[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43152-43157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20447]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from
Italy. This review covers shipments to the United States by seven
respondents during the period of review (POR) July 1, 1997, through
June 30, 1998.
We preliminarily find that, for certain respondents, sales of the
subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in the final results, we will instruct
the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on the subject
merchandise exported by these companies.
For three respondents, we preliminarily find that sales of the
subject merchandise 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 9, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann, Office of AD/CVD
Enforcement, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5288.
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 refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351
(1998).
Case History
On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy (61 FR 38547).
On July 1, 1998, we published in the Federal Register the notice of
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this order, for
the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 (63 FR 35909).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), on July 31, 1998, Borden,
Inc., Hershey Pasta and Grocery Group, Inc.,\1\ and Gooch Foods, Inc.
(the petitioners) requested a review of the following producers and
exporters of pasta from Italy: Pastificio Antonio Pallante (Pallante);
Arrighi S.p.A. Industrie Alimentari (Arrighi); Barilla Alimentari
S.R.L. (Barilla); N. Puglisi & F. Industria Paste Alimentare S.p.A.
(Puglisi); La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (La Molisana);
Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. (Pagani); and Rummo S.p.A. Molino e
Pastificio (Rummo). The petitioners subsequently withdrew their request
for a review of Arrighi, Barilla and Pagani prior to initiation. In
addition, the following producers and/or exporters of pasta from Italy
requested an administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2): Rummo; La Molisana; Puglisi; Pallante; F.lli De Cecco di
Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. (De Cecco); Pastificio Maltagliati
S.p.A. (Maltagliati); Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.r.l. (Riscossa);
Commercio-Rappresentanze-Export S.r.l. (Corex); Pastificio Fabianelli
S.p.A. (Fabianelli); Industria Alimentari Colavita S.p.A. (Indalco);
and F. Divella Molina e Pastificio (Divella). On August 27, 1998, we
published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review covering the period of July 1, 1997 through June
30, 1998 (Notice of Initiation, 63 FR 45796). After initiation,
Divella, Fabianelli, Indalco, and Riscossa withdrew their requests for
review. See Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective January 1, 1999, Hershey Pasta and Grocery Group,
Inc., became New World Pasta, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the cost
test during the preceding review of De Cecco, La Molisana, Puglisi and
Rummo, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 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 (COP). Therefore, we initiated cost investigations
on these four companies at the time we initiated the antidumping
review.
On September 1, 1998, we issued an antidumping questionnaire \2\ to
all of the companies subject to review. After several extensions, the
respondents submitted their responses to sections A through C (or D,
where applicable) of the questionnaire by November 5, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 comparison 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 12, 1998, the petitioners alleged that Corex and
Maltagliati had sold the foreign like product at prices below the COP.
On December 22, 1998, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation
with respect to both companies. On December 14, 1998, the petitioners
also alleged that Pallante had also sold the foreign like product at
prices below the COP. We initiated a sales below cost investigation
with respect to Pallante on January 4, 1999. All the companies
submitted their COP responses by February 2, 1999.
The Department issued its supplemental section A questionnaires in
November 1998, and supplemental sections B and C questionnaires in
[[Page 43153]]
January 1999. Supplemental section D questionnaires were issued in
February 1999. Responses to all supplemental questionnaires were
received by March 23, 1999.
We verified the sales and cost information submitted by Rummo from
April 12 through April 20, 1999 and May 17 through 19, 1999. From April
22 through April 30, 1999, we verified the sales and cost information
submitted by Maltagliati.
On March 12, 1999, the Department published a notice postponing the
preliminary results of this review until June 30, 1999 (64 FR 12287).
On June 16, 1999, the Department published a notice further postponing
the preliminary results of this review until August 2, 1999 (64 FR
32213).
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
On September 25, 1998, Divella and Fabianelli withdrew their
requests for a review. Indalco withdrew its request for a review on
September 29, 1998. Riscossa withdrew its request on November 17, 1998.
Because there were no other requests for reviews of these companies,
and because the companies' letters withdrawing their requests for
review were timely filed, we are rescinding the review with respect to
these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
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, by QC&I International
Services, by Ecocert Italia or by Consorzio per il Controllo dei
Prodotti Biologici.
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, the written description of the merchandise subject to
the order is dispositive.
Scope Rulings
The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
(1) 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.
(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding
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 letter from Susan H.
Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
to Barbara P. Sidari, Vice President, Joseph A. Sidari Company, Inc.,
dated July 30, 1998.
(3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application
requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention
investigation against Barilla, 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).
(4) On October 26, 1998, the Department 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
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999 we issued a
final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in
packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four
ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. See Memorandum From John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated
May 24, 1999.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and
cost information provided by Maltagliati and Rummo. We used standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacturers' facilities and examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the
verification reports placed in the case file.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in
the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV). We
first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in
the U.S. and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the
following characteristics: pasta shape; type of wheat; additives; and
enrichment. However, we did not find any comparison 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 comparison market based on the
characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. Where there
were no appropriate comparison market sales of comparable merchandise,
we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to constructed
value (CV), in accordance with section 773 (a)(4) of the Act.
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. We based EP and CEP on the packed CIF, ex-
factory, FOB, or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer
in, or for exportation to, the United States. Where appropriate, 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 movement expenses including inland
freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign
brokerage handling and loading
[[Page 43154]]
charges, export duties, international freight, marine insurance, U.S.
duties, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to the
customer). In addition, where appropriate, we increased the EP and CEP
by the amount of the countervailing duties paid that were attributable
to an export subsidy, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C).
For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, where
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United
States, including direct selling expenses (advertising, credit costs,
warranties, and commissions paid to unaffiliated sales agents). In
addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to
economic activity in the United States. These expenses include certain
indirect selling expenses incurred in the exporting country and the
indirect selling expenses of affiliated U.S. distributors. We also
deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772
(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Certain respondents reported the resale of subject merchandise
purchased in Italy from unaffiliated producers. Where an unaffiliated
producer 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 that producer and the
respondent. See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One
Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review and Notice of Determination Not to Revoke Order,
63 FR 50867, 50876 (September 23, 1998). 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.
Accordingly, such transactions were disregarded for purposes of our
analysis.
Consistent with our methodology in prior reviews (Notice of Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Pasta From Italy, 64 FR 6615, 6617 (February 10,
1999)), 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 respondent'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.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
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 their U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act,
because, with the exception of Corex, 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 for all
producers, except Corex.
Corex reported that it made 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,
Sweden, which had an aggregate sales quantity greater than five percent
of the aggregate quantity sold in the United States.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Before making any comparisons to normal value, we conducted a COP
analysis, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether
the respondents' comparison market sales were made below the cost of
production. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the 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 the
respondents' information as submitted, except in the specific instances
discussed below.
Corex
We reclassified certain expenses reported as indirect selling
expenses as G&A and revised Corex's G&A ratio. See Memorandum from
Cindy Robinson to John Brinkmann dated August 2, 1999 (Corex Analysis
Memo).
Maltagliati
For semolina cost we used the weighted-average cost of semolina,
adjusted for loss in processing, found at verification. We also
recalculated G&A to include payments Maltagliati made to an affiliate
for financial services. See Memorandum from Constance Handley to John
Brinkmann dated August 2, 1999 (Maltagliati Analysis Memo).
Rummo
We recalculated G&A to include rental and amortization expenses
found at verification. See Memorandum from James Kemp to John Brinkmann
dated August 2, 1999 (Rummo Analysis Memo).
Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the
weighted-average COP for each respondent to their 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 in
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison 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 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 12 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. In such cases, because we
compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such
sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative
review, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
For one company, Corex, we found that all comparison market sales
were below the COP.
[[Page 43155]]
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to
comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price
for handling, loading, inland freight, warehousing, inland insurance,
discounts, and rebates. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) (A) and
(B) of the Act, we deducted comparison market packing costs and added
U.S. packing costs. In addition, we made circumstance of sale (COS)
adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses,
advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, bank charges and interest
revenue, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, 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.
We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for
indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the
other (the ``commission offset''). Specifically, where commissions were
granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison 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. If commissions were
granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an
upward adjustment to normal value following the same methodology.
Sales of pasta purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated
producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same
manner described above in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export
Price'' section of this notice.
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
For Corex, we could not determine the NV based on comparison market
sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable
product in the ordinary course of trade. Therefore, we compared the EP
to CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of the cost of manufacturing of the product sold in
the United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S.
packing costs. We calculated Corex's CV based on the methodology
described in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section of this
notice, above.
Because there were no above-cost comparison market sales and hence
no actual company-specific profit data available for Corex's sales of
the foreign like product to the comparison market, we calculated profit
expenses in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Section
773(e)(2)(B)(i) states that SG&A and profit may be determined on the
basis of the actual amounts incurred and realized by the specific
exporter or producer being examined in the investigation or review, in
connection with the production and sale, for consumption in the foreign
country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of
products as the subject merchandise. In this case, for CV profit, we
used Corex's 1997 financial statement profit margin. For SG&A, we have
used Corex's actual expenses incurred in Italy on comparison market
sales because this data reflects Corex's actual experience in selling
the foreign like product. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 63 FR 56613,
56615 (October 22, 1998)).
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS
differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred on comparison market sales and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses.
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. EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there
were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to
comparison market sales at a different level of trade. When NV is based
on CV, the level of trade is that of the sales from which we derive
SG&A expenses and profit.
To determine whether comparison 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 methodology and
company-specific level of trade findings for these preliminary results,
see the August 2, 1999, 97/98 Administrative Review of Pasta from Italy
and Turkey: Level of Trade Findings Memoranda on file in the Import
Administration's Central Records Unit (Room B-099) of the main Commerce
building. The company-specific level of trade analysis is included in
the analysis memorandum for each company.
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has held that the
Department's practice of determining LOTs for CEP transactions after
CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of section 772(d) of
the Act. See Borden, Inc., v. United States, 4 F. Supp.2d 1221, 1241-42
(CIT March 26, 1998) (Borden); see also, Micron Technology, Inc. v.
United States, Court No. 96-06-01529, Slip Op. 99-02 at 8-15 (CIT,
January 28, 1999). The Department believes, however, that its practice
is in full compliance with the statute and that these CIT decisions do
not contain persuasive statutory analysis. On June 4, 1999, the CIT
entered final judgment in Borden on the LOT issue. See Borden, Inc., v.
United States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 (CIT, June 4,
1999). The government is considering an appeal of Borden. The Micron
case is on remand to the Department for application of the Borden LOT
decision in the underlying administrative proceeding. Consequently, the
Department has continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting CEP
under section 772(d) prior to starting a LOT analysis, as articulated
in the Department's regulations at Sec. 351.412.
Company-Specific Issues
Corex
We recalculated the indirect selling expense ratio based on
information
[[Page 43156]]
submitted in January 21, 1999 section D response. See Corex Analysis
Memo.
Maltagliati
We made corrections to both the U.S. and home market databases
based on our verification findings. Specifically, we recalculated
credit, inventory carrying costs, home market freight from plant to
customer, home market commissions and U.S. bank charges, and indirect
selling expenses and advertising in both markets. In addition, certain
allocated expenses, including inland freight from plant to warehouse
for U.S. sales, warehousing expense for U.S. sales, were reported
correctly in the narrative portion of the response, but not in the
database. We have incorporated the correct amount for those expenses
into the database.
In addition, Maltagliati included a small quantity of sales in its
database which it described as ``free pasta but billed to parent at
full price.'' At verification, we determined that these transactions
involved Maltagliati providing pasta to affiliated companies to give
away as gifts. We have determined that these sales were outside the
ordinary course of trade and removed them from our calculation of
normal value. See Maltagliati Analysis Memo.
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. Consistent with the first review, we found that
different brands are not an appropriate basis for establishing
different levels of trade. See Notice of Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta
From Italy, 64 FR 6615, 6624 (February 10, 1999) (Comment 10A).
Pallante
We recalculated home market warranty expenses, advertising, and
imputed credit expenses. We recalculated inventory carrying costs for
the U.S. and home market based on the cost of manufacture. See
Memorandum from Dennis McClure to John Brinkmann dated August 2, 1999
(Pallante Analysis Memo).
Rummo
We recalculated U.S. credit expenses, based on the corrected pay-
dates which Rummo supplied at verification. We also removed warehousing
expenses and certain advertising expenses from indirect selling
expenses incurred in the United States and treated them as a movement
expenses and direct advertising expenses, respectively. Indirect
selling expenses incurred in the United States were recalculated to
reflect this change and to include other applicable expenses found at
verification. We disallowed two home market billing adjustments because
we were unable to tie the adjustments claimed to the sales made during
the POR. See Rummo Analysis Memo.
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 our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period July
1, 1997 through June 30, 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corex...................................................... 0.00
De Cecco................................................... 10.48
La Molisana................................................ 18.38
Maltagliati................................................ 19.19
Pallante................................................... 3.44
Puglisi.................................................... 10.19
Rummo...................................................... 2.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deminimus.
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 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 7 days after the date of filing of case briefs. 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, within 120 days from the
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon
completion of this review, the Department will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by
applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will
instruct the U.S. Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on
Corex's, De Cecco's or Puglisi's entries of the merchandise subject to
the review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each producer and/or
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that
company's sales during the review period.
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 Italy 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 the 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 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 final results in which that manufacturer
or exporter participated; (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 final results 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
[[Page 43157]]
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 Italy, 61 FR 38547
(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: August 2, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
[FR Doc. 99-20447 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P