Honey From Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2655-2662 [2011-790]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2655-2662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-812]


Honey From Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. The review covers 
imports of subject merchandise from three firms (see ``Background'' 
section of this notice for further explanation). The period of review 
(POR) is December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009. We preliminarily 
determine that sales of honey from Argentina have not been made below 
normal value (NV) by TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney), Compania Inversora 
Platense S.A. (CIPSA), or Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik) during the POR. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties 
who submit argument in this review are requested to submit with the 
argument: (1) A statement of the issues; (2) a brief summary of the 
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell (Patagonik), Dena 
Crossland (CIPSA), or Patrick Edwards (TransHoney), AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Room 7850, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0408, (202) 482-
3362, or (202) 482-8029, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on honey from Argentina. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 
Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 
62743 (December 1, 2009). In response, on December 31, 2009, Asociacion 
de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA), Nexco S.A. (Nexco), CIPSA, Patagonik, 
and TransHoney requested an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2008, 
through November 30, 2009. In addition, on December 31, 2009, the 
American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association 
(collectively, petitioners) requested an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December 
1, 2008, through November 30, 2009. Specifically, the petitioners 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
entries of

[[Page 2656]]

subject merchandise made by 18 Argentine producers/exporters. ACA, 
Nexco, CIPSA, Patagonik, and TransHoney were included in the 
petitioners' request for review.
    On January 29, 2010, the Department initiated a review of 17 of the 
18 companies for which an administrative review was requested.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Initiation of 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 4770, 4772 (January 29, 2010) (Initiation 
Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c), the Department 
deferred for one year the initiation of the administrative review 
with respect to ACA. See Honey From Argentina: Notice of Extension 
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55741, 55741 n.1 
(September 14, 2010) (Honey Extension Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 17, 2010, Mielar S.A. (Mielar) and Compania Apicola 
Argentina S.A. (CAA) submitted a letter certifying that during the POR, 
neither made any shipment, sale, or U.S. entry of subject merchandise, 
and requested that the Department rescind the administrative review 
with respect to Mielar and CAA.
    Also on February 17, 2010, the Department issued a memorandum to 
the file indicating its intention to limit the number of respondents 
selected for review and to select mandatory respondents based on CBP 
data for U.S. imports of Argentine honey during the POR. The Department 
encouraged all interested parties to submit comments regarding the use 
of CBP entry data for respondent selection purposes. See Memorandum to 
the File through Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, 
regarding ``Honey from Argentina--United States Customs and Border 
Protection Entry Data for Selection of Respondents for Individual 
Review,'' dated February 17, 2010.
    On March 5, 2010, the Department selected the four producers/
exporters with the largest export volume during the POR as mandatory 
respondents: HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax), Nexco, Patagonik, and 
TransHoney. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, ``Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Respondent 
Selection Memorandum,'' dated March 5, 2010. On March 9, 2010, the 
Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to all four mandatory 
respondents.
    On March 31, 2010, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 
petitioners timely withdrew their request for review of HoneyMax.
    On April 7, 2010, the petitioners and Nexco timely withdrew their 
requests for review of Nexco.
    On April 16, 2010, the petitioners timely withdrew their request 
for review with respect to all companies except TransHoney, Patagonik, 
CIPSA, and ACA. Accordingly, the Department informed interested parties 
of its intent to rescind the review for all companies except 
TransHoney, Patagonik, and CIPSA, to continue with its deferral of the 
review with respect to ACA, and to select CIPSA as a mandatory 
respondent in place of Nexco. See Memorandum to the File, ``2008/2009 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from 
Argentina: Selection of New Mandatory Respondent,'' dated April 19, 
2010. On April 19, 2010, the Department issued sections A, B, and C of 
its antidumping questionnaire to CIPSA.
    On April 29, 2010, ACA timely withdrew its request for review 
submitted on December 31, 2009.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The withdrawal of the request for review was submitted by 
ACA based on the Department's notification in the Federal Register 
revoking the antidumping duty order with respect to honey exported 
by ACA effective December 1, 2008. Because the order covering honey 
from Argentina is revoked with respect to ACA, all entries of 
subject merchandise exported by ACA will be liquidated without 
regard to antidumping duties. Accordingly, there will be no relevant 
entries that might be subject to an antidumping review. See Honey 
from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 75 FR 23674 (May 
4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 2010, the Department rescinded the administrative 
review with respect to fifteen companies: AGLH S.A., Algodonera 
Avellaneda S.A., Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods, Alma Pura, Bomare 
S.A., CAA, El Mana S.A., Interrupcion S.A., Mielar, Miel Ceta SRL., 
Productos Afer S.A., Seabird Argentina S.A., HoneyMax, Nexco, and ACA. 
This rescission, in part, was based on the timely withdrawal of the 
request for review by the interested parties that requested the review. 
See Honey Extension Notice. Additionally, the Department extended the 
preliminary results of this administrative review to no later than 
January 7, 2011. Id.
    On October 6, 2010, the Department determined that a ``particular 
market situation'' with respect to the honey market existed in 
Argentina during the POR for certain exporters under review. See 
Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 
from David Cordell and Dena Crossland, entitled ``Whether a particular 
market situation exists such that the Argentine honey market is not an 
appropriate comparison market for establishing normal value,'' dated 
October 6, 2010 (Particular Market Situation Memorandum). See also the 
discussion of ``Selection of Comparison Market'' under ``Normal Value'' 
below.
    Below is the company-specific background information with respect 
to Patagonik, CIPSA, and TransHoney.

Patagonik

    On April 6, 2010, Patagonik filed its response to the Department's 
section A questionnaire (Patagonik AQR). On May 7, 2010, Patagonik 
filed its response to sections B and C of the Department's 
questionnaire. Between April 2010 and November 2010, the Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Patagonik, to which it filed 
timely responses.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), we automatically initiated a cost 
investigation in this segment of the proceeding with respect to 
Patagonik because we disregarded sales by Patagonik that were below the 
cost of production (COP) in the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding.\3\ On June 22, 2010, the Department selected the two 
largest beekeeper suppliers (by volume) of honey to Patagonik as cost 
respondents. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, ``Selection of Cost of 
Production Respondents,'' dated June 22, 2010 (Cost Respondents 
Selection Memorandum). We also recommended examining Patagonik's 
affiliated middleman, Azul Agronegocios S.A. (Azul).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 
FR 32107, 32108-09 (July 7, 2009) (06-07 Final Results).
    \4\ For a detailed discussion of Patagonik's relationship with 
Azul, see the ``Affiliation'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 1, 2010, the Department revised its selection of the cost 
respondents in response to Patagonik's July 1, 2010 letter noting that 
Azul had incorrectly identified one of the selected cost respondents. 
See ``Revision of Cost of Production Respondent Selection: Addendum to 
Memorandum of June 22, 2010,'' dated July 1, 2010 (Revision of Cost 
Respondent Selection Memorandum).
    On July 14, 2010, the Department issued its cost questionnaire to 
the selected beekeepers and middleman to which Patagonik's suppliers 
responded on August 25, 2010. The Department issued a supplemental cost 
questionnaire to Patagonik's suppliers in November 2010 and December 
2010, to which they timely responded.

[[Page 2657]]

CIPSA

    On May 24, 2010, CIPSA filed its response to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire (CIPSA AQR). On June 9, 2010, CIPSA filed 
its response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire. 
Between July 2010 and October 2010, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to CIPSA, to which it filed timely responses.

TransHoney

    On April 26, 2010, TransHoney filed its response to the 
Department's section A questionnaire (TransHoney AQR). On May 7, 2010, 
TransHoney filed its response to sections B and C of the Department's 
questionnaire (TransHoney BQR and TransHoney CQR). Between May 2010 and 
October 2010, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
TransHoney, to which it filed timely responses. On June 8, 2010, 
TransHoney also filed comments regarding the identification of organic 
honey versus standard honey.

Period of Review

    The POR is December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009.

Tolling of Deadlines

    As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
(DAS) for Import Administration, the Department exercised its 
discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the 
federal government from February 5, 2010 through February 12, 2010. 
Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding were extended by 
seven days. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 
Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 
As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' 
dated February 12, 2010.
    On September 14, 2010, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice extending the time limits for the preliminary results 
of this review. See Honey Extension Notice, 75 FR at 55741. This 
extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as 
January 7, 2011. Id. at 55742.

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 covered by the order is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order 
is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
sales of honey covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' 
section of this notice, supra, which were sold in the appropriate 
third-country markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for 
the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey 
sold in the United States. For our discussion of market viability and 
selection of comparison markets, see the ``Normal Value'' section of 
this notice, infra. We matched products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by CIPSA, Patagonik, and TransHoney. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country 
market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next 
most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics 
and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire 
and instructions, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as export price (EP) or the 
constructed export price (CEP). The NV LOT is based on the starting 
price of the sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, 
that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative expenses and profit. See also 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). 
For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to 
an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 
772(d) of the Act. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii). For EP, it is the 
starting price. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, all 
mandatory respondents claimed only EP sales.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison market sales are 
at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    CIPSA reported that all of its third-country and U.S. market sales 
were made to importers/packers at essentially the same LOT. See CIPSA 
AQR at A-10 to A-11. Patagonik also reported that all of its third-
country and U.S. market sales were made to importers/packers at 
essentially the same LOT. See Patagonik AQR at A-11 to A-13. TransHoney 
reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country market sales and 
the same channel of distribution. See TransHoney AQR at A-13.
    The Department has determined that differing channels of 
distribution, alone, do not qualify as separate LOTs when selling 
functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. 
See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45022 
(August 8, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of the Ninth 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta 
from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007)); see also 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). Patagonik and CIPSA reported a single LOT for all U.S. 
and third-country sales. Patagonik and CIPSA claimed that their selling 
activities in both markets are essentially identical, and nothing on 
the record appears to suggest otherwise. TransHoney also reported a 
single LOT for all its U.S. and third-country market sales. Therefore, 
for TransHoney, Patagonik and CIPSA, we preliminarily determine that 
all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and have not made a LOT 
adjustment. See Patagonik AQR at A-11 to A-13, and CIPSA AQR at A-10 to 
A-12. For a further discussion of LOT, see Memorandum to the File, 
``Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Review on Honey from Argentina for Patagonik S.A., dated January 7, 
2011 (Patagonik Preliminary Analysis Memorandum); Memorandum to the 
File, ``Analysis Memorandum for

[[Page 2658]]

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Review on Honey from 
Argentina for Compania Inversora Platense S.A., dated January 7, 2011 
(CIPSA Preliminary Analysis Memorandum); and Memorandum to the File, 
``Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Review on Honey from Argentina for TransHoney S.A., dated January 7, 
2011 (TransHoney Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).

Date of Sale

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department normally will use the 
date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records 
kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may 
use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the 
date on which the material terms of sale are established. For Patagonik 
and CIPSA, the Department used the invoice date as the date of sale for 
both its comparison and U.S. market sales for these preliminary 
results. Patagonik and CIPSA assert that changes in ordered terms have 
occurred in the past and their customers know they can request changes 
to an order prior to shipment. See Patagonik's June 14, 2010, 
supplemental questionnaire response at BC-5 and 6, and CIPSA's August 
2, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response at 14, 22, and 23. As in 
past segments of this proceeding, we determine that there is potential 
for change to the essential terms of sale between the contract date and 
invoice date and therefore invoice date continues to be the appropriate 
date of sale with respect to Patagonik's sales in the U.S. and 
comparison markets. Additionally, we preliminarily determine that 
invoice date is the appropriate date of sale with respect to CIPSA's 
sales in the U.S. and third-country markets because of the potential 
for change to the essential terms of sale between the order date and 
invoice date. However, in some instances for Patagonik's sales, 
shipment occurred prior to invoice and, consistent with past segments 
of this proceeding and the Department's practice, we used the shipment 
date as the date of sale for those sales.
    For TransHoney, the Department, consistent with its practice, used 
the reported date of invoice as the date of sale for both the third-
country and U.S. markets. We thoroughly examined the date of sale issue 
for TransHoney and found that changes to the essential terms of sale 
can and did occur between the order date and invoice date, which is 
coincident with the date of actual shipment. See TransHoney BQR at B-12 
and TransHoney CQR at C-11; see also TransHoney AQR at A-16 and 
TransHoney July 26, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response at 5-6. 
Consequently, we preliminarily find that invoice date is the 
appropriate date of sale with respect to TransHoney's and its 
affiliated entity's \5\ sales in the U.S. and comparison markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Affiliation'' discussion section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States, as adjusted under {section 772(c) of the Act{time} .'' Section 
772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter,'' as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). For 
purposes of this administrative review, CIPSA, Patagonik and TransHoney 
classified their U.S. sales as EP because all of their sales were made 
before the date of importation directly to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have 
accepted these classifications. We based EP on prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States and made adjustments for movement 
expenses.

Normal Value

1. Selection of Comparison Market

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or 
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Patagonik, CIPSA, and TransHoney's respective aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product to their respective 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Patagonik and 
CIPSA's volume of home market sales were both greater than five percent 
of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales; however, TransHoney had no home 
market sales during the POR. As a result, we preliminarily find that 
TransHoney's home market does not provide a viable basis for 
calculating NV.
    With respect to CIPSA and Patagonik, section 773(a)(1)(c)(iii) of 
the Act provides that the Department may determine that home market 
sales are inappropriate as a basis for determining NV if the particular 
market situation would not permit a proper comparison with EP and CEP. 
In its supplemental questionnaires dated April 16, 2010, and July 8, 
2010, the Department asked Patagonik and CIPSA to provide further 
information in order to evaluate the market situation in Argentina with 
respect to honey, to which responses were filed on May 18, 2010, and 
August 2, 2010, respectively.
    On October 6, 2010, the Department determined that a particular 
market situation does, in fact, exist with respect to CIPSA's and 
Patagonik's sales of honey in Argentina, rendering the Argentine market 
inappropriate for purposes of determining NV.\6\ See Particular Market 
Situation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted above, TransHoney reported that it had no domestic 
sales during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the 
basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that sales 
to a third-country market may be utilized if: (i) The prices in such 
market are representative; (ii) the aggregate quantity of the foreign 
like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-country 
market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject 
merchandise sold in or to the United States; and (iii) the Department 
does not determine that a particular market situation in the third-
country market prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. In 
terms of volume of sales (and with five percent or more of sales by 
quantity to the United States), TransHoney reported Germany as its 
largest third country market, CIPSA reported Italy as its third-country 
market during the POR, and Patagonik reported the United Kingdom as its 
third-country market during the POR.
    The record shows the aggregate quantity of TransHoney's and its 
affiliate \7\ Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof)'s sales to Germany is greater 
than five percent of TransHoney's sales to the United States. In 
addition, the Department preliminarily determines there is no evidence 
on the record to demonstrate that these prices in Germany are not 
representative. See TransHoney AQR at Exhibit A.1. Nor is

[[Page 2659]]

there evidence that any other third country market to which TransHoney 
sells would offer greater similarity of product to that sold to the 
United States. Further, we find there is no particular market situation 
in Germany with respect to TransHoney or Einsof that would prevent a 
proper comparison to EP. As a result, we preliminarily find 
TransHoney's and its affiliate's sales to Germany serve as the most 
appropriate basis for NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Affiliation'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to looking at volume, we also examined product 
similarity for Patagonik and CIPSA, and found that the product sold to 
the largest third country market was similar to that sold to the United 
States. See Patagonik's May 18, 2010, supplemental section A 
questionnaire response at A-1 to A-3, CIPSA AQR at A-17, and CIPSA's 
June 9, 2010, section B questionnaire response at Exhibit B.3. Thus, 
the Department determines to select Italy as the appropriate comparison 
market for CIPSA and the United Kingdom as the appropriate comparison 
market for Patagonik.
    Therefore, NV for all companies is based on its third-country sales 
to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the prices at which the 
foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the usual 
commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same 
LOT as the EP. We calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-Price 
Comparisons'' section of this notice, infra.

2. Cost of Production

    In the previous segment of this proceeding, the Department 
disregarded sales made by Patagonik that were found to be below its 
COP. See 06-07 Final Results. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that the respondent made sales of the foreign like product 
in the home market at prices below the COP within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act, as below cost sales made by Patagonik were 
disregarded in the most recently completed investigation. Id. On June 
22, 2010, the Department selected the two largest beekeeper suppliers 
(by volume) of honey to Patagonik as cost respondents. See Cost 
Respondents Selection Memorandum and Revision of Cost Respondent 
Selection Memorandum. Accordingly, on July 14, 2010, the Department 
requested that Patagonik's beekeepers and middleman respond to section 
D (Cost of Production/Constructed Value) of the Department's 
antidumping duty questionnaire.
A. Cost of Production Analysis
    To calculate a COP and CV for the merchandise under consideration, 
the Department selected the two largest beekeepers by volume and the 
largest middleman, all of whom provided honey to Patagonik during the 
POR. See Cost Respondents Selection Memorandum and Revision of Cost 
Respondent Selection Memorandum.
B. Calculation of COP
    We relied on the COP data submitted by the two beekeeper 
respondents and the middleman in their questionnaire responses. For 
additional details, see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director of 
Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Patagonik S.A.'s 
Beekeeper Respondents/Collector of Honey,'' dated January 7, 2011.
C. Test of Third-Country Prices and Results of the Cost of Production 
Test
    We calculated a simple average COP using the COP of Patagonik's two 
respondent suppliers (Beekeeper 1 and Beekeeper 2) and the costs of the 
middleman supplier. This average COP was applied to these beekeepers as 
well as to all other beekeeper suppliers from whom information was not 
requested. In determining whether to disregard third-country market 
sales made at prices below the COP, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, we examined: (1) Whether, within an 
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities; and (2) whether such sales were made at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time 
in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's third-country market sales of a given model (i.e., control 
number, or CONNUM) were at prices below the COP during the POR, we did 
not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined 
that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of 
time and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's third-country market sales of a given model were at prices 
less than COP during the POR, we disregarded the below-cost sales 
because: (1) They were made within an extended period of time in 
``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the 
COP for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found Patagonik did not have any models for which 20 percent or 
more of sales volume (by weight) were below cost during the POR. 
Therefore we did not disregard any of Patagonik's third-country sales 
and included all such sales in our calculation of NV.

Affiliation

    According to section 771(33) of the Act, the Department determines 
affiliation using a variety of criteria. TransHoney submitted, as part 
of its sales database, the third-country market sales made by another 
Argentine exporter, Einsof, a company with which TransHoney claims to 
be affiliated. To determine affiliation between companies, the 
Department analyzed TransHoney's responses and found that, pursuant to 
section 771(33)(F) of the Act, TransHoney and Einsof are affiliated 
because they are under common control. Specific matters related to the 
common control are proprietary in nature. For further details, see 
Memorandum to Richard Weible, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Honey from Argentina: Analysis of the Relationship Between 
TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney) and Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof),'' dated 
January 7, 2011 (TransHoney/Einsof Affliation Memorandum).
    Furthermore, in certain circumstances the Department will treat two 
or more affiliated producers as a single entity and determine a single 
weighted-average margin for that entity, in order to determine margins 
accurately and to prevent manipulation that would undermine the 
effectiveness of the antidumping law. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).
    While 19 CFR 351.401(f) applies only to producers, the Department 
has found it to be instructive in determining whether non-producers 
should be collapsed and has used the criteria in the regulation in its 
analysis. See TransHoney/Einsof Affliation Memorandum; see e.g., Honey 
from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 19926, 19926 (April 15, 2005); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. The U.S. 
Court of International Trade (CIT) has found that collapsing exporters 
is consistent with a ``reasonable

[[Page 2660]]

interpretation of the {antidumping duty{time}  statute.'' See Hontex 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d. 1323, 1338 (CIT 
2003) (Hontex). The CIT further noted that ``to the extent that 
Commerce has followed its market economy collapsing regulations the 
{non-market economy (NME){time}  exporter collapsing methodology is 
necessarily permissible.'' See Hontex, 248 F. Supp. 2d at 1342.
    During the POR, TransHoney and Einsof collectively purchased honey 
for export sales from beekeepers and other collectors. See TransHoney 
AQR at A-3, A-8, and A-9. As a result, none of the affiliated parties 
possess production facilities that manufacture subject merchandise. 
Rather, they act as resellers of the product. In addition, TransHoney 
and Einsof did not operate independently as evidenced by shared 
facilities, employees and management, See TransHoney AQR at A-10 and 
TransHoney's June 8, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response at SA-5. 
Given these factors, the Department preliminarily concludes that the 
factors laid out in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii) and (iii) are relevant to 
the issue of whether TransHoney and Einsof are affiliated exporters/
resellers that should be treated as a single entity for purposes of 
establishing dumping duties. The Department preliminarily finds that, 
based on management overlap and intertwined relations, the relationship 
between these companies is such that both should be treated as a single 
entity for purposes of this administrative review and should receive a 
single antidumping duty rate. For further details, see TransHoney/
Einsof Affiliation Memorandum.
    With respect to Patagonik, Patagonik reported that under the 
Department's rules, Patagonik is considered to be affiliated with Azul, 
a honey collector, warehouser, processor, and reseller. See Patagonik's 
AQR at A-4. Patagonik cites Azul's 2008 acquisition of the assets of 
Colmenares Santa Rosa, the affiliated company from which Patagonik 
previously obtained warehousing and inventory management services. Id. 
Patagonik notes that during the POR, Azul only supplied Patagonik with 
honey although Patagonik did purchase honey from other unaffiliated 
beekeepers during the POR. Id. at A-3 and A-5. In addition, the testing 
and classification of the honey is carried out by a laboratory owned by 
Patagonik, which is located at Azul's warehouse. Id. at A-5. Patagonik 
also reported that Azul was granted an export license in November 2009. 
See Patagonik's November 29, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response 
at 1.
    In terms of ownership, Patagonik states Azul is owned by six equal 
partners, one of whom, Mauricio Big[ntilde]e, is both president of Azul 
and Patagonik, and manages certain operations of Azul. Id. at A-6. In 
terms of Patagonik, the company states that Patagonik is owned by two 
equal shareholders, but that Mauricio Big[ntilde]e served as president 
of Patagonik and that the other investor had no day-to-day management 
responsibilities during the POR. Id. at A-4 and 6.
    The Department has analyzed Patagonik's responses and, pursuant to 
section 771(33)(F) of the Act, determines that Patagonik and Azul are 
affiliated. The Department analyzed whether to determine to treat 
Patagonik and Azul as a single entity for purposes of this 
administrative review and whether Patagonik and Azul should receive a 
single antidumping duty rate. The Department preliminarily concludes 
that the factors laid out in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii) and (iii) are 
relevant to the issue of whether Patagonik and Azul are affiliated 
exporters/resellers that should be treated as a single entity. The 
Department preliminarily finds, based on management overlap and 
intertwined operations, as well as the fact that Azul also has an 
export license and thus has the ability to export on its own account, 
that these companies should be treated as a single entity for purposes 
of this administrative review and should receive a single antidumping 
duty rate. For further details, see Memorandum to Richard Weible, 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina: 
Analysis of the Relationship Between Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik) and 
Azul Agronegocios S.A. (Azul),'' dated January 7, 2011.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

Patagonik

    We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. 
We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, 
for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Additionally, we adjusted gross unit price for 
billing adjustments and freight reveune, where applicable. See 19 CFR 
351.401(c).
    We preliminarily reclassified some of Patagonik's reported direct 
selling expenses (namely, certain testing expenses) as indirect selling 
expenses, consistent with our treatment of testing expenses in prior 
reviews with respect to Patagonik. See, e.g., Honey From Argentina: 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 67850, 67853 (November 
24, 2006) (New Shipper Preliminary Results) \8\ (unchanged in Honey 
from Argentina: Final Results of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 19177 (April 
17, 2007)). Thus, we have not included certain of Patagonik's testing 
expenses among the direct selling expenses for which we made 
adjustments in these preliminary results. For more information, see 
Patagonik Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Where we note ``that certain claimed direct expenses in the 
third-country market are being re-classified as either indirect 
selling expenses or as part of the cost of production, for the 
reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis Memoranda.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIPSA

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
third-country market and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made adjustments, 
where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstances-of-
sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses (e.g., 
certain Argentine government-requested testing expenses) in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Additionally, we reclassified one 
of CIPSA's reported direct selling expenses (e.g., certain customer-
requested testing expenses) as an indirect selling expense. We also 
disregarded a certain claimed direct selling expense (i.e., blending), 
which we determined in prior decisions is more appropriately treated as 
a COP expense. See, e.g., New Shipper Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 
67853; see also CIPSA Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

TransHoney

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers on the 
third-country market and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made adjustments, 
where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstances-of-
sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses (e.g., 
certain Argentine government-requested testing expenses) in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Additionally, we reclassified one 
of TransHoney's reported direct selling expenses (namely, certain 
customer-requested testing expenses) as an indirect selling expense. We 
also

[[Page 2661]]

disregarded a certain claimed direct selling expenses (i.e., blending), 
which we determined in prior decisions is more appropriately treated as 
a COP expense. See, e.g., New Shipper Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 
67853; see also TransHoney Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
    With respect to TransHoney's request to incorporate organic honey 
as a model match criterion, the Department preliminarily determines not 
to consider organic source as a criterion for matching honey sold in 
the third-country and U.S. markets because TransHoney did not provide 
sufficient evidence (i.e., quantitative and qualitative features, etc.) 
to support its claim that there is a physical difference reflected in a 
cost differential between organic and non-organic honey. Therefore, we 
found an insufficient basis to consider the request for purposes of our 
product matching criteria. Accordingly, we have preliminarily 
disregarded the field ORGANICT/U and are relying solely on the product 
characteristics specified in the Department's questionnaire (i.e., 
type, color, and form).

Currency Conversions

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France, 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003) (unchanged in Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 
2003)). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish 
exchange rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions from Argentine pesos to U.S. dollars based on the daily 
exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones retrieval service. Factiva 
publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the 
rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates 
involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exists for the period December 1, 
2008, through November 30, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-Average margin
                 Exporter                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compania Inversora Platense S.A...........  0.00.
Patagonik S.A. and Azul Agronegocios S.A..  0.27 (de minimis).
TransHoney S.A. and Einsof Trade S.A......  0.00.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Request for Public Hearing and Comments

    The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or 
written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and 
comments may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these 
proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement 
of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, 
and written comments should provide the Department with an additional 
copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The 
Department will issue final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case 
briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 
120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), where entered values were reported, we calculated 
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based 
on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for 
the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of 
the sales used to calculate those duties. Where entered values were not 
reported, we calculated importer- or customer- (where the importer was 
unknown) specific per-unit assessment rates for the merchandise based 
on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for 
the examined sales made during the POR to the total quantity of the 
sales used to calculate those duties. These rates will be assessed 
uniformly on all of Patagonik's, CIPSA's, and TransHoney's entries made 
during the POR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions 
to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of 
this review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above 
will be that established in the final results of this review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within 
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit 
rate will be zero; (2) for any previously-reviewed or investigated 
company not listed above, 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 or the less-than-fair-
value 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 be the all-
others rate from the investigation (30.24 percent). See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR at 63673. These 
cash deposit requirements, when

[[Page 2662]]

imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-790 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P