[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1351-1356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-463]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-489-805]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Pasta From 
Turkey

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann or Michelle Frederick, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-5288 or (202) 482-0186, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA).

Preliminary Determination

    We determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that certain pasta (pasta) from Turkey is being, or is likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 
in section 733(b) of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV 
are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. 

[[Page 1352]]


Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on June 1, 1995 (60 FR 
30268, June 8, 1995), the following events have occurred:
    On June 26, 1995, the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination in this 
case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-734).
    On July 10, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
determined that, due to limited resources, we would only be able to 
analyze the responses of the two largest exporters of pasta to the 
United States. The following two companies were named as mandatory 
respondents in this investigation: Filiz Gida Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. 
(Filiz) and Maktas Makarnacilik ve Ticaret A.S. (Maktas). For a further 
discussion, see the ``Mandatory and Voluntary Respondent Selection'' 
section of this notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.42(b), we issued 
antidumping duty questionnaires concerning Sections A, B, C, and D of 
the questionnaire to the two mandatory respondents on July 12, 1995. 
Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning 
the company's corporate structure and business practices, the 
merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the sales of that 
merchandise in all markets. Sections B and C of the questionnaire 
request home market sales listings and U.S. sales listings. Section D 
of the questionnaire requests information regarding the cost of 
production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the 
merchandise under investigation.
    The respondents submitted questionnaire responses in August and 
September, 1995. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires in 
September and October, 1995. Responses to these questionnaires were 
received in October and November, 1995.
    On August 25, 1995, the Department determined this investigation to 
be extraordinarily complicated due to the complexity of the 
transactions and novel issues presented as a result of this 
investigation being one of the first cases conducted since the 
implementation of the URAA. Consequently, the Department postponed the 
preliminary determination until no later than December 8, 1995 (60 FR 
45154, August 30, 1995) (extended six additional calendar days to 
December 14, 1995 because of the federal government shutdown).
    On October 11, 1995, the petitioners submitted a letter requesting 
that the Department treat Maktas and certain of its customers as 
affiliated parties pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. The 
Department has determined, for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination, that there is no information on record to support the 
petitioners' claim that Maktas and certain of its customers should be 
treated as affiliated parties (see Concurrence Memorandum dated 
December 14, 1995).

Mandatory Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c) of the Act states that the Department shall 
calculate an individual dumping margin for each known exporter or 
producer of the subject merchandise, except where this approach is not 
practicable due to the large number of exporters or producers. Under 
this exception, the Department may limit its examination to: (1) A 
sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is 
statistically valid based on the information available at the time of 
selection; or (2) exporters or producers accounting for the largest 
volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can 
be reasonably examined. Section 353.44(b)(1) of the Department's 
regulations states that the Department will normally examine not less 
than 60% of the volume or value of sales, while section 353.59(b)(1) 
provides for sampling when a significant volume of sales is involved.
    The petitions filed against pasta from Italy and Turkey, listed 73 
Italian companies and 15 Turkish companies as possible producers or 
exporters of pasta to the United States. Other information available to 
the Department indicated an equally large number of producers or 
exporters. Since, at the time of respondent selection, there was 
insufficient information on the record to employ statistically valid 
sampling techniques, the Department focused its selection on the 
producers and exporters accounting for the largest volume of exports to 
the United States (see Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made 
Fiber from Taiwan (58 FR 34585, (August 23, 1990)) and Fresh Cut Roses 
from Colombia and Ecuador. (60 FR 13958, (March 15, 1995)). Based on 
the administrative resources available to the Department and the 
anticipated inclusion of many complex issues related to new provisions 
of the Act, it was determined that the maximum total number of 
companies that could be handled in the parallel pasta investigations 
was ten. In a subsequent analysis of the volume of exports of 
individual companies from Italy and Turkey, it was determined that 
investigating ten companies would allow the Department to investigate 
45 percent of the volume of exports from each country. In Italy, 45 
percent was attained with the eight largest companies, while in Turkey 
45 percent was attained with the two largest companies. A complete 
analysis of the respondent selection process is contained in a July 7, 
1995, decision memorandum from Gary Taverman to Barbara Stafford.

Voluntary Respondents

    Section 782(a) of the Act states that individual rates shall be 
calculated for firms which voluntarily provide information, except 
where the number for all such respondents is so large that the 
calculation of individual dumping margins for all such respondents 
would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the timely completion of 
the investigation. Based on the same reasoning that led the Department 
to limit the number of respondents in the investigations to ten 
companies (i.e. the large number of companies and administrative 
resource constraints), the Department determined that no voluntary 
respondents could be accepted unless one of the mandatory respondents 
did not participate. (See the July 7, 1995, decision memorandum from 
Gary Taverman to Barbara Stafford.) Potential voluntary respondents 
were provided with specific written guidance on the Department's 
criteria for including a voluntary respondent in the investigation. 
Ultimately, no voluntary respondent attempted to fulfill the 
Department's criteria for consideration.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on December 11, 1995, 
the respondents requested that, in the event of an affirmative 
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department 
postpone its final determination until 135 days after the publication 
of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal Register. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), because our preliminary determination 
is affirmative, the respondents account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, and no compelling reasons for 
denial exist, we are granting respondents' request and postponing the 
final determination.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation consists of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds (or 2.27 kilograms) or less, whether 
or not enriched or fortified or containing milk 

[[Page 1353]]
or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable 
purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and 
up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is 
typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons 
or polyethylene or polypropylene bags, of varying dimensions.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are refrigerated, 
frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the 
exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.
    The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under 
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Scope Issues

    (1) On August 24, 1995, the petitioners requested that we expand 
the scope to cover all imports of non-egg dry pasta for the retail and 
the food service markets. We have determined that the scope should not 
be expanded. For a discussion of this decision, see Preliminary 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from 
Turkey (60 FR 53747, October 17, 1995) and Memorandum to Susan G. 
Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration dated October 
10, 1995.
    (2) On October 2, 1995, a U.S. importer of Italian pasta requested 
that the Department exclude ``organic pasta'' from the scope of the 
companion antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of certain 
pasta from Italy. If a similar request is made for Turkey, the 
Department will address it as stated in the Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is May 1, 1994, through April 30, 
1995.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold in the home market, fitting the description specified in 
the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above, to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
home 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 listed in Appendix III of the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire.

Targeted Dumping

    On October 20, 1995, the petitioners requested that, for all 
respondents, the Department compare the transaction specific export 
prices in the United States market to weighted-average normal values, 
in accordance with the ``targeted dumping'' provisions of section 
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The petitioners' allegation rested on an 
analysis of average retail prices of selected brands of pasta, rather 
than on the export or constructed export prices of the respondents 
which were already on the record in the investigation and thus 
available to the petitioners. This request was denied by the Department 
on November 8, 1995, on the grounds that the allegation did not meet 
the requirements of section 777(A)(d)(1)(B) because it was not: (1) 
Based on exporter specific prices; (2) exporter specific; and (3) based 
on examination of ``comparable'' merchandise. See Memorandum from the 
Pasta Team to Barbara R. Stafford dated November 8, 1995.

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department 
will calculate normal values based on sales at the same level of trade 
as the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the 
Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at a 
different level of trade.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at 
different levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the 
normal value to account for differences in levels of trade if two 
conditions are met. First, there must be differences between the 
selling functions performed by the seller at the different levels of 
trade. Second, the differences must affect price comparability as 
evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at 
different levels of trade in the market in which normal value is 
determined. When constructed export price is applicable, section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the procedures for making a 
constructed export price offset when: (1) Normal value is at a 
different level of trade, and (2) the data available do not provide an 
appropriate basis for a level of trade adjustment.
    In order to identify levels of trade, the Department must review 
information concerning selling functions of the exporter. In addition, 
a respondent seeking to establish a level of trade adjustment must 
demonstrate the appropriateness of such an adjustment. Therefore, in 
addition to the questions related to the level of trade in our July 12, 
1995, questionnaire, on October 23, 1995, we sent each respondent 
supplemental questions related to level of trade comparisons and 
adjustments. We asked each respondent to establish any claimed levels 
of trade based on selling functions performed and services offered to 
each customer or customer class, and to document and explain any claims 
for a level of trade adjustment.
    Upon review of each respondent's submissions on level of trade, and 
other related information on the record, we identified one or both of 
the following difficulties: (1) Not all of the selling functions 
performed were identified; (2) although certain selling functions were 
assigned to specific groups of customers, not all customers in some 
identified groups were provided the service.
    In light of these concerns, we reviewed each response to identify 
all types of selling functions, both claimed and unclaimed, that had 
been provided. We subsequently consolidated the selling functions into 
four broad categories related to the sale of pasta: (1) Freight and 
delivery services; (2) advertising; (3) maintaining finished goods 
inventories to fill customer orders; and (4) other service programs 
(primarily handling rebate and warranty claims). We then analyzed each 
respondent's submissions to determine which selling function categories 
applied to each pasta sale made in the U.S. and Turkish market. We did 
this based on both the selling expenses reported for that transaction 
and the respondent's narrative descriptions. Finally, we created a 
computer program that assessed, on a transaction specific basis, 
whether or not services corresponding to the four selling function 
categories were provided.
    To the extent practicable, we compared normal value at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sale (as indicated by the level of trade 
codes established in the computer program). Where comparisons at the 
same level of trade were not possible, we attempted a comparison at the 
next most comparable level of trade. Any remaining unmatched U.S. sales 
were compared to sales in the comparison market without regard to level 
of trade.
    Both Turkish respondents, Maktas and Filiz claimed a level of trade 


[[Page 1354]]
adjustment for comparisons between different levels of trade. However, 
these level of trade adjustments were not allowed because none of the 
claimed adjustments were based on price differences between the two 
levels of trade.
    The level of trade methodology employed by the Department in this 
preliminary determination is based on the facts particular to this 
investigation. As stated above, there is a new emphasis on function of 
the seller in determining level of trade, as well as new conditions for 
a level of trade comparison or adjustment. The Department intends, 
where appropriate, to request additional information prior to 
verification for its continuing analysis of this issue. The Department 
will continue to examine its policy for making level of trade 
comparisons and adjustments.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of pasta by the two Turkish respondents 
to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the 
Export Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV), as described in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i), we calculated weighted-
average EPs for comparisons to weighted-average NVs.
    Turkey experienced an inflation rate of over 75 percent during the 
POI, as measured by the wholesale price index published in 
International Financial Statistics. In past cases, we have found 
economies with annual inflation rates of over 50 percent to be 
hyperinflationary. (See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 59 FR 732, January 6, 1994.) 
We determined, therefore, that Turkey's economy was hyperinflationary 
during the POI. Accordingly, to avoid the distortions caused by the 
effects of hyperinflation on prices, we calculated EPs and NVs on a 
monthly average basis, rather than on a POI average basis.

Export Price

    For both Filiz and Maktas we calculated EP in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation and Constructed Export Price (CEP) methodology was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of this investigation.
    For Maktas, we based EP on packed, FOB Turkish port prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate, for foreign 
brokerage and handling and foreign inland freight. For Filiz we based 
EP on packed, FOB Turkish port and C&F prices charged to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, 
for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, foreign 
inland insurance, and ocean freight.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since 
each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home 
market was viable for each respondent. Maktas reported one sale made 
during the POI to an affiliated party. Since this sale accounted for an 
insignificant portion of the total POI home market sales, we excluded 
this sale from our analysis. We calculated NV as noted in the ``Price 
to Price Comparisons'' and ``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this 
notice.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the allegation contained in the petition, the Department 
found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in the home 
market were made at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. 
As a result, the Department initiated investigations to determine 
whether the respondents made home market sales during the POI at prices 
below their respective cost of production (COP) within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act. (See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Pasta from Italy and Turkey.)
A. Calculation of COP
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) 
and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. As 
noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy was 
hyperinflationary during the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid the 
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, 
we requested that respondents submit monthly COP figures based on the 
current production costs incurred during each month of the POI. We 
relied on the respondents' COP amounts except in the following specific 
instances wherein the reported costs were improperly valued:
    Maktas. (1) Maktas excluded amounts reported as ``extraordinary'' 
expenses on its financial statements from its reported COP and 
constructed value (CV) figures. These expenses were comprised of annual 
plant cleaning costs as well as other amounts, the nature of which the 
company did not disclose in its response to our July 12, 1995 
questionnaire. We typically consider costs associated with normal plant 
and equipment maintenance to be part of the cost of manufacturing (COM) 
and have therefore included these expenses in our calculation of COP.
    (2) Maktas reduced its reported interest expense by amounts 
received in connection with foreign exchange gains. The company did not 
respond to our October 13, 1995 request for additional information 
regarding the nature of these gains. We therefore excluded Maktas' 
reported foreign exchange gains from the company's net interest expense 
calculation.
    Filiz. (1) Filiz calculated its net interest expense using amounts 
from its unconsolidated financial statements. Since the Department's 
normal practice is to calculate interest expense on a consolidated 
basis, we adjusted the company's reported net interest expense to 
include the interest expense incurred by Filiz's parent company.
    (2) Filiz reduced its reported interest expense by amounts received 
in connection with foreign exchange gains. However, because Filiz 
sourced its production inputs domestically during the POI, and since 
the company did not disclose the nature of these amounts, we concluded 
that the foreign exchange gains related to sales of merchandise by the 
company rather than to its purchases of inputs for pasta production. We 
therefore excluded Filiz's reported foreign exchange gains from the 
company's net interest expense calculation.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    We used the respondents' adjusted monthly COP amounts and the 
wholesale price index from the government of Turkey's State Institute 
of Statistics to compute an annual weighted average COP for the POI. We 
compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the 
foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in 
order to determine whether these sales had been 

[[Page 1355]]
made at prices below COP. On a product specific basis, we compared the 
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c) where less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded only the 
below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made within an 
extended period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the 
Act) and at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act). For each respondent, where all sales of a 
specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales 
of that product, and calculated NV based on CV, in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain pasta products, more than 20 percent of 
each respondent's home market sales were sold at below COP within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities. Further we did not 
find that the prices for these sales provided for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis 
of determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). For those 
pasta products for which there were no above-cost sales in the ordinary 
course of trade, we compared export prices to CV.
D. Calculation of CV
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A and U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales databases. In 
accordance with sections 773(e)(2)(A) we based SG&A and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. We calculated each 
respondent's CV based on the methodology described in the calculation 
of COP above. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home 
market selling expenses.

Price to Price Comparisons

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on home market prices. For Maktas, we 
calculated NV based on ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers and made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting 
price for inland freight, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. For 
Filiz, we calculated NV based on CIF prices to unaffiliated customers 
and made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for 
inland freight, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. In accordance 
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs for both respondents. In addition, 
for both respondents, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances 
of sale, in accordance with section 773 (a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. 
These circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses and 
advertising expenses. For both Filiz and Maktas, we recalculated credit 
expenses by deducting reported discounts from the gross unit price.

Price to CV Comparisons

    Where, for Filiz, we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from 
CV the weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added 
the weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for the Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made 
currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow 
Jones Service, as published in the Wall Street Journal.
    Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate 
in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the 
daily rate involves a ``fluctuation''. For this preliminary 
determination, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the 
daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The 
benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the 
past 40 business days. When we determined that a fluctuation existed, 
we substituted the benchmark rate for the daily rate.
    Further, section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60 day 
adjustment period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement. 
Such an adjustment period is required only when the foreign currency is 
appreciating against the U.S. dollar. No adjustment period is warranted 
in this case, because the Turkish Lira generally remained constant or 
depreciated against the dollar during the POI.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain pasta 
from Turkey, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Normally, we would instruct the U.S. Customs Service 
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the export 
price, as indicated in the chart below. However, the product under 
investigation is also subject to concurrent countervailing duty 
investigation. Article VI.5 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade (GATT) provides that ``[n]o product * * * shall be subject to 
both antidumping and countervailing duties to compensate for the same 
situation of dumping or export subsidization.'' This provision is 
implemented by section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Since antidumping 
duties cannot be assessed on the portion of the margin attributable to 
export subsides, there is no reason to require a cash deposit or bond 
for that amount. The Department has determined, in its Preliminary 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from 
Turkey, that the product under investigation benefitted from export 
subsidies. To obtain the most accurate estimate of antidumping duties, 
and to fulfill our international obligations arising under the GATT, we 
are subtracting for deposit purposes the cash deposit rate attributable 
to the export subsidies found in the countervailing duty investigation 
(14.72 percent and 19.80 percent for Filiz and Maktas, respectively) 
from the antidumping bonding rate for Maktas and Filiz. We are also 
subtracting from the ``All Others'' rate the cash deposit rate 
attributable to the export subsidies included in the countervailing 
duty investigation for All Others. In keeping with Article of 17.4 of 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the 

[[Page 1356]]
Department will terminate the suspension of liquidation in the 
companion countervailing duty investigation of Certain Pasta From 
Turkey, effective February 14, 1995, which is 120 days after the date 
of publication of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, on 
February 14, 1996, the antidumping deposit rate will revert to the full 
amount calculated in this preliminary determination. These suspension 
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Weighted-              
                                                  average      Bonding  
             Exporter/manufacturer                 margin     percentage
                                                 percentage             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filiz.........................................        10.44         0.00
Maktas........................................        18.80         0.00
All Others....................................        15.61         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than April 2, 1996, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than April 5, 1996. A list of authorities 
used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. Such summary should be limited to five 
pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we 
will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal 
briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on April 9, 1996, time 
and place to be determined, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 
hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by 135 days 
after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act.

    Dated: December 14, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-463 Filed 1-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P