Preliminary Antidumping Findings

The Federal Register notice dated September 14, 2026 announces that the U.S. Department of Commerce has preliminarily determined that Melbras Importadora E Exportadora Agroindústria Ltda. (Melbras) and Minamel Agroindústria Ltda. (Minamel) sold raw honey from Brazil at less than normal value during the review period of June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025 [1]. The same notice also states that the administrative review is being rescinded with respect to eleven other companies, meaning those firms will not face antidumping duties for the same period [1]. Interested parties are invited to submit comments on these preliminary results, a standard step before a final determination is issued [1]. The notice therefore serves both as a formal finding against the two exporters and as a procedural invitation for stakeholder input.

Understanding the notice requires familiarity with the antidumping framework that governs U.S. trade remedies. Under the Tariff Act, Commerce conducts periodic reviews to compare export prices with a constructed “normal value” based on comparable domestic sales; a finding of sales below that threshold triggers provisional duties. The period of review (POR) specified—June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025—defines the window of transactions examined for price distortion [1]. By rescinding the review for eleven companies, Commerce signals that the evidence did not meet the statutory threshold for a preliminary adverse finding against those exporters. The comment period that follows offers parties a chance to challenge calculations, submit new data, or argue procedural issues before the final results are published.

Strategic Logic Behind Review

The preliminary determination against Melbras and Minamel reflects a strategic use of antidumping law to counter perceived unfair pricing by foreign honey exporters. By labeling the sales as “less than normal value,” Commerce signals that imported honey is undercutting U.S. producers, potentially harming domestic market share and price stability. The decision to proceed only against two firms while dropping eleven others suggests a targeted approach: the agency appears to focus enforcement resources where the price gap is most pronounced, avoiding blanket penalties that could strain broader trade relations.

Rescinding the review for the eleven companies also conveys a message to the industry about evidentiary standards. It indicates that, without clear proof of dumping, Commerce will not impose duties, thereby preserving market access for firms that can demonstrate compliance with normal‑value calculations. This selective enforcement may encourage competitors to improve pricing transparency and documentation, aligning their practices with U.S. trade rules while limiting unnecessary friction with Brazil’s broader export sector.

Regional and Policy Implications

For Brazil, the preliminary finding against Melbras and Minamel could translate into provisional antidumping duties once the final determination is issued, raising the landed cost of Brazilian raw honey in the United States. Such duties may depress demand for Brazilian honey, prompting the exporters to adjust pricing, seek alternative markets, or appeal the finding during the comment period. The broader impact on Brazil‑U.S. trade relations remains limited, however, because the notice explicitly spares eleven other Brazilian firms, preserving a sizable portion of Brazil’s honey export pipeline.

Within U.S. trade policy, the action reinforces the administration’s commitment to enforcing existing antidumping statutes as a tool to protect domestic agriculture. By acting swiftly on preliminary data, Commerce demonstrates that the review process can produce timely outcomes, which may deter future dumping behavior. At the same time, the selective rescission underscores a calibrated use of trade remedies, balancing enforcement with the desire to avoid unnecessary escalation in bilateral economic ties.

Unresolved Issues and Future Steps

The notice leaves several questions open pending the final results. First, the exact duty rates that may be imposed on Melbras and Minamel remain undetermined; they will depend on the final calculation of the dumping margin after comments are reviewed. Second, the comment period provides a procedural avenue for the two firms, U.S. honey producers, and other stakeholders to challenge the methodology, present new pricing data, or argue that the normal‑value benchmark is inappropriate. The outcome of those submissions will shape the final duty assessment.

A shift in the record—such as a successful petition by the exporters to overturn the preliminary finding or a substantive amendment to the normal‑value analysis—would signal a change in the trajectory of U.S. honey trade policy. Conversely, a final determination that confirms the preliminary result and imposes duties would cement the current enforcement stance and likely prompt Brazilian exporters to reassess pricing strategies for the U.S. market. Monitoring the final notice and any subsequent diplomatic dialogue will be essential to gauge the longer‑term impact on bilateral trade and on the broader use of antidumping measures in the administration’s trade portfolio.