECD Stat by the Organization for Economic Development and 
Cooperation.
    To value unfiltered/unprocessed honey (``raw honey''), the 
Department used the raw honey price \8\ published by the Regional 
Centre for Development Cooperation (``RCDC'') 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. The 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. However, 
because the raw honey price data published by RCDC are dated after the 
POR, we deflated the price to be contemporaneous with the POR using 
WPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The honey price published by RCDC can be found at https://
www.banajata.org/m/a1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty 
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006. 
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. Since the rates are dated before the POR, we 
inflated the values to be contemporaneous with the POR using WPI. See 
Surrogate Values Memo.
    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 2005 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 May 2008, ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-051608.html. 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 regression-based 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 Anhui Native.
    To value water, the Department used data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (https://
www.midindia.orgwww.midcindia.org) since they include 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.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the following Web site: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
website contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. Since this value is dated after the POR, we deflated the values 
to be contemporaneous with the POR using WPI. See Surrogate Values 
Memo.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the 
brokerage and handling costs that were reported in public submissions 
that were filed in three antidumping duty cases. See Surrogate Values 
Memo. Specifically, we averaged the public brokerage and handling 
expenses reported by (a) Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the antidumping 
duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, 
(b) Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the LTFV investigation of certain lined 
paper products from India, and (c) Essar Steel in the antidumping duty 
administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
India. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in 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)), and Certain Hot-

[[Page 66227]]

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12, 
2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 
(July 18, 2006)). 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These data have been placed on the record of this case and 
can be found in attachments to the Factors Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, sales, general and administrative 
expenses, and profit; we relied upon publicly available information in 
the 2006-2007 annual report of Mahabaleshwar Honey Production 
Cooperative Society Ltd., an Indian producer of subject merchandise. 
See Surrogate Values Memo.
    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.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2006 through November 
30, 2007:

                           Honey From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Margin  (per
                 Manufacturer/exporter                      kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anhui Native..........................................             $2.65
PRC-wide Entity \10\..................................             $2.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The PRC-wide entity includes Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Co., 
Ltd., Cheng Du Wai, Haoliluck Co., Ltd., Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd., IMY, 
Mgl. Yung Sheng Honey Co., Ltd. (also DBA Fresh Honey Co., Ltd.), 
Nefelon Limited Company and Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial 
Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must 
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly 
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative 
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, 
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested 
party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline 
for submission of such factual information. However, the Department 
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as 
it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the 
record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 2.
    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). The Department urges interested parties to provide an 
executive summary of each argument contained within the case briefs and 
rebuttal briefs.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 
Requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for 
a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline 
for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Consistent with the Fifth AR Final Results, we will direct CBP to 
assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-
unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject 
merchandise during the POR. See Honey from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Rescission, In Part, of Aligned Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 42321 (July 
21, 2008) (``Fifth AR Final Results''). The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP 
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For 
assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates 
for honey from the PRC. Specifically, we divided the total duties for 
each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that 
importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. We 
will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on 
the resulting per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the 
subject merchandise during the POR if any importer-specific assessment 
rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de 
minimis.
    For Dongtai Peak and Tangye, companies for which this review is 
preliminarily rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates 
equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at 
the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported 
by Anhui Native the cash deposit rate will be $2.65 per kilogram; (2) 
for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been 
found to be entitled to a separate rate, and thus, are a part of the 
PRC-wide entity, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 
$2.65 per-kilogram; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the 
PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain 
in effect until further notice.

[[Page 66228]]

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review, and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: October 31, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-26616 Filed 11-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P