[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42373-42377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21231]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-489-805]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. This 
review covers three exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of 
review is January 19, 1996, through June 30, 1997.
    We have preliminarily found that, for certain exporters, sales of 
the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, 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.
    We preliminarily find that, for the one company that had shipments 
during the review period and participated in the review, sales have not 
been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in the final results, we will instruct the Customs Service not to 
assess antidumping duties on the subject merchandise exported by this 
company.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Wey Rudman or John Brinkmann, 
Office of 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) 482-0192 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to

[[Page 42374]]

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 refer 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 from Turkey (61 FR 38545). 
On July 21, 1997, we published in the Federal Register the notice of 
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this order for 
the period January 19, 1996 through June 30, 1997 (62 FR 38973). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), on July 31, 1997, the petitioners 
requested a review of the following producers and exporters of certain 
pasta: Filiz Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret (Filiz); and Nuh Ticaret ve Sanayi 
A.S. (Nuh Ticaret). Also on July 31, 1997, Pastavilla Kartal 
Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Pastavilla), requested an 
administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On 
August 28, 1997, we published the notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review covering the period of January 
19, 1996 through June 30, 1997 (Notice of Initiation, 62 FR 45621).
    On September 4, 1997, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
Filiz, Nuh Ticaret, and Pastavilla.1 In its request for an 
administrative review, Pastavilla requested that its period of review 
(POR) be truncated on the basis that it had no U.S. entries, exports, 
or sales during the POR prior to May 1997. Accordingly, on September 
11, 1997, we informed Pastavilla that it could limit its reporting of 
data to the period January 1 through June 30, 1997. In that letter we 
advised Pastavilla that if it elected to limit its reporting of data to 
the six-month period, and the Department subsequently initiated a 
sales-below-cost investigation, it would forego the application of the 
``recovery of cost'' test pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Pastavilla submitted its questionnaire response on October 20, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the sales of the 
merchandise in all of its markets. Sections B and C of the 
questionnaire request home market sales listings and U.S. sales 
listings, respectively. Section D requests additional information 
about the cost of production of the foreign like product and 
constructed value of the merchandise under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 21, 1997, petitioners alleged that Pastavilla had sold 
the foreign like product at prices below the cost of production (COP). 
On December 24, 1997, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation 
with respect to Pastavilla. Pastavilla submitted its section D COP 
response on January 23, 1998.
    The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, 
B, and C to Pastavilla on February 27, 1998. On March 11, 1998, the 
Department issued a supplemental section D questionnaire to Pastavilla. 
Pastavilla's responses to the section A-C and section D supplemental 
questionnaires were received on March 16 and 27, 1998, respectively. 
The Department issued a second supplemental section D questionnaire on 
May 7, 1998, and Pastavilla filed its response May 21, 1998.
    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 extending 
the deadline for the preliminary results of this review until no later 
than July 31, 1998 (63 FR 31735).

Partial Rescission

    In the Notice of Initiation, we initiated a review of Filiz, Nuh 
Ticaret, and Pastavilla. However, on October 6, 1997, Nuh Ticaret 
informed the Department that it had no shipments of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have preliminarily 
confirmed this with information from the United States Customs Service. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's 
regulations and consistent with Department practice, we are 
preliminarily rescinding our review of Nuh Ticaret (see, e.g., Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 35191 
(June 29, 1998) (Turkish Pipe and Tube) and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers 
From Colombia; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 1997).

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.
    Imports of subject merchandise are currently classifiable under 
items 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

    Filiz did not respond to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire. We have confirmed that the questionnaire was received by 
Filiz (see Memorandum to the File dated March 4, 1998) and, 
accordingly, for the reasons described below, we are assigning to Filiz 
a margin based on adverse 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 Filiz 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 Filiz.
    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 Filiz failed to cooperate by not responding to our

[[Page 42375]]

antidumping questionnaire and, thus, having not acted to the best of 
its ability to comply with requests for information, we have determined 
that an adverse inference with respect to Filiz 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 to be used. However, in an annual 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 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 Turkish pasta, is 
inappropriate. We have assigned Feliz the rate of 63.29 percent as 
adverse facts available, for purposes of these preliminary results. 
This margin is the same margin derived from the petition that was 
corroborated and assigned to Feliz during the investigation. (See, 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30309 (June 14, 1996).) For purposes of this 
preliminary determination, we find that this margin continues to be of 
probative value. 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.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Turkey were made 
in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the 
constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV). Because 
Turkey's economy experienced high inflation during the POR (over 70 
percent), as is Department practice, we limited our comparisons to home 
market sales made during the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred 
and did not apply our ``90/60 contemporaneity rule (see, e.g., Turkish 
Pipe and Tube and Certain Porcelain on Steel Cookware from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496, 
42503 (August 7, 1997)). This methodology minimizes the extent to which 
calculated dumping margins are overstated or understated due solely to 
price inflation that occurred in the intervening time period between 
the U.S. and home market sales.
    We first attempted to compare products sold in the U.S. and home 
markets that were identical with respect to the following 
characteristics: pasta shape; type of wheat; additives; and enrichment. 
However, we did not find any home market sales of merchandise that were 
identical in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United 
States. Accordingly, we compared U.S. products with the most similar 
merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed 
above, in that order of priority.

Constructed Export Price

    We calculated CEP for Pastavilla, in accordance with subsections 
772(b), (c) and (d) of the Act, because sales to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser took place after importation into the United States. We based 
CEP on packed delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 
deductions for movement expenses including inland freight from plant or 
warehouse to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, and U.S. inland 
freight expenses (freight from port to the customer). We revised the 
reported U.S. inland freight expenses to include the amount of the 
taxes shown on the freight invoice. In addition, we increased the CEP 
by the amount of the countervailing duties paid that were attributable 
to an export subsidy, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(c).
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1), we deducted from the starting 
price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject 
merchandise, including direct selling expenses (credit costs and bank 
charges) and indirect selling expenses, that related to economic 
activity in the United States. We also deducted from CEP an amount for 
profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

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 Pastavilla'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 Pastavilla'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.

Sales to Affiliated Parties

    Pastavilla and its affiliated home market distributor made home-
market sales to an affiliated supermarket chain during the POR. Because 
Pastavilla could not report the price to the unaffiliated customers of 
the supermarket chain, in accordance with section 351.403(c) of the 
Department's regulations, we performed an analysis to determine whether 
the prices to the affiliated supermarket chain were comparable to the 
prices to unaffiliated parties. We compared Pastavilla's sales prices 
to the affiliated supermarket chain, for identical products, to sales 
prices to all other unaffiliated customers, net of all movement 
charges, discounts, rebates, direct expenses, and packing. Where prices 
to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the 
price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's length (see 19 CFR 351.403(c) and 62 FR 
at 27355). We only included in our margin analysis those sales to the 
affiliated party that were made at arm's length.

[[Page 42376]]

Cost of Production Analysis

    Before making any comparisons to normal value, we conducted a COP 
analysis to determine whether Pastavilla's home market sales were made 
below the cost of production. We calculated the COP based on the sum of 
Pastavilla's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We 
relied on Pastavilla's information as submitted, except in the specific 
instances discussed below.
    As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced 
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, to avoid the 
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, 
we requested that Pastavilla submit the product-specific cost of 
manufacturing (COM) incurred during each month of the POR. We 
calculated a POR-average COM for each product after indexing the 
reported monthly costs during the POR to an equivalent currency level 
using the Turkish wholesale price index from the International 
Financial Statistics published by the International Monetary Fund 
(IMF). We then restated the POR-average COM in the currency value of 
each respective month.
    We revised Pastavilla's submitted G&A expense rate to exclude 
Duzey's G&A expenses and its cost of sales from the calculation of the 
rate. In addition, we calculated a severance rate and multiplied the 
revised G&A expense rate, the reported interest expense rate, and the 
severance expense rate by the monthly COMs to derive product-specific 
monthly COPs. (See Memorandum to Christian Marsh from Stan Bowen dated 
July 31, 1998 for further details.)

Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the product-specific monthly COPs (less selling 
expenses) to home market sales of the foreign like product in order to 
determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. We 
determined the net home market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing 
expenses.

Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Pastavilla'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 during the six-month period 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).

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on CIF or delivered prices to home market 
customers. We made deductions 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. In addition, we made adjustments for direct 
expenses, including imputed credit expenses, advertising, warranty 
expenses, and interest revenue, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We recalculated credit expenses and 
inventory carrying costs using the monthly short-term Turkish interest 
rates from the Economist.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Economist was the only source we found that published 
short-term lending rates for Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also made adjustments 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 for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the 
POR, as described in the Cost of Production Analysis section above.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
as the U.S. CEP sales, 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 sales were at different levels of 
trade we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated (or arm's length) customers. If the comparison-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 comparison-
market 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, 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 detailed description of our level-of-trade analysis 
for these preliminary results, see the July 31, 1998, Level of Trade 
Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, on file in Import Administration's Central 
Records Unit (Room B-099) of the main Commerce building.

Currency Conversion

    Because this proceeding involves a high-inflation economy, we 
limited our comparison of U.S. and home market sales to those occurring 
in the same month (as described above) and only used daily exchange 
rates. (See Steel Cookware from Mexico and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from 
Turkey, 61 FR 30309 (June 14, 1996).)
    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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period 
January 19, 1996 through June 30, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastavilla.................................................            0
Filiz Gida.................................................        63.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. (see 
19 CFR 351.310(c)). Any hearing, if

[[Page 42377]]

requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the 
first workday thereafter. 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. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
the Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on Pastavilla's 
entries of the merchandise subject to the review. Upon completion of 
this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of certain pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates 
for Pastavilla and Filiz will be the rate established in the final 
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent 
and, therefore, de minimis, 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 original less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) 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 60.87 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation 
(See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 
38546 (July 24, 1996)).
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until 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. 98-21231 Filed 8-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P