Honey From Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 1458-1463 [2012-234]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1458-1463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-234]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-812]


Honey From Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission 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 nine companies. The period of 
review (POR) is December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010. We 
preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have not 
been made below normal value (NV) by mandatory respondents TransHoney 
S.A. (TransHoney) and Compa[ntilde][iacute]a Inversora Platense S.A. 
(CIPSA) during the POR. In addition, we have preliminarily determined a 
margin for those companies that were not selected for individual 
examination. 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.

DATES: Effective Date: January 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution

[[Page 1459]]

Avenue NW., Room 7850, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0195 
or (202) 482-3019, 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, 
2010, 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, 75 FR 
74682 (December 1, 2010). In response, the Department received the 
following requests for review:
    On December 29 and 30, 2010, Algodonera Avellaneda, S.A. 
(Algodonera) and Nexco S.A. (Nexco), respectively, requested 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on honey from 
Argentina for the POR. On January 3, 2011,\1\ A.G.L.H. S.A., (AGLH), 
CIPSA, Industrial Haedo S.A. (Haedo), Mielar S.A./
Compa[ntilde][iacute]a Ap[iacute]cola Argentina S.A. (Mielar), 
Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), and TransHoney also requested 
administrative reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department stated that parties had the opportunity to 
request a review until the last day of December 2010, ``{o{time} r 
the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, Federal 
holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.'' See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 
at 74682. Because December 31, 2010, was a Federal holiday, and 
January 1 and 2, 2011, fell on a weekend, the next business day was 
January 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also on January 3, 2011, the American Honey Producers Association 
and Sioux Honey Association (collectively, the petitioners) requested 
that the Department conduct administrative reviews of entries of 
subject merchandise made by 21 Argentine producers/exporters.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners requested reviews for AGLH, Algodonera, 
Nexco, Haedo, Mielar, CIPSA, Patagonik, TransHoney, Asociacion de 
Cooperativas Argentinas Av. (ACA), HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax), Alma 
Pura S.A. (Alma Pura), Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods Lavalle, 
Apidouro Comercial Exportadora E Importadora Ltda., Bomare S.A., 
Compania Apicola Argentina S.A., El Mana S.A., Interrupcion S.A., 
Miel Ceta SRL, Productos Afer S.A., Seabird Argentina S.A., and 
Villamora S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 13, 2011, the petitioners withdrew their request for an 
antidumping duty administrative review of ACA.
    On January 28, 2011, the Department initiated a review of the 20 
remaining companies for which an administrative review was requested. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 76 FR 5137 (January 28, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
    On February 2, 2011, Alma Pura submitted a letter certifying that, 
during the POR, it had no shipments, sales, or U.S. entries of subject 
merchandise and requested that the Department rescind the 
administrative review with respect to Alma Pura.
    On February 7, 2011, 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 U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (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 7, 
2011.
    On February 24, 2011, the Department published a subsequent 
initiation notice which included corrections to the Initiation Notice 
with respect to honey from Argentina. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 76 FR 10329 (February 24, 2011) (Second Initiation Notice).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In Nexco's review request, Nexco also requested revocation 
from the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina (in part). 
However, Nexco's request for revocation in part from the order was 
inadvertently omitted from the Initiation Notice. Furthermore, 
certain company names were misspelled in the Initiation Notice. All 
errors were corrected in the Second Initiation Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 18, 2011, the Department selected the two producers/
exporters with the largest export volume during the POR as mandatory 
respondents: HoneyMax and Nexco. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from 
Argentina: Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated March 18, 2011. On 
March 18, 2011, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to 
the two mandatory respondents.
    On April 8, 2011, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 
petitioners timely withdrew their request for review of the following 
companies: (1) Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods Lavalle; (2) Alma 
Pura; (3) Apidouro Comercial Exportadora E Importadora Ltda.; (4) 
Bomare S.A.; (5) HoneyMax; (6) Interrupcion S.A.; (7) Miel Ceta SRL; 
(8) Nexco; (9) Productos Afer S.A.; and (10) Seabird Argentina S.A.
    Also on April 8, 2011, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Nexco 
withdrew its request for review and asked that the Department rescind 
the review in part.
    Accordingly, the Department informed interested parties of its 
intent to rescind the review for the ten companies for which the 
petitioners and Nexco withdrew requests for review. In addition, in 
place of Nexco and HoneyMax, the Department selected two new producers/
exporters with the largest export volume during the POR as mandatory 
respondents, CIPSA and TransHoney. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from 
Argentina: Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated May 9, 2011.
    On May 11, 2011, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to CIPSA and TransHoney. The Department extended the time 
limits for the preliminary results of this review and rescinded the 
review for the ten companies mentioned above on September 7, 2011. See 
Honey From Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 55349 (September 7, 2011).

CIPSA

    On June 15, 2011, CIPSA filed its response to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire (CIPSA AQR). On June 29, 2011, CIPSA filed 
its response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire 
(CIPSA BQR and CIPSA CQR). On July 28, 2011, and October 3, 2011, the 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CIPSA. CIPSA filed 
responses to the supplemental questionnaires on August 18, 2011 (CIPSA 
1SQR) and October 17, 2011.

TransHoney

    On June 23, 2011, TransHoney filed its response to the Department's 
section A questionnaire (TransHoney AQR). On June 29, 2011, TransHoney 
filed its response to sections B and C of the Department's 
questionnaire (TransHoney BQR and TransHoney CQR). On August 1, 2011, 
and September 22, 2011, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to TransHoney. TransHoney filed responses to the 
supplemental questionnaires on August 22, 2011, September 1, 2011 
(TransHoney 1SQR) and October 6, 2011.

[[Page 1460]]

Period of Review

    The POR is December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010.

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.

Rescission, in Part, of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j), the Secretary may, after consulting 
with the exporter or producer, rescind in whole or in part a review in 
progress under this subpart if a separate review (or a request for a 
review) under Sec.  351.213 (administrative review), Sec.  351.214 (new 
shipper review), Sec.  351.215 (expedited antidumping review), or Sec.  
351.216 (changed circumstances review) covers merchandise of an 
exporter or producer subject to a review (or to a request for a review) 
under this section. On November 30, 2011, the Department published the 
final results of a new shipper review of this antidumping duty order 
covering exports of Villamora S.A. for the period December 1, 2009, 
through November 30, 2010, the same time period as this POR. See Honey 
From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 
76 FR 74044 (November 30, 2011). After consulting with Villamora S.A., 
the Department is rescinding, in part, the antidumping duty 
administrative review on honey from Argentina for the period December 
1, 2009 to November 30, 2010, with respect to Villamora S.A. See 
Memorandum to the File: 2009/2010 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Telephone Conversation 
with Counsel for Villamora S.A. (Villamora), dated December 6, 2011.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (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 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 importer/distributors or importer/packers at the same LOT. 
See CIPSA AQR at A-9 to A-13 and Exhibit A.3, CIPSA BQR at B-19, CIPSA 
CQR at C-16, and CIPSA 1SQR at 8-9, 17-18. 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-10 to A-15 and Exhibit A.3, 
TransHoney BQR at B-18, TransHoney CQR at C-16, and TransHoney 1SQR at 
16 and Exhibit A.14.
    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). TransHoney and CIPSA reported a single LOT for all U.S. 
and third-country sales. CIPSA and TransHoney claimed that their 
selling activities in both markets are essentially identical, and 
nothing on the record appears to suggest otherwise. Therefore, for 
TransHoney and CIPSA, we preliminarily determine that all reported 
sales are made at the same LOT, and have not made a LOT adjustment.

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 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. CIPSA 
asserts that changes in ordered terms have occurred in the past and its 
customers know they can request changes to an order prior to shipment. 
See CIPSA 1SQR at 10. As in past segments of this proceeding, we 
preliminarily 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

[[Page 1461]]

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.
    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. TransHoney states that changes to the 
essential terms of sale can occur between the order date and invoice 
date, which is coincident with the date of actual shipment. See 
TransHoney AQR at A-17, and TransHoney 1SQR at 26-27. Consequently, we 
preliminarily find that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale 
with respect to TransHoney's and its affiliated entity's \4\ sales in 
the U.S. and comparison markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Affiliation'' 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) of 
the Act. For purposes of this administrative review, CIPSA 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

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 CIPSA's 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. CIPSA's volume of home 
market sales did not exceed five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales; TransHoney had no home market sales during the POR. As a 
result, we preliminarily find that neither CIPSA's nor TransHoney's 
home markets provide a viable basis for calculating NV.
    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 and CIPSA both reported 
Italy as their third-country markets during the POR.
    The record shows the aggregate quantities of TransHoney's and its 
affiliate \5\ Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof)'s, as well as CIPSA's, sales 
to Italy are greater than five percent of TransHoney's and CIPSA'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 Italy are not representative. See TransHoney AQR at Exhibit 
A.1 and CIPSA AQR at Exhibit A.1. Nor is there evidence that any other 
third-country market to which TransHoney or CIPSA sells would offer 
greater similarity of product to that sold to the United States. 
Further, we find there is no particular market situation in Italy with 
respect to TransHoney or Einsof or CIPSA that would prevent a proper 
comparison to EP. As a result, we preliminarily find TransHoney's and 
its affiliate's, along with CIPSA's, sales to Italy serve as the most 
appropriate basis for NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Affiliation'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, NV for both 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.

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 in the immediately preceding administrative review 
of this order, 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 the File, ``2009/2010 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Analysis of the 
Relationship Between TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney) and Einsof Trade S.A. 
(Einsof),'' dated January 3, 2012. The memorandum includes the 
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), which has 
been placed on the record of this review, as well as a discussion of 
any differences between the previous review and this one with respect 
to affiliation issues concerning TransHoney and Einsof.
    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 Affiliation Memorandum; see, e.g., 
Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

[[Page 1462]]

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 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 id. at 1342.
    During the 2008-2009 administrative review, the Department 
determined that TransHoney and Einsof should be treated as a single 
entity. After reviewing information on the record, the Department 
preliminarily determines that the fact pattern in this POR is 
substantially similar to the fact pattern in the 2008-2009 review of 
the order covering these companies. 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.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

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 
made further deductions to price for certain movement expenses (offset 
for reported freight revenue), where appropriate, pursuant to section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See Analysis of Data Submitted by 
Compa[ntilde][iacute]a Inversora Platense S.A. (CIPSA) for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Honey from Argentina, dated January 3, 2012.

TransHoney

    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 (i.e., 
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 disregarded certain claimed commissions and insurance expenses. 
See Analysis of Data Submitted by TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney) for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Honey from Argentina, dated January 3, 2012.

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 exist for the period December 1, 2009, 
through November 30, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                        Exporter                              margin
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compania Inversora Platense S.A.........................            0.00
TransHoney S.A. and Einsof Trade S.A....................            0.00
AGLH S.A................................................            0.77
Algodonera Avellaneda S.A...............................            0.77
Compa[ntilde][iacute]a Apicola Argentina S.A ...........            0.77
El Mana S.A.............................................            0.77
Industrial Haedo S.A....................................            0.77
Mielar S.A..............................................            0.77
Patagonik S.A...........................................        \1\ 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (de minimis).

    We have preliminarily assigned to six of the seven non-selected 
companies subject to this review listed above the rate of 0.77 percent, 
which was calculated in the Department's 2006-2007 administrative 
review of Patagonik S.A.; the most recent above de minimis rate from a 
completed segment of this proceeding. See Honey from Argentina: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination to 
Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 32107 (July 7, 2009). In instances where 
the selected respondent companies have rates of zero, the Department's 
normal practice is to assign to the non-selected companies the most 
recent calculated rate from a prior completed segment of the proceeding 
that is not zero or de minimis, and not based entirely on facts 
available (or average of such rates). See, e.g., Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent To 
Revoke Order in Part, 76 FR 40329, 40332 (July 8, 2011) (unchanged in 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation 
of an Order in Part, 76 FR 69702 (November 9, 2011)). Also consistent 
with our practice, if any non-selected companies have their own 
calculated (non-adverse facts available) rate that is contemporaneous 
with or more recent than this rate, then the companies will receive 
that rate. Thus, we have preliminarily assigned to Patagonik S.A. its 
current de minimis rate of 0.27 percent, which was calculated in the 
2008-2009 administrative review of the order. See Honey From Argentina: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 29192 
(May 20, 2011).
    Following these preliminary results, we intend to request from all 
non-selected companies certain information regarding sales of honey 
made to the United States during the POR to

[[Page 1463]]

determine the appropriateness of our preliminary margin assignments for 
these companies. We will invite parties to consider any such 
information in their comments for purposes of our final results of this 
review.

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 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

    To calculate the cash deposit rates for TransHoney and CIPSA, we 
divided their total dumping margins by the total net value of each of 
their sales during the review period. For the companies which were not 
selected for individual review, we have calculated a cash deposit rate 
based on the simple average of the rates determined for TransHoney and 
CIPSA for the period December 1, 2009, through November 31, 2010.
    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 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 3, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-234 Filed 1-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P