2011-31442. Honey From Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the preliminary results of this administrative review to no later than December 15, 2011.

DATES:

Effective Date: December 7, 2011.

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 Avenue NW., Room 7850, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: [phone], or [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 28, 2011, the Department initiated a review of the 20 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).^[1]

On September 7, 2011, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results until December 1, 2011, and rescinded the administrative review with respect to ten companies: (1) Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods Lavalle, (2) Alma Pura, (3) Apidouro Comercial Exportadora E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. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55349 (September 7, 2011). This review covers the following companies: TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney), Compañía Inversora Platense S.A. (CIPSA), AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A.,.Compania Apicola Argentina S.A., El Mana S.A., Industrial Haedo S.A., Mielar S.A., Patagonik S.A., and Villamora S.A. We selected TransHoney and CIPSA for individual examination. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Respondent Selection Memorandum,” dated May 9, 2011.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested.

The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit due to the selection of two new mandatory respondents for this review after the requests for review for the original respondents were withdrawn. The Department requires additional time to analyze sufficiently information submitted by the current respondents in this administrative review. Accordingly, the Department is further extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review by 14 days (i.e., to December 15, 2011).

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations and sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 1, 2011

Christian Marsh,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.

Footnotes

1.  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). In the review request for Nexco S.A. (Nexco), it 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 same Initiation Notice. All errors were corrected in the Second Initiation Notice.