[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69493-69494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32226]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-489-805]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey

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

SUMMARY: On August 9, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. This review covers shipments 
to the United States by two respondents during the period of review 
July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998.
    For our final results, we have found no margin or a de minimis 
margin for the two respondents.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 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-
4126.

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 (1998).

Case History

    This review covers two manufacturers/exporters of merchandise 
subject to the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey: 
Pastavilla Kartal Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Pastavilla) and 
Maktas Makarnacilik ve Tic. A.S. (Maktas).
    On August 9, 1998, the Department published the preliminary results 
of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 64 FR 43157 (August 
9, 1999) (Preliminary Results). On September 15, 1999, we received a 
case brief from Maktas. We did not receive any rebuttal briefs, and no 
public hearing was requested.

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.
    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 under 
order is dispositive.

Scope Rulings

    The Department has issued the following scope ruling to date:
    (1) 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 pound 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.

Price Comparisons

    We calculated constructed export price (CEP), export price (EP), 
and normal value based on the same methodology used in the Preliminary 
Results, with the following exception.

[[Page 69494]]

Maktas

    We did not make a claimed billing adjustment for foreign currency 
exchange gain. See Comment 1.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether Maktas and Pastavilla made home 
market sales of the foreign like product during the period of review 
(``POR'') at prices below their cost of production (``COP'') within the 
meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    We calculated the COP for these final results following the same 
methodology as in the preliminary results. For both Maktas and 
Pastavilla, we found 20 percent or more of the sales of a given product 
during the 12 month period were at prices less than the weighted-
average COP for the POR. Thus we determined that these below-cost sales 
have been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period 
of time, and 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)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act. Therefore, for 
purposes of these final results, we disregarded these below-cost sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. As noted above, we received a case brief from 
Maktas.

Comment 1: Billing Adjustment

    Maktas argues that for the sales to one of its customers, the 
Department incorrectly deducted a billing adjustment from Maktas' U.S. 
price in the preliminary results. Maktas contends that this billing 
adjustment reflects a foreign exchange gain based on a payment term, 
and therefore, should be added to its U.S. price.
    DOC Position: We agree with Maktas, in part, that we should not 
deduct the ``billing adjustment'' from Maktas' U.S. price. However, we 
disagree with Maktas that this billing adjustment should be added to 
its U.S. price. For these final results, this alleged ``billing 
adjustment'' was neither subtracted from nor added to Maktas' U.S. 
price. Rather, because the sale price was originally set in U.S. 
dollars, we have used the agreed upon U.S. dollar price per ton for 
these final results. Since no currency conversion is involved under our 
methodology, the billing adjustment in question becomes a moot issue. 
See memorandum from Cindy Robinson to the file, Analysis Memorandum for 
Maktas Makarnacilik ve Tic. A.S., December 7, 1999.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we find that the following margins exist 
for the period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maktas Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Tic. A.S....  0.29 (de minimis)
Pastavilla Kartal Makarnacilik Sanayi       0.00
 Ticaret A.S..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the United States Customs 
Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 (b)(1), we have calculated importer-
specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the 
subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. 
We will direct the United States Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the 
entered value of the merchandise entered during the POR, except where 
the assessment rate is zero or de minimis (see 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2)).

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 cash deposit requirements will be 
effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Turkey 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption upon publication 
of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Maktas 
and Pastavilla 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 review or in any previous segment of this 
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 51.49 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 38545 (July 24, 
1996).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 serves as a 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 351.305. Timely 
notification of 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)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 7, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-32226 Filed 12-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P