[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42368-42373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-818]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Italy

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping order on certain pasta from Italy. This 
review covers eight producers and/or exporters of the subject 
merchandise. The period of review (``POR'') is January 19, 1996, 
through June 30, 1997.
    We have preliminarily found that, for certain producers and/or 
exporters, sales of the subject merchandise have been made below normal 
value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
this review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties equal to the difference between the export price or constructed 
export price and the normal value.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or John Brinkmann, 
Office 2 AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1777 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (``the 
Department's'') regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR 
Part 351, as published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 
27296).

Case History

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (``pasta'') from Italy (61 
FR 38547). On July 21, 1997, we published in the Federal Register the 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this 
order, for the POR (62 FR 38973).
    The following producers and/or exporters of pasta from Italy 
requested a review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2): (1) Rummo 
S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (``Rummo''); (2) F. lli De Cecco di Filippo 
Fara S. Martino S.p.A. (``De Cecco''); (3) La Molisana Industrie 
Alimentari S.p.A. (``La Molisana''); (4) Delverde Srl (``Delverde''); 
(5) Tamma Industrie Alimentari di Capitanata, SrL (``Tamma''); 
1 (6) Industria Alimentari Colavita S.p.A. (``Indalco''); 
and (7) Petrini, S.p.A. (``Petrini''). Three of these seven companies, 
Petrini, Delverde, and Tamma, later withdrew their requests. See 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review section, 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During the antidumping investigation, the Department 
determined that Delverde and Tamma were affiliated parties within 
the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act and, moreover, that it was 
appropriate to ``collapse'' both companies into a single entity for 
the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 1997, the petitioners requested a review of ten 
producers and/or exporters of pasta from Italy; however, on September 
2, 1997, they withdrew their request for review of all of these 
companies except: (1) Arrighi S.p.A. Industrie Alimentari 
(``Arrighi''); (2) Barilla Alimentari S.R.L.. (``Barilla''); (3) N. 
Puglisi & F. Industria Paste Alimentari S.p.A. (``Puglisi''); (4) La 
Molisana; (5) Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. (``Pagani''); and (6) 
Rummo. See Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
section, below.
    On August 28, 1997, we published the notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review (62 FR 45621) and on September 
4, 1997, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire 
2 to counsel for the companies subject to review. After 
several extensions, the respondents submitted responses to sections A 
through C of the antidumping questionnaire on November 3 and 10, 1997. 
The Department issued its supplemental questionnaires in January, 1998. 
Responses to the supplemental questionnaires were received in March, 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the sales of 
the merchandise in all of its markets. Sections B and C request home 
market sales listings and U.S. sales listings, respectively. Section 
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like 
product and constructed value of the merchandise under 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 1997, World Finer Foods, Inc. (``World Finer 
Foods''), an importer of pasta produced by Arrighi, wrote to the 
Department to indicate that Arrighi had ceased exporting pasta to the 
United States and would not participate in the review. World Finer 
Foods indicated that it did not seek the return of the antidumping duty 
deposits it had already made on imports of Arrighi pasta, but that it 
could not afford additional antidumping duties. An officer of World 
Finer Foods met with Department officials on January 8, 1998, and 
offered to submit information concerning its purchases from Arrighi for 
the Department's examination. This information was submitted on March 
10, 1998. On April 9, 1998, petitioners submitted a response 
indicating, among other things, that they believed the information 
submitted by World Finer Foods was inadequate for calculating an 
antidumping duty margin for Arrighi.

[[Page 42369]]

The Department has examined World Finer Foods' documentation and 
determined that it is not possible, pursuant to the statute, to 
calculate a margin from the information in the submission. Moreover, 
inasmuch as Arrighi refused to participate in the review, the 
Department has assigned an adverse margin to Arrighi. See Use of Facts 
Available section, below.
    On November 21 and 24, 1997, the petitioners alleged that Indalco, 
Rummo, and Puglisi had sold the foreign like product below the cost of 
production (``COP''). On December 24, 1997, we initiated a cost-of-
production investigation with respect to these companies. The three 
companies submitted their responses to section D of the antidumping 
questionnaire in January, 1998.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because the Department had disregarded sales below the cost 
of production during the antidumping investigation of La Molisana 
and had initiated a cost investigation of De Cecco prior to 
assigning the company a margin based on adverse facts available, we 
had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by these 
companies of the foreign like product under consideration for the 
determination of normal value in this review may have been made at 
prices below the cost of production. Therefore, we initiated cost 
investigations of De Cecco and La Molisana at the time we initiated 
the antidumping review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 28, 1998, the Department published a notice postponing 
the preliminary results of this review until July 1, 1998 (63 FR 4218). 
On June 10, 1998, the Department published a notice further postponing 
the preliminary results of this review until no later than July 31, 
1998 (63 FR 31735).

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

    On September 2, 1997, the petitioners withdrew their request for 
reviews of Castelletti S.p.A., Societa Transporti Castelletti, General 
Noli S.p.A., and R. Queirolo & Co., S.p.A. There were no other requests 
for reviews of these companies and, accordingly, we are rescinding the 
review with respect to these companies.
    On October 24, 1997, Petrini withdrew its request for a review. 
Delverde and Tamma withdrew their requests for a review on November 10, 
1997. Because there were no other requests for reviews of Petrini, 
Delverde, and Tamma, and because the companies' letters withdrawing 
their requests for reviews were timely filed, we are rescinding the 
review with respect to these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments 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 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 review 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. Also excluded 
are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the 
appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di 
Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, or by QC&I International Services.
    Furthermore, on August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope 
ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of 
decorative glass, which are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with 
raffia, is excluded from the scope of this proceeding.
    The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under 
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and for customs purposes, our written description of the scope is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales 
information provided by De Cecco. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our 
verification results are outlined in the verification report placed in 
the case file.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act requires the Department to resort to 
facts otherwise available (``facts available'') if necessary 
information is not available on the record or when an interested party 
or any other person ``fails to provide [requested] information by the 
deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner 
requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782.'' As 
provided in section 782(c)(1) of the Act, if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from [the Department] for 
information, notifies [the Department] that such party is unable to 
submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,'' 
the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an 
unreasonable burden on that party. Since Arrighi, Barilla, and Pagani 
did not provide any such notification to the Department, subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) do not apply to this situation. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily find, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, that 
the use of facts available is appropriate for Arrighi, Barilla, and 
Pagani.
    Where the Department must resort to facts available because a 
respondent failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the 
interests of that respondent in selecting from among the facts 
available. Because Arrighi, Barilla, and Pagani failed to cooperate by 
not responding to our antidumping questionnaire and, thus, have not 
acted to the best of their abilities to comply with requests for 
information, we have determined that an adverse inference with respect 
to these companies is warranted.
    Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the antidumping investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the 
extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (``SAA'') provides that ``corroborate'' means 
simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information has probative value. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d 
Cong., 2d sess. 870 (1994).)
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information used. However, in an administrative review, the Department 
will not engage in updating the petition to reflect the prices and 
costs that are found during the current review. Rather, the process of 
corroboration is to determine that the significant elements used to 
derive a margin in a petition are reliable and relevant to the 
conditions upon which the petition is based.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where

[[Page 42370]]

circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
6812 (February 22, 1996). In this instance, we have no reason to 
believe that the application of the highest petition margin, calculated 
based on our revisions to the estimated margins in the petition 
concerning Italian pasta, is inappropriate.4 We note that 
the SAA, at 870, states that ``the fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the agencies from 
applying an adverse inference * * *.'' In addition, the SAA, at 869, 
emphasizes that the Department need not prove that the facts available 
are the best alternative information. We therefore have assigned 
Arrighi, Barilla, and Pagani the highest margin from the petition, 
i.e., 71.49 percent, for purposes of these preliminary results. See, 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Pasta 
from Italy and Turkey, 60 FR 30268, 30269 (June 8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ During the antidumping investigation, we assigned an adverse 
facts available margin of 46.67 percent to De Cecco. As we explained 
in our final determination in the investigation, ``[b]ecause De 
Cecco made some effort to cooperate, even though it did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability, we did not choose the most 
adverse rate based on the petition.'' Final investigation 
determination, 61 FR 30326, 30329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in 
the United States at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared the 
export price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to the NV. 
We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in 
the United States and home markets that were identical with respect to 
the following characteristics: shape; wheat type; additives; and 
enrichment. However, we did not find any appropriate home market sales 
of merchandise that were identical in these respects to the merchandise 
sold in the United States. Accordingly, we compared products sold to 
the United States with the most similar merchandise sold in the home 
market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of 
priority.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We 
calculated EP where the merchandise was sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on our record. We 
calculated CEP where sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser took 
place after importation.
    For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP based on the packed 
FOB, CIF, or delivered price to the first unaffiliated customer in, or 
for exportation to, the United States. We reduced these prices to 
reflect discounts and rebates. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of 
the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign brokerage 
and handling, freight expenses between the factory and the U.S. 
distributor's warehouse, freight insurance, export fees, brokerage and 
handling, U.S. inspection fees, U.S. duties, and U.S. freight.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made deductions 
from CEP, where appropriate, for direct selling expenses (including 
advertising), credit, warranties, and commissions paid to unaffiliated 
distributors. In addition, we deducted those indirect selling expenses 
that related to economic activity in the United States. These included 
inventory carrying costs, certain indirect selling expenses incurred in 
the home market, and the indirect selling expenses of affiliated U.S. 
distributors. Finally, we made adjustments for CEP profit in accordance 
with section 772 (d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
    Where payment dates were not reported, we used average credit 
days--by customer--as a proxy to calculate credit expenses. Where we 
could not establish the average credit days on a per customer basis, we 
used the date of these preliminary results.
    Certain respondents reported the resale of subject merchandise 
purchased in Italy from unaffiliated producers. Where the unaffiliated 
producers of the subject pasta knew at the time of the sale that the 
merchandise was destined for the United States, the relevant basis for 
the export price would be the price between the producer and the 
respondents. In this review, the unaffiliated producers knew or had 
reason to know at the time of sale that the ultimate destination of the 
merchandise was the United States because virtually all enriched pasta 
is sold to the United States. For such transactions, therefore, the 
price between the respondents and their U.S. customers was not used as 
the basis for the export price.
    When respondents purchased pasta from other producers and we were 
able to identify resales of this merchandise to the United States, we 
excluded sales of the purchased pasta from the margin calculation. 
Where the purchased pasta was commingled with the company's production 
and we could not identify the resales, we examined both sales of 
produced pasta and resales of purchased pasta. Inasmuch as the 
percentage of pasta purchased by any single respondent was an 
insignificant part of its U.S. sales data base, we included the sales 
of commingled purchased pasta in our margin calculations. See 
Proprietary Memorandum to the File, dated July 31, 1998.

Company-Specific Issues

La Molisana

    During the POR, La Molisana made EP sales. La Molisana based its 
date of sale on the date of shipment, whether identified by the invoice 
or the bill of lading. Petitioners have alleged that the distribution 
contract between La Molisana and La Pace is a long-term contract. For 
the reasons specified in the Proprietary Memorandum to the File, dated 
July 31, 1998, we have preliminarily determined that the date of sale, 
as reported, is appropriate. (Memoranda prepared for the record in this 
review and cited in this notice are on file in Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit (Room B-099 of the main Commerce building).)

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 its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
because 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 of the subject merchandise, we determined that the 
home market was viable.
    We calculated NV based on FOB, CIF or delivered prices to home 
market customers. We made deductions from the starting price for inland 
freight and inland insurance expenses, 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. In addition, we made 
circumstance of sale adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed 
credit expenses, advertising expenses, and warranty expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    We also made adjustments, when comparing U.S. sales with home 
market

[[Page 42371]]

sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We based this adjustment on the difference 
in the variable costs of manufacturing the foreign like product and 
subject merchandise.
    We also made adjustments where commissions were granted on sales in 
the U.S. market but not in the home market. We made a downward 
adjustment to normal value for the lesser of (1) the amount of the 
commission paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the comparison market.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the results of the antidumping investigation and on the 
timely allegations filed by the petitioners during this review, we 
initiated COP investigations for each of the five respondents 
participating in the review to determine whether sales were made at 
prices below the COP. See Footnote 3, above, and Memoranda from Case 
Analysts to Richard W. Moreland, dated January 12, 1998.
    We conducted the COP analysis as described below.

Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP on a product-specific basis for each respondent, 
based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication of the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, general, 
and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and packing costs. As facts 
available, where a respondent sold both pasta it produced and pasta it 
purchased and these were commingled, we calculated a weight-average COP 
based on the costs of production and the acquisition price of the 
commingled pasta. We relied on each respondent's submitted COP data, 
except in the following instances:

De Cecco

    We valued semolina De Cecco purchased from its affiliated producer, 
Molino, by applying the higher of transfer price, market price, or the 
cost to the affiliated entity to produce the input. We invite 
interested parties to comment on whether the Department should apply 
the major input rule (see 19 CFR 351.407(b)) for the valuation of these 
purchases of semolina in the final results of this review.

Indalco

    We revised the G&A expense applied to handmade pasta produced by 
Indalco's affiliated supplier. The revision results from a correction 
to the affiliated company's cost of sales. See, Memorandum to the File, 
dated July 31, 1998.

La Molisana

    We revised the company's reported interest expense rate to include 
foreign exchange losses in the calculation of the rate. We also revised 
the company's reported cost of manufacture, G&A and interest expenses 
to reflect a single weighted average cost for each product produced. 
See Memorandum to Christian Marsh from Taija Slaughter, dated July 31, 
1998. For the pasta types that La Molisana both purchased and produced, 
we calculated a weighted-average cost.

Puglisi

    We revised Puglisi's reported G&A expense rate based on our 
exclusion of certain non-production related offsets. See Memorandum to 
Christian Marsh from Stan T. Bowen, dated July 15, 1998.

Rummo

    For the pasta types that the respondent both purchased and 
produced, we calculated a weighted-average cost.

Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP for each respondent to the comparison market sales 
of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time and in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On 
a product-specific basis, we compared the COP (less selling expenses) 
to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, taxes, 
rebates, commissions and other direct and indirect selling expenses.

Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of 
a respondent's sales of a given product were made 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 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and disregarded the below-cost sales 
from our analysis. We used the remaining sales in our margin analysis, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1).

General Price-to-Price Comparison Issues

    We excluded sales of pasta from the respondents to their employees 
from the home market sales because the volumes of these sales were 
small and the companies' records of these sales were difficult to 
access for the detailed information we requested. Where possible, we 
also excluded pasta purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated 
producers and resold in the home market. However, where the purchased 
pasta was commingled with the respondent's production and we could not 
identify the resales, we examined both sales of the produced pasta and 
resales of the purchased pasta in the home market. Inasmuch as the 
percentage of pasta purchased by any single respondent was an 
insignificant part of its home market data base, we included the sales 
of the commingled pasta in our calculation of NV.

Company-Specific Issues

De Cecco

    At verification, De Cecco disclosed that it had mistakenly included 
sales made to a third country in its home market data base. We 
corrected the data base by removing these sales.

Indalco

    We disallowed the flat-fee commission expense claimed for one sales 
agent because the expense was based on a flat fee that was not directly 
linked to reported sales of pasta. We removed the reported amount from 
commission expenses and added it to the company's indirect expenses.

La Molisana

    We treated reported warranty expenses as indirect selling expenses 
rather than as direct selling expenses.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). To 
the extent practicable, when there were no sales at the same level of 
trade, we compared U.S. sales to home market sales at a different level 
of trade.
    To determine whether home market and U.S. sales were at different 
levels of

[[Page 42372]]

trade, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customers. If the home market sales were at a different 
level of trade and the differences affected price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and sales at the level of trade of the 
export transaction, we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level was more remote from the 
factory than the CEP level and there was no basis for determining 
whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP affected price 
comparability, we granted a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination Of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997). For a company-specific 
description of our level-of-trade analysis for these preliminary 
results, See Level-of-Trade Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, July 31, 
1998.

Company-Specific Product Comparison Issues

De Cecco

    During our verification of De Cecco's sales response, we found 
sales of vitamin-enriched pasta in the home market for three different 
pasta types sold in the United States. Vitamin enrichment is very rare 
and an unusual characteristic for pasta produced for consumption in 
Italy. Home market sales of such pasta were so small as to be 
insignificant. On this basis, we have determined that these sales of 
vitamin-enriched pasta are outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' as 
that term is used in 19 CFR 351.102. Therefore, we deleted these sales 
from the sales data base. In each case, we matched U.S. sales to 
similar, but not identical, home market sales of those same pasta types 
(i.e., those without vitamin enrichment).
    De Cecco reported combination sales of different pasta shapes and 
of pasta with bottled olive oil in the home market. Inasmuch as these 
combinations were not sold to the United States and were not similar to 
U.S. sales, we excluded these sales from the sales data base.

Indalco

    Indalco argued that its handmade pasta and its machine-produced 
pasta should be treated as different products for product-matching 
purposes. Indalco reported that the two have different shapes and are 
produced at significantly different speeds. During the course of the 
antidumping investigation, we classified pasta on the basis of whether 
it was a long, short, or specialty cut, and found that line speeds were 
a useful way of distinguishing specialty cuts from the standard long 
and short cuts. We agree with Indalco that the significantly different 
output rates for the production of handmade pasta and machine-made 
shapes constitute a legitimate basis for classifying them as different 
products. Therefore, we have assigned sales of handmade pasta separate 
shape codes to distinguish them from regular and specialty cuts and 
compared sales of handmade pasta in the United States with sales of 
handmade pasta in the home market. See, Memorandum to Richard W. 
Moreland, dated July 31, 1998.

La Molisana

    La Molisana claimed a level of trade adjustment on the basis of 
different selling activities associated with their La Molisana (``LM'') 
brand and private label (``PL'') products sold in both the home market 
and the United States. For the reasons we stated in the Proprietary 
Memorandum to the File (from page 19), dated July 31, 1998, we found 
that different brands are not an appropriate basis for establishing 
different levels of trade. With respect to La Molisana's statements 
concerning the different product characteristics of the LM brand and 
the PL products, the information on the record is not adequate to 
establish that the reported differences in product characteristics are 
measurable or that they would result in more appropriate product 
matches contemplated in section 771(16) of the Act. See, Proprietary 
Memorandum to the File, dated July 31, 1998.

Rummo

    Rummo reported sales of both insect-infested and defective quality 
pasta to food banks. The company argues that these sales are not 
representative of its commercial sales in the United States and that 
their unusually low prices exaggerate dumping margins when these sales 
are compared to commercial sales in the home market. On March 17, 1998, 
Rummo requested that the Department issue a scope ruling to the effect 
that its transactions with food banks were outside the scope of the 
antidumping duty order. On May 1, 1998, the Department responded to the 
request, stating that the transactions are covered by the scope of the 
order because the antidumping order covers all entries of pasta in 
packages of five pounds or less.
    On May 15, 1998, counsel for Rummo again raised the issue with the 
Department. We recommended that the company provide the Department with 
enough information to enable us to distinguish among the different 
transactions. See Memorandum to the File, dated July 31, 1998. On May 
21, 1998, Rummo submitted additional information on the issue with the 
request that the Department develop a methodology to remove these sales 
from our antidumping margin calculations. On June 24, 1998, petitioners 
objected to the request to remove these transactions from margin 
calculations. Finally, on June 30, 1998, Rummo recapitulated its 
position on its transactions with food banks, citing to the documents 
that it had submitted for the record on the subject.
    Although it is possible that some of the transactions involving the 
insect-infested and defective quality pasta may not have constituted 
commercial sales, from the information Rummo submitted for the record, 
we are unable to distinguish between sales transactions and 
transactions that were not commercial sales. Accordingly, in 
conformance with our practice to include all U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise in our comparisons, we have preliminarily determined to 
include all transactions with U.S. food banks in our margin 
calculations.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve. Section 
773A(a) of the Act 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.'' In accordance with the 
Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that a 
fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a 
benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling 
average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that 
a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margins exists for the POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                  Producer and/or exporter                    (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrighi....................................................        71.49

[[Page 42373]]

                                                                        
Barilla....................................................        71.49
De Cecco...................................................         0.36
Indalco....................................................         1.62
La Molisana................................................        14.33
Pagani.....................................................        71.49
Puglisi....................................................         2.03
Rummo......................................................         7.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within thirty days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of 
this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results. Interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who submit case briefs in this proceeding should 
provide a summary of the arguments, not to exceed five pages and a 
table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 37 days after the date of publication. The Department will publish 
a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments or at the hearing, within 120 days from the 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    For EP sales which were not imported by an affiliated party, we 
divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between 
normal value and EP) for each importer/customer by the total value of 
the sales to that importer/customer. We will direct the Customs Service 
to assess the resulting ad valorem dollar amount against each 
importer's/customer's entries under the order during the review period.
    For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of the reviewed sales for 
each importer. Where an affiliated party acts as an importer for EP 
sales, we included the applicable EP sales in this assessment-rate 
calculation. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting 
percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject 
merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the order during 
the period of review.
    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in these administrative reviews, we divided the total 
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales during the review period. To derive a single deposit 
rate for each producer and/or exporter, we weight-averaged the EP and 
CEP deposit rates (using the EP and the CEP as the weighing factors). 
We will direct the Customs Service to collect the resulting percentage 
deposit rate against the entered value of each producer's and/or 
exporter's entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of 
the notice of the final results of this review. Accordingly, as 
provided in section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the following deposit 
rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this 
for all shipments of certain pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after that publication date: (1) 
The cash deposit rate for companies listed above will be the rate 
established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is 
less than 0.5 percent, in which case it is de minimis and the cash 
deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies 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, a prior review, or 
the antidumping 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 11.26 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the antidumping 
investigation. See, final investigation determination.
    These cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until the publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 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. This determination is issued 
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 
the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-21230 Filed 8-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P