[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53641-53643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-818]


Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of New Shipper 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of new shipper antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1998.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by CO.R.EX. S.r.l, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting a new shipper administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The review covers 
sales during the period July 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. We 
preliminarily determine that CO.R.EX. S.r.l. did not sell subject 
merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who do so are requested to submit, along with each 
argument, (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or John Brinkmann, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0631, or 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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's regulations 
are to the regulations provided in 19 CFR Part 351, as published in the 
Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

Case History

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the 
antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy on July 24, 1996 (61 
FR 38547). On January 16, 1998, CO.R.EX. S.r.l. (Corex) requested a new 
shipper review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.214.
    On March 4, 1998, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of the new shipper review of Corex (63 FR 10590). On July 16, 1998, the 
Department published a notice postponing the preliminary results of 
this review until September 30, 1998 (63 FR 38371).

[[Page 53642]]

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.
    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 subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The review covers one Italian producer/exporter, Corex, and the 
period July 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997.

Scope Rulings

    On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that 
multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative 
glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is 
excluded from the scope of this proceeding. In addition, the Department 
issued a scope ruling on July 30, 1998, that multipacks consisting of 
six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink wrapped into a single 
package are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing 
duty orders. (See July 30, 1998 letter from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to Barbara P. 
Sidari, Vice President, Joseph A. Sidari Company, Inc.)

Treatment of Sales of Tolled Merchandise

    Pursuant to section 351.401(h) of its regulations, the Department 
will not consider a toller or subcontractor to be a manufacturer or 
producer when the toller or subcontractor does not acquire ownership of 
the finished products and does not control the relevant sales of the 
subject merchandise and the foreign like product. In determining 
whether a company that uses a subcontractor in a tolling arrangement is 
a producer pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(h), we examine all relevant facts 
surrounding a tolling agreement.
    Corex claims that under the tolling arrangement with its 
unaffiliated subcontractor, Corex is the producer of the pasta at 
issue. In support of this claim, Corex reports that it: (1) purchases 
all of the inputs, (2) pays the subcontractor a processing fee, and (3) 
maintains ownership at all times of the inputs as well as the final 
product. Corex also notes that it conducts independent product testing 
and marketing research. Further, Corex claims that it is solely 
responsible for the marketing and sales of the product and any freight 
arrangements and that there is no contact between the subcontractor and 
Corex's customers. Based on this evidence, we preliminarily determine 
that Corex is the producer of the tolled merchandise, and hence the 
appropriate respondent.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the 
Scope of the Review section and sold in the comparison market during 
the period of review (POR), to be foreign like products for the purpose 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market 
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondent.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by the respondent 
to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared 
export price (EP) to normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-
average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. 
transactions.

Export Price

    We calculated the price of United States sales based on EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
prior to the date of importation and the constructed export price 
methodology was not indicated by the facts of record.
    We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for movement expenses, which included export customs 
duties and container loading fee.

Normal Value

    Corex reported no home market sales during the POR. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we have based NV 
on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for 
consumption in the respondent's largest third-country market, 
Australia, which had an aggregate sales quantity greater than 5 percent 
of the aggregate quantity sold in the United States.
    We made adjustments to NV for differences in packing in accordance 
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted 
movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 
In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in 
cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as 
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., at 829-831 (1994), 
to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on 
sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the U.S. sales. We examined 
information on the selling activities associated with each channel of 
trade in each of Corex's markets. Corex's Australian sales were all FOB 
Naples and its U.S. sales were ex-factory. Given that the only 
differences in selling activities between the two markets was the 
provision of freight services to the port for Australian sales, we 
determined that there was a single LOT in each market and that these 
LOTs were comparable.

[[Page 53643]]

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
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 that a fluctuation exists 
when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. 
See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918, 
March 6, 1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of 
rates for the past 40 business days. When we determined a fluctuation 
existed, we substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.

Use of a Combination Rate

    19 CFR 351.107 states that in the case of subject merchandise that 
is exported to the United States by a company that is not the producer 
of the merchandise, the Department ``may establish a combination cash 
deposit rate for each combination of exporter and its supplying 
producer(s).'' Although Corex, not its toller, is considered to be the 
producer within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.401(h), Corex's primary 
business is not that of a producer of the subject merchandise but 
rather it is a trading company, which buys and resells many types of 
food products. In the future, Corex may buy and resell pasta to the 
United States that is sourced from other manufacturers. In these cases, 
Corex would not be considered the producer of the subject merchandise 
and the rate assigned to Corex as a producer of tolled merchandise 
should not apply. As stated in the preamble to 19 CFR 351.107, 
``Establishing a deposit rate for an exporter and, without regard to 
the identity of the supplier, applying that rate to all future exports 
by that exporter could lead to the application of that rate even if 
other suppliers sold to the exporter with knowledge of exportation to 
the United States. This would enable a producer with a relatively high 
deposit rate to avoid the application of its own rate by selling to the 
United States through an exporter with a low rate.'' See 62 FR 27303. 
Therefore, in view of Corex's primary business as a reseller, the rate 
determined in this review will be applicable only to subject 
merchandise produced and exported by Corex. Because it would be 
difficult for the Customs Service to distinguish between merchandise 
produced by Corex, and that which is simply being resold by Corex as a 
trading company, the strong possibility for circumvention exists in 
this situation. Accordingly, any entries of merchandise exported and 
produced by Corex must identify Corex as the producer in order that the 
deposit rate established in this review will apply. If Corex is not the 
producer, the deposit rate will be the rate for the identified 
producer. Otherwise, the ``all others'' rate will apply.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for Corex is 0.00 percent.
    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not 
later than 90 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act. The cash deposit rate for 
Corex will be the rate established in the final results of this 
administrative review (except that no deposit will be required for 
firms with zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins lower than 0.5 
percent).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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: September 30, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-26779 Filed 10-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P