[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 852-853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-244]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-818]


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

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

SUMMARY: On October 6, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its new shipper review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain pasta from Italy. The review covers shipments of this 
merchandise to the United States by Corex during the period July 1, 
1997, through December 31, 1997. These final results do not differ from 
the preliminary results.
    We find that Corex did not make sales below normal value during the 
period of review. We will instruct the Customs Service not to assess 
antidumping duties on certain pasta produced and exported by this 
company.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or John Brinkmann, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0631 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 (URAA). 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 (1997).

Case History

    On March 4, 1998, in response to a request by CO.R.EX. S.r.l, 
(Corex), the Department initiated a new shipper review.
    On October 6, 1998, the Department published the preliminary 
results of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of New 
Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 53641 
(Preliminary Results). From September 28, through October 2, 1998, we 
verified the information submitted by Corex. On November 3, 1998, we 
received a case brief from Corex. We did not receive comments from any 
other interested party.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds (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 (IMC), by Bioagricoop Scrl, or by QC&I International 
Services.
    The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under 
subheading 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under order is dispositive.

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 the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders. See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated 
August 25, 1997. 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 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.).
    On October 23, 1997, the petitioners 1 filed an 
application requesting that the Department initiate an anti-
circumvention investigation against Barilla S.r.L., an Italian producer 
and exporter of pasta. On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its 
final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act, 
circumvention of the antidumping duty order is occurring by reason of 
exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla which subsequently 
are repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or 
less for sale in the United States. (See Anti-circumvention Inquiry of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative 
Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 63 
FR 54672 (October 13, 1998)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Borden Foods Corp., Hershey Pasta and Grocery Group, and 
Gooch Foods Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 1998, we self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine 
whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable 
industry tolerances may be within the scope of the

[[Page 853]]

antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On November 18, 1998, the 
Department received comments regarding this scope inquiry. The 
Department received rebuttal comments on November 30, 1998. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(5), the Department will issue a scope 
ruling within 120 days of the initiation of the inquiry.

Price Comparisons

    We calculated export price (EP) and normal value based on the same 
methodology used in the Preliminary Results, with the following 
exception:
    We used a revised credit rate to calculate an imputed credit 
expense for U.S. and Australian sales, both of which were priced in 
Italian Lire (see memorandum from Constance Handley to the file, 
Analysis Memorandum for CO.R.EX. S.r.l., (December 18,1998)).

Analysis of Comment Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. As noted above, we received one comment from 
Corex.

Comment 1: Commissions

    Corex notes that during verification Department officials learned 
of commissions on Australian sales which Corex had inadvertently failed 
to include in its database. Corex notes further that the Department 
officials requested information relating to Corex's indirect selling 
expenses. Claiming there is no reason to believe that the information 
was ever intentionally withheld, Corex requests that this information 
be used in calculating the final margin.

DOC Position:

    We are not including the information found at verification because 
inclusion of the information would not affect the final margin.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following margin 
exists for the period July 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corex......................................................          0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, because Corex is primarily 
a trading company, any entries of merchandise exported by Corex must 
identify Corex as the producer in order for the deposit rate 
established in this review to apply. If Corex is the exporter but not 
the producer, the deposit rate will be the rate for the identified 
producer. Otherwise, the ``all others'' rate will apply.
    Therefore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of new shipper administrative review, as provided by 
section 751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Corex, when 
identified as the producer, will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported 
by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in 
a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent 
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous 
segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise 
in these final results of review or in the most recent final results in 
which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter 
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any 
previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 
11.26 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR part 351 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 in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply is 
a violation of the APO.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 29, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-244 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P