Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 32107-32109 [E9-15965]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices
fluctuations. Economists use ASEC data
to determine the effects of various
economic forces, such as inflation,
recession, recovery, and so on, and their
differential effects on various
population groups.
A prime statistic of interest is the
classification of people in poverty and
how this measurement has changed over
time for various groups. Researchers
evaluate ASEC income data not only to
determine poverty levels but also to
determine whether government
programs are reaching eligible
households.
New questions are proposed for the
ASEC, beginning in 2010. The questions
are related to: (1) Medical expenditures;
(2) presence and cost of a mortgage on
property; (3) child support payments;
and (4) amount of child care assistance
received. These questions will enable
analysts and policymakers to obtain
better estimates of family and household
income, and to gauge poverty status
more precisely. To offset respondent
burden, some questions will be removed
from the ASEC. Those removed include
questions on transportation assistance,
child care services, and questions on
receipt of government assistance related
to welfare reform.
Congressional passage of the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP), or Title XXI, led to a mandate
from Congress, in 1999, that the sample
size for the CPS, and specifically the
ASEC, be increased to a level whereby
more reliable estimates can be derived
for the number of individuals
participating in this program at the state
level. By administering the ASEC in
February, March, and April, rather than
only in March as in the past, we have
been able to achieve this goal. The total
number of respondents has not been
upwardly affected by this change.
II. Method of Collection
The ASEC information will be
collected by both personal visit and
telephone interviews in conjunction
with the regular February, March and
April CPS interviewing. All interviews
are conducted using computer-assisted
interviewing.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0607–0354.
Form Number: There are no forms.
We conduct all interviewing on
computers.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
78,000.
Estimated Time per Response: 25
minutes.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 32,500.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: There
are no costs to the respondents other
than their time to answer the CPS
questions.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Legal Authority: Title 13, United
States Code, Section 182; and Title 29,
United States Code, Sections 1–9.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: July 2, 2009.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–16039 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–357–812]
Honey from Argentina: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Determination to Revoke
Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 30, 2008, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published its preliminary
results of the 2006–2007 administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on honey from Argentina. This
administrative review covers three firms
which were selected as mandatory
respondents, Asociacion de
Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA),
Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), and
Seylinco, S.A. (Seylinco), and one firm
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32107
which was not selected as a mandatory
respondent, Compania Inversora
Platense S.A. (CIPSA). Based on our
revised cost of production analysis, the
final results margin for Patagonik has
changed from the preliminary results. In
addition, we are revoking the order with
respect to Seylinco.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maryanne Burke for Seylinco, David
Cordell for Patagonik, Deborah Scott for
ACA and CIPSA, or Robert James, Office
7, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5604,
(202) 482–0408, (202) 482–2657 or (202)
482–0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 30, 2008, the
Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from
Argentina for the period December 1,
2006 to November 30, 2007. See Honey
from Argentina: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Revoke Order in
Part, 73 FR 79802 (December 30, 2008)
(Preliminary Results).
On December 31, 2008, Patagonik
filed a response to the section D
supplemental questionnaire the
Department had issued on November
19, 2008. On February 3, 2009, the
Department issued Patagonik a second
supplemental questionnaire for section
D, to which Patagonik responded on
March 2, 2009.
On February 9, 2009, Patagonik
submitted what it termed a minor
correction to its section B response.
Specifically, Patagonik argued that due
to a clerical error on one invoice, the
color of the honey supplied to the
customer differed from the color of the
honey specified on the invoice.
Patagonik argued this information was
not new but rather was typical of a
minor correction that would have been
identified had the Department verified
Patagonik’s responses. Patagonik urged
the Department to use this information
because it was the most accurate
information available. Petitioners (the
American Honey Producers Association
and Sioux Honey Association) objected
to Patagonik’s submission in a letter
dated February 17, 2009. On February
18, 2009, and March 9, 2009, the
Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Patagonik regarding its
February 9, 2009, submission. Patagonik
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
32108
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices
filed responses to these supplemental
questionnaires on March 4, 2009, and
March 23, 2009, respectively.
In response to the Department’s
invitation to comment on the
Preliminary Results, petitioners, ACA,
CIPSA, Patagonik, and Seylinco filed
case briefs on April 8, 2009. Petitioners,
Patagonik, and Seylinco submitted
rebuttal briefs on April 20, 2009. In
addition, Seylinco filed comments on
petitioners’ rebuttal brief on April 21,
2009.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is
December 1, 2006 to November 30,
2007.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is honey from Argentina. The products
covered 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 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 this order is
dispositive.
Determination to Revoke Order, in Part
The Department may revoke, in whole
or in part, an antidumping duty order
upon completion of a review under
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). While Congress has
not specified the procedures that the
Department must follow in revoking an
order, the Department has developed a
procedure for revocation that is
described in 19 CFR 351.222. This
regulation requires, inter alia, that a
company requesting revocation must
submit the following: (1) a certification
that the company has sold the subject
merchandise at not less than normal
value (NV) in the current review period
and that the company will not sell
subject merchandise at less than NV in
the future; (2) a certification that the
company sold commercial quantities of
the subject merchandise to the United
States in each of the three years forming
the basis of the request; and (3) an
agreement to immediate reinstatement
of the order if the Department concludes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
that the company, subsequent to the
revocation, sold subject merchandise at
less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
Upon receipt of such a request, the
Department will consider: (1) whether
the company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than
normal value (NV) for a period of at
least three consecutive years; (2)
whether the company has agreed in
writing to its immediate reinstatement
in the order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the
Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation,
sold the subject merchandise at less
than NV; and (3) whether the continued
application of the antidumping duty
order is otherwise necessary to offset
dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
On December 31, 2007, pursuant to
section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), Seylinco requested
revocation of the antidumping duty
order with respect to its sales of subject
merchandise. Seylinco’s request was
accompanied by certification that it: (1)
sold the subject merchandise at not less
than NV during the current POR and
will not sell the merchandise at less
than NV in the future; (2) sold subject
merchandise to the United States in
commercial quantities for a period of at
least three consecutive years; and (3)
agreed to immediate reinstatement of
the antidumping duty order, as long as
any exporter or producer is subject to
the order, if the Department concludes
that, subsequent to the revocation,
Seylinco sold the subject merchandise
at less than NV.
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that Seylinco’s request
meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1) and that revocation is
warranted pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2). See Preliminary Results,
73 FR at 79804–05 and Memorandum to
Gary Taverman, ‘‘Request by Seylinco,
S.A. for Revocation in the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Honey
from Argentina,’’ dated December 19,
2008. We have not altered our findings
for these final results. Therefore, we
find that Seylinco qualifies for
revocation of the antidumping duty
order on honey from Argentina under 19
CFR 351.222(b)(2) and, accordingly, we
are revoking the order with respect to
subject merchandise exported by
Seylinco.1 For further discussion, see
the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
1 Only exports by Seylinco in which Seylinco is
the first party with knowledge of the U.S.
destination of the merchandise are covered by this
revocation.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Effective Date of Revocation
The revocation of Seylinco applies to
all entries of subject merchandise that
are exported by Seylinco, and are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after December 1,
2007. The Department will order the
suspension of liquidation ended for all
such entries and will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
release any cash deposits or bonds. The
Department also will instruct CBP to
refund with interest any cash deposits
on entries made on or after December 1,
2007.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
A list of issues addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum is appended
to this notice. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is on file in the Central
Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the
main Commerce Building and can be
accessed directly on the web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the information Patagonik
submitted in response to the
Department’s supplemental section D
questionnaires, we have made
adjustments to the beekeepers’ and
middleman’s costs. We relied on the
cost data submitted by the two
beekeeper respondents and the
middleman in their cost questionnaire
responses, except as follows.
1. Because the middleman was unable
to provide financial statements or
corporate tax returns for 2007, we
used the middleman’s verified cost
data from the 2004–2005 new
shipper review of honey from
Argentina. See Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘Administrative Review of
Honey from Argentina,’’ dated
March 30, 2009, where the
Department placed Attachment A of
the 2004–2005 Honey from
Argentina New Shipper Review
memorandum, ‘‘Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results – Patagonik S.A. Beekeeper
Respondents.’’ See also Honey from
Argentina: Preliminary Results of
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 67850
(November 24, 2006); unchanged in
Honey from Argentina: Final
Results of New Shipper Review, 72
FR 19177 (April 17, 2007).
2. We calculated land rental cost for
Beekeeper 1 based on the market
value of honey as payment–in-kind
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices
for land use.
3. We adjusted Beekeeper 2’s rent
costs to reflect the market value for
bartered honey.
For additional details, see Memorandum
to Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of
Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Final Results Patagonik S.A.’s - Beekeeper
Respondents / Collector of Honey,’’
dated June 29, 2009. We note the
changes identified above have an effect
on the final margin, and in fact we find
sales below cost.
We also reclassified Patagonik’s
reported third country warranty expense
as post–sale price adjustments granted
by Patagonik in order to maintain good
customer relations. See the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4 and the
Analysis Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Review of Honey from Argentina (A–
357–812) for Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik).
merchandise was destined for the
United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all–others rate if there is
no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the
transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
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 of these final results, consistent
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for
the companies covered by this review,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
listed above except for Seylinco, which
is revoked from the order; (2) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
Final Results of Review
review, but was covered in a previous
We determine that the following
review or the original less than fair
dumping margins exist for the period
value (LTFV) investigation, the cash
December 1, 2006 through November
deposit rate will continue to be the
30, 2007.
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
Weighted Average
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
Exporter
Margin
review, or the original LTFV
(percentage)
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
ACA ..............................
0.00 the cash deposit rate will be the rate
CIPSA ...........................
0.772 established for the most recent period
Patagonik S.A. ..............
0.77 for the manufacturer of the
Seylinco ........................
0.00
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
2 This rate is based on the average of the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
margins calculated in this review, other than covered in this or any previous review
those which were zero, de minimis, or based conducted by the Department, the cash
on total facts available.
deposit rate will continue to be 30.24
Assessment
percent, which is the all–others rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order;
Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672
all appropriate entries. In accordance
(December 10, 2001). These deposit
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
requirements, when imposed, shall
calculated duty assessment rates which
remain in effect until publication of the
will be applied to all ACA, CIPSA,3
final results of the next administrative
Patagonik, and Seylinco entries made
review.
during the POR. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment Notification to Interested Parties
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
This notice also serves as a final
after publication of these final results of
reminder to importers of their
review.
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
The Department clarified its
automatic assessment regulation on May to file a certificate regarding the
6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
will apply to entries of subject
entries during this review period.
merchandise during the POR produced
Failure to comply with this requirement
by companies included in these final
results of review for which the reviewed could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
companies did not know their
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of doubled
3 The assessment rate for CIPSA will be the same
as the cash deposit rate assigned to that company.
antidumping duties.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32109
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.
We are issuing and publishing this
determination and notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Tariff Act.
Dated: June 29, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
Appendix – List of Comments in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Revocation of the Order
with Respect to Seylinco, S.A.
(Seylinco)
Comment 2: Patagonik S.A.’s
(Patagonik’s) Proposed Change to
Reported Honey Color
Comment 3: Use of Facts Available for
Patagonik
Comment 4: Treatment of Patagonik’s
U.K Warranty Expense
´
Comment 5: Treatment of Asociacion de
Cooperativas Argentinas’ (ACA’s)
Testing Expenses
Comment 6: Appropriate Margin to
˜´
Assign to Companıa Inversora Platense
S.A. (CIPSA)
[FR Doc. E9–15965 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XL07
Fisheries in the Western Pacific;
Certification Requirements for
Electronic Logbook Applications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; certification
requirements for electronic logbook
applications.
SUMMARY: This notice describes the
certification process and requirements
for vendors wishing to supply western
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32107-32109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15965]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-357-812]
Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 30, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published its preliminary results of the 2006-2007
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from
Argentina. This administrative review covers three firms which were
selected as mandatory respondents, Asociacion de Cooperativas
Argentinas (ACA), Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), and Seylinco, S.A.
(Seylinco), and one firm which was not selected as a mandatory
respondent, Compania Inversora Platense S.A. (CIPSA). Based on our
revised cost of production analysis, the final results margin for
Patagonik has changed from the preliminary results. In addition, we are
revoking the order with respect to Seylinco.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke for Seylinco, David
Cordell for Patagonik, Deborah Scott for ACA and CIPSA, or Robert
James, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5604, (202) 482-0408, (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 30, 2008, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December
1, 2006 to November 30, 2007. See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke
Order in Part, 73 FR 79802 (December 30, 2008) (Preliminary Results).
On December 31, 2008, Patagonik filed a response to the section D
supplemental questionnaire the Department had issued on November 19,
2008. On February 3, 2009, the Department issued Patagonik a second
supplemental questionnaire for section D, to which Patagonik responded
on March 2, 2009.
On February 9, 2009, Patagonik submitted what it termed a minor
correction to its section B response. Specifically, Patagonik argued
that due to a clerical error on one invoice, the color of the honey
supplied to the customer differed from the color of the honey specified
on the invoice. Patagonik argued this information was not new but
rather was typical of a minor correction that would have been
identified had the Department verified Patagonik's responses. Patagonik
urged the Department to use this information because it was the most
accurate information available. Petitioners (the American Honey
Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association) objected to
Patagonik's submission in a letter dated February 17, 2009. On February
18, 2009, and March 9, 2009, the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Patagonik regarding its February 9, 2009, submission.
Patagonik
[[Page 32108]]
filed responses to these supplemental questionnaires on March 4, 2009,
and March 23, 2009, respectively.
In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the
Preliminary Results, petitioners, ACA, CIPSA, Patagonik, and Seylinco
filed case briefs on April 8, 2009. Petitioners, Patagonik, and
Seylinco submitted rebuttal briefs on April 20, 2009. In addition,
Seylinco filed comments on petitioners' rebuttal brief on April 21,
2009.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2006 to November 30,
2007.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is honey from Argentina. The
products covered 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 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
this order is dispositive.
Determination to Revoke Order, in Part
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the
procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the
Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described
in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company
requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) a certification
that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than
normal value (NV) in the current review period and that the company
will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a
certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the
subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years
forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement to immediate
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the
Department will consider: (1) whether the company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) for a period of
at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in
writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any
exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the
subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the continued
application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to
offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
On December 31, 2007, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.222(b)(2), Seylinco requested revocation of the antidumping
duty order with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. Seylinco's
request was accompanied by certification that it: (1) sold the subject
merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will not
sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) sold subject
merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period
of at least three consecutive years; and (3) agreed to immediate
reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that,
subsequent to the revocation, Seylinco sold the subject merchandise at
less than NV.
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that Seylinco's request
meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) and that
revocation is warranted pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). See
Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79804-05 and Memorandum to Gary Taverman,
``Request by Seylinco, S.A. for Revocation in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina,'' dated December 19,
2008. We have not altered our findings for these final results.
Therefore, we find that Seylinco qualifies for revocation of the
antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina under 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2) and, accordingly, we are revoking the order with respect
to subject merchandise exported by Seylinco.\1\ For further discussion,
see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Only exports by Seylinco in which Seylinco is the first
party with knowledge of the U.S. destination of the merchandise are
covered by this revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Date of Revocation
The revocation of Seylinco applies to all entries of subject
merchandise that are exported by Seylinco, and are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 2007.
The Department will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all
such entries and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department also will
instruct CBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on entries made
on or after December 1, 2007.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. A list of issues addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of
the main Commerce Building and can be accessed directly on the web at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the information Patagonik submitted in response to the
Department's supplemental section D questionnaires, we have made
adjustments to the beekeepers' and middleman's costs. We relied on the
cost data submitted by the two beekeeper respondents and the middleman
in their cost questionnaire responses, except as follows.
1. Because the middleman was unable to provide financial statements
or corporate tax returns for 2007, we used the middleman's verified
cost data from the 2004-2005 new shipper review of honey from
Argentina. See Memorandum to the File, ``Administrative Review of Honey
from Argentina,'' dated March 30, 2009, where the Department placed
Attachment A of the 2004-2005 Honey from Argentina New Shipper Review
memorandum, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Patagonik S.A. Beekeeper
Respondents.'' See also Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 67850 (November 24, 2006); unchanged in Honey
from Argentina: Final Results of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 19177 (April
17, 2007).
2. We calculated land rental cost for Beekeeper 1 based on the
market value of honey as payment-in-kind
[[Page 32109]]
for land use.
3. We adjusted Beekeeper 2's rent costs to reflect the market value
for bartered honey.
For additional details, see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director of
Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results - Patagonik S.A.'s -
Beekeeper Respondents / Collector of Honey,'' dated June 29, 2009. We
note the changes identified above have an effect on the final margin,
and in fact we find sales below cost.
We also reclassified Patagonik's reported third country warranty
expense as post-sale price adjustments granted by Patagonik in order to
maintain good customer relations. See the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 and the Analysis Memorandum for the
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Review of Honey from Argentina
(A-357-812) for Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik).
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the
period December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average
Exporter Margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACA................................................. 0.00
CIPSA............................................... 0.77\2\
Patagonik S.A....................................... 0.77
Seylinco............................................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This rate is based on the average of the margins calculated in this
review, other than those which were zero, de minimis, or based on
total facts available.
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated duty assessment rates which will be
applied to all ACA, CIPSA,\3\ Patagonik, and Seylinco entries made
during the POR. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final
results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The assessment rate for CIPSA will be the same as the cash
deposit rate assigned to that company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department clarified its automatic assessment regulation on May
6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in
these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not
know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
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 of these
final results, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for
the companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the
rate listed above except for Seylinco, which is revoked from the order;
(2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was
covered in a previous review or the original less than fair value
(LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
30.24 percent, which is the all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From
Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties.
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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: June 29, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
Appendix - List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Revocation of the Order with Respect to Seylinco, S.A.
(Seylinco)
Comment 2: Patagonik S.A.'s (Patagonik's) Proposed Change to Reported
Honey Color
Comment 3: Use of Facts Available for Patagonik
Comment 4: Treatment of Patagonik's U.K Warranty Expense
Comment 5: Treatment of Asociaci[oacute]n de Cooperativas Argentinas'
(ACA's) Testing Expenses
Comment 6: Appropriate Margin to Assign to Compa[ntilde][iacute]a
Inversora Platense S.A. (CIPSA)
[FR Doc. E9-15965 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S