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 http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. 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 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html.

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