Argentine Beekeepers' Magazine

(Espacio Apícola, August 7th, 2021) The accusation, by the American Honey Producers Assn. and the Sioux Honey Assn. (petitioners), occurs within the framework of the investigation carried out by the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) against honey imported from Argentina, Brazil, India, Ukraine and Vietnam.

The term of the investigation for alleged dumping promoted by those two US associations is averaging and for which a Preliminary Determination was initially expected towards the end of September.

The two Brazilian companies, Apiarios Diamante and Melbras, have already submitted 4 of the five sections of the questionnaire and petitioners have requested an extension of the deadline to read and comment on them.

The same is the case with the Indian companies, Allied Natural Product and Ambrosia Natural Products, which also submitted sections A, B, C and D, with only section E missing. The petitioners have already asked Allied to submit more information and supporting documentation regarding the sections presented and their reaction to Ambrosia presentations is awaited.

For various reasons, the submissions from Argentina, Ukraine and Vietnam are more delayed.

The petitioners filed claims regarding deficiencies in responses to section A of the questionnaire by the Vietnamese companies "Daklak Honeybee Joint Stock Company" and "Ban Me Thout Honey Joint Stock Company". In addition to translation difficulties, there are doubts regarding how they handle the VAT on all beekeeping supplies imported to Vietnam from China and whether or not this VAT is refunded when the honey is exported. The companies have requested an extension of the deadlines to respond to these claims and so on with the other sections.

Regarding Argentina, the Asociación de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA) responded to the first section of the questionaire on last July 9th and NEXCO SA, which was convened after the refusal of Industrial Haedo and CIPSA, did the same on July 23th. These companies opened two central discussions, one noting that the honey exported to the United States is not "raw honey", as just taked from a honey extractor, but is honey conditioned according to the buyer's requirements, so that the companies they are not "producers", but rather clients of midmans or large producers, their costs being: the honey they buy and then all the processes until export. They also proposed to compare prices with other reference markets and this strategy was also joined by Sodrujestvo (photo: Sodrujestvo booth at Apimondia 2013 Fair in Kiev), the only company in Ukraine that is being investigated after the defection of three other companies whose bases are in Poland and Turkey.
The petitioners' attorneys has had intellectual dishonesty attitudes from the beginning foreign to the fame of the midwesteners they represent. As we analyze in Espacio Apícola 132 (https://espacioapicola.com.ar/espacio-apicola-132/) they have manipulated the graphs before the audience on May 12th to exaggerate a non-significant variation on the market shared as if it were a huge damage to American beekeeping. Now, halfway through this investigation, they have reached the height of suggesting that Argentina exports adulterated honey and that the honey market in Germany and Belgium is plagued with fake honey, being that Germany and Argentina are the two countries with the highest leading role in the honey genuineness defense... Beyond these unfounded advances, Dr. Luberda seems to be unaware that the greatest fraud in the history of United States customs was the importation of many thousand of tons of rice syrups from China, which were later sold in the United States as honey, as Ron Phipps published in the American Bee Journal and we incorporated them in our market analysis at https://espacioapicola.com.ar/espacio-apicola-104/