The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established a Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (committee) to assist the Board in developing proposed accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered passenger vessels covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 63 FR 43136 (August 12, 1998). The committee is composed of owners and operators of various passenger vessels; persons who design passenger vessels; organizations representing individuals with disabilities; and other individuals affected by the Board's guidelines.

The meeting is open to the public and interested persons can attend and communicate their views. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the committee on issues of interest to them and the committee during the public comment period generally scheduled during the afternoon of each meeting day. Members of groups, or individuals who are not members of the committee, may also have the opportunity to participate with the subcommittees of the committee. Additionally, all interested persons will have the opportunity to comment when the proposed accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels are issued in the Federal Register by the Access Board.

The facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require sign language interpreters or real-time captioning systems should contact Paul Beatty by September 11, 2000.

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 Department regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

On July 18, 1995, we published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand (60 FR 36775). On July 15, 1999, we published in the Federal Register the notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of this order, covering the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999 (64 FR 38181).

The following producers/exporters of CPF requested a review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2): Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita); Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co., Ltd. (SIFCO); Siam Food Products Public Co. Ltd. (SFP); The Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (TIPCO); Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee); The Prachuab Fruit Canning Company Ltd. (PRAFT); Thai Pineapple Canning Industry (TPC); and Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. (TROFCO).

In addition, on July 30, 1999, the petitioner, Maui Pineapple Company, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), requested a review of Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd. (KFC), Malee, PRAFT, SIFCO, SFP, TIPCO, TPC and Vita.

On August 30, 1999, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999 (64 FR 47167).

The product covered by this review is canned pineapple fruit (CPF). For purposes of the review, CPF is defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e., juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified information provided by Malee, PRAFT, SFP and TIPCO. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the respondent producers' facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification findings are outlined in the verification reports, which will be placed in the case file in Room B-099 of the Main Department of Commerce Building.

We compared the EP or the CEP, as applicable, to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales in the U.S. and comparison markets of products that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: weight, form, variety, and grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, 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. For all respondents except SIFCO, we based the date of sale on the date of the invoice. For SIFCO, we based the date of sale on the contract date. According to SIFCO, any changes to the material terms of sale occur before the original contract is signed, and these terms do not change once the contract is issued. Therefore, because the material terms of sale were firmly set on this date, we relied on contract date as the date of sale.

For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, before the date of importation, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold inside the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under subsections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we reduced the EP and CEP by movement expenses and export taxes and U.S. import duties, where appropriate. Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to CEP.

We determined the EP or CEP for each company as follows:

We calculated an EP for all of TIPCO's sales because the merchandise was sold either directly by TIPCO or indirectly through its U.S. affiliate, TIPCO Marketing Co. (TMC), to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. Although TMC is a company legally incorporated in the United States, the company has neither business premises nor personnel in the United States. All activities transacted on behalf of TMC, including invoicing, paperwork processing, receipt of payment, and arranging for customs and brokerage, are conducted in Thailand where all TMC employees are located. Accordingly, as the merchandise was sold before importation by TMC outside the United States, we have determined these sales to be EP transactions. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 37518 (June 15, 2000) and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 3.

We calculated EP based on the packed FOB or CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses (including brokerage and handling, port charges, stuffing expenses, and inland freight), international freight, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling.

We calculated an EP for all of SFP's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by SFP outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. SFP has one employee in the United States; however, this employee does not: (1) Take title to the subject merchandise; (2) issue invoices or receive payments; or (3) arrange for other aspects of the transaction. The merchandise was shipped directly by SFP in Bangkok to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. The information on the record indicates that SFP's Bangkok office is responsible for confirming orders and for issuing the invoice directly to the customer. Payment also is sent directly from the unaffiliated U.S. customer to SFP in Bangkok. Therefore, the Department has determined that these sales were made in Bangkok prior to importation and, thus, are properly classified as EP transactions.

We calculated EP based on the packed FOB or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. We made deductions for foreign movement expenses and international freight in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We calculated an EP for all of Vita's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Vita outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed FOB or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses and international freight.

We calculated an EP for all of KFC's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by KFC outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed, FOB or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses and international freight.

We calculated an EP for all of SIFCO's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by SIFCO outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made a deduction from the starting price for foreign inland freight.

During the POR, TPC had both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by TPC outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by TPC's affiliated U.S. reseller, Mitsubishi International Corporation (MIC), after importation of the subject merchandise into the United States. EP and CEP were based on the packed FOB, ex-warehouse, or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions for discounts and rebates, including early payment discounts, promotional allowances, freight allowances, and billback discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight from plant to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, other miscellaneous foreign port charges, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs brokerage, U.S. customs duty, harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fee, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer).

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including commissions, direct selling expenses (credit costs, warranty expenses), and indirect selling expenses incurred by MIC in the United States. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

For this POR, the Department found that all of Malee's U.S. sales were properly classified as CEP transactions because these sales were made in the United States by Malee's affiliated trading company Icon Foods.

CEP was based on packed ex-dock U.S. port price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign inland movement expenses, insurance and international freight in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Because all of Malee's sales were CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses associated with selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses incurred by Icon Foods in the United States. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

We calculated an EP for all of Praft's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Praft outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses.

We calculated an EP for all of TROFCO's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by TROFCO outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses.

Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market sales and U.S. sales, we determined that, with the exception of Malee, the quantity of foreign like product each respondent sold in Thailand did not permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States because the quantity of each company's sales in its home market was less than 5 percent of the quantity of its sales to the U.S. market. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, for all respondents except Malee, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in each respondent's largest viable third-country market, i.e., Germany for Vita, TPC and PRAFT, France for SIFCO, the United Kingdom for SFP, Finland for TIPCO, Japan for TROFCO, and Canada for KFC. With respect to Malee, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a cost of production (COP) investigation of comparison-market sales for each respondent. Based on timely allegations filed by the petitioners, we initiated COP investigations of KFC, TROFCO and SIFCO, to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP. See Memoranda from Case Analysts to Holly Kuga, dated January 12, 2000. In addition, because we disregarded sales that failed the cost test in the last completed review of TIPCO, SFP, TPC, Malee, PRAFT and Vita, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by these companies of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review were made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.

We conducted the COP analysis as described below.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each respondent, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the costs of materials, fabrication, selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We relied on the submitted COPs except in the specific instances noted below, where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.

The Department's long-standing practice, now codified at section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, is to rely on a company's normal books and records if such records are in accordance with home country generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and reasonably reflect the costs associated with production of the merchandise. In addition, as the statute indicates, the Department considers whether an accounting methodology, particularly an allocation methodology, has been historically used by the company. See section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act. In previous segments of this proceeding, the Department has determined that joint production costs (i.e., pineapple and pineapple processing costs) cannot be reasonably allocated to canned pineapple on the basis of weight. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29561 (June 5, 1995), and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 63 FR 7392, 7398 (February 13, 1998). 1 For instance, cores and shells are used in juice production, while trimmed and cored pineapple cylinders are used in CPF production. Because these various parts of a pineapple are not interchangeable when it comes to CPF versus juice production, it would be unreasonable to value all parts of the pineapple equally by using a weight-based allocation methodology. Several respondents that revised their fruit cost allocation methodologies during the 1995-96 POR changed from their historical net realizable value (NRV) methodology to weight-based methodologies and did not incorporate any measure of the qualitative factor of the different parts of the pineapple. As a result, such methodologies, although in conformity with Thai GAAP, do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with production of CPF. Therefore, for companies whose fruit cost allocation methodology is weight-based, we requested that they recalculate fruit costs allocated to CPF based on NRV methodology. Consistent with prior segments of this proceeding, the NRV methodology that we requested respondents to use was based on company-specific historical amounts for sales and separable costs during the five-year period of 1990 through 1994. We made this request of all companies in this review except for KFC, Praft and Malee. Because KFC, Praft and Malee already allocate fruit costs on a basis that reasonably takes into account qualitative differences between pineapple parts used in CPF versus juice products in their normal accounting records, we have not required KFC, Praft or Malee to recalculate their reported costs using the NRV methodology.

We made the following company-specific adjustments to the cost data submitted in this review.

In allocating fruit costs between solid products and juice, SIFCO used a ratio different from the historical NRV ratio relied upon in the second review. Because we rely upon historical values for the allocation of fruit costs, and in order to be consistent with past reviews, we recalculated SIFCO's fruit costs, allocating them based on the verified figures from the second review. Further, we recalculated G&A to exclude foreign exchange losses incurred on accounts receivable and applied the recalculated G&A to a COM inclusive of packing. For a further discussion of these adjustments to SIFCO's calculations, see SIFCO Calculation Memorandum, dated July 31, 2000.

SFP's reported fruit costs are based on NRV data for the 1990-1994 period used in previous reviews. Based on verification findings, we made changes to SFP's reported can costs, overhead, and SG&A. See Verification Report, dated July 14, 2000, for a more detailed discussion of these changes.

As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for each respondent to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, in order 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. On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the comparison market prices, less any applicable movement charges, taxes, rebates, commissions and other direct and indirect selling expenses.

Consistent with the third review, we have not deducted from the COP the value of certain tax certificate revenues. In the third review, we determined that the certificate is not tied to any duty drawback scheme, but rather, represents revenue paid to companies upon the export of domestically-produced merchandise. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 64 FR 69481, 69485 (December 13, 1999). Therefore, no adjustment was made to our dumping calculation for this payment.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where (1) 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we disregarded the below-cost sales.

We found that for certain CPF products, KFC, TIPCO, SFP, SIFCO, Malee and Vita made comparison-market sales at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

We determined price-based NVs for each company as follows. For all respondents, we made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(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. 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 NV 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. Company-specific adjustments are described below.

We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Finland. We adjusted for the following movement expenses: brokerage and handling, port charges, stuffing expenses, liner expenses and foreign inland freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (commissions, credit expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (commissions, credit expenses and bank charges).

We based third-country market prices on the packed FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted for foreign movement expenses. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales including credit expenses and commissions and adding U.S. direct selling expenses including credit expenses and commissions.

We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB or C&F prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United Kingdom. We adjusted for foreign movement expenses and international freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank charges, warranties and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses and bank charges). We applied the commission offset in the manner described above.

We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB or C&F prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted for foreign movement expenses and international freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank charges and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, bank charges and commissions).

We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in France. We adjusted for foreign movement expenses. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank charges and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, bank charges and commissions).

We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB or CNF prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted for foreign movement expenses and international freight. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, letter of credit charges, and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, letter of credit charges, bank charges, and warranties). For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on third-country market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses other than those deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act ( i.e., we added expenses for letters of credit and bank charges incurred by TPC in Thailand). Where we compared U.S. sales that had no commission to comparison market sales with commissions, we applied the commission offset in the manner described above.

We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted for foreign movement expenses. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank charges and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, bank charges and commissions).

We based home market prices on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Thailand. We adjusted for foreign inland freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses, warranty expenses, advertising expenses and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, bank charges and commissions).

We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Japan. We adjusted for foreign movement expenses. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, document fees, bank charges and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, document fees, bank charges and commissions).

For those CPF products for which 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, we compared the EP or CEP to CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the COM of the product sold in the United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, comparison market profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated each respondent's CV based on the methodology described in the “Calculation of COP” section of this notice, above. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we used the actual amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country to calculate SG&A expenses and comparison market profit.

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.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has held that the Department's practice of determining level of trade for CEP transactions after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of section 722(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1241-42 (CIT March 26, 1998) ( Borden II ). The Department believes, however, that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgement in Borden II on the level-of-trade issue. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 (CIT, June 4, 1999). The government has appealed Borden II to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Department has continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) of the Act prior to starting a level-of-trade analysis, as articulated in the Department's regulations at section 351.412.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade, and the difference affects 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 make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). 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).

In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from each respondent about the marketing stage involved in the reported U.S. and comparison market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and third-country market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.

In this review, all respondents except Malee claimed that all of their sales involved identical selling functions, irrespective of channel of distribution or market. We examined these selling functions for Vita, SIFCO, SFP, TIPCO, PRAFT, TPC, TROFCO, and KFC, and found that sales activities were limited to negotiating sales prices, processing of purchase orders/contracts, invoicing, and collecting payment. There was little or no strategic and economic planning, advertising or sales promotion, technical services, technical assistance, or after-sale service performed in either market. Therefore, for all respondents except Malee, we have preliminarily found that there is an identical level of trade in the U.S. and relevant comparison market, and no level-of-trade adjustment is required for comparison of U.S. sales to third-country sales.

Malee reported that all of its sales made to the United States were to importer/distributors and involved minimal selling functions on the part of Malee. Malee claimed two different levels of trade for its sales in the home market: (1) Factory-direct sales involving minimal selling functions, and which are at a level of trade identical to the EP level of trade; and (2) sales through Malee Supply (1994) Co. Ltd. (Malee Supply), an affiliated reseller.

Malee made direct sales to hotels, restaurants and industrial users. Malee claimed that its only selling function on direct sales was delivery of the product to the customer. Malee reported numerous selling functions undertaken by Malee Supply for its resales to small wholesalers, retailers and end-users. In addition to maintaining inventory, Malee Supply also handled all advertising during the POR. The advertising was directed at the ultimate consumer. Malee also reported that Malee Supply replaces damaged or defective merchandise and, as necessary, breaks down packed cases into smaller lot sizes for many sales.

Our examination of the selling activities, selling expenses, and customer categories involved in these two channels of distribution indicates that they constitute separate levels of trade, and that the direct sales are made at the same level as Malee's U.S. sales. Accordingly, we matched Malee's U.S. sales to direct sales made in the home market. Because we were able to match all U.S. sales in this manner to sales made at the same level of trade, without resorting to home market sales made through the other level of trade, we did not reach the issue of whether a level-of-trade adjustment was appropriate under the facts of this case.

The Department may revoke an antidumping order in part if the Department concludes that: (1) One or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years, (2) it is unlikely that those persons will sell the subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; and (3) for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to have sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).

The Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and (3) an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. Id. at 351.222(e)(i) See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (January 6, 2000). On August 6, 1999, Malee provided the required certifications.

We have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin of 1.72 percent for Malee in the current review period. Consequently, we preliminarily find that Malee does not qualify for revocation of the order under section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, we have not addressed the issues of whether Malee shipped in commercial quantities or whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is necessary to offset dumping with regard to Malee. However, should Malee's final weighted-average margin for this review be less than 0.50 percent, we will address those issues at that time. We note that information on the record indicates that Malee's aggregate sales to the United States were not made in commercial quantities during each of the three review periods that formed the basis of Malee's revocation request. See the July 31, 2000 memorandum to Holly Kuga: Determination Not to Revoke in Part the Antidumping Duty Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand. Interested parties are invited to comment in their case briefs on all of the requirements that must be met by Malee under section 351.222 of the Department's regulations in order to qualify for revocation from the antidumping duty order.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999:

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 publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. 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 hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Upon completion of this review, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. We have calculated each importers' duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of examined sales. The importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CPF from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act; (1) The cash deposit rate for 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 period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 or the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 24.64 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation.

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(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.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

On July 30, 1998, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 40699 (July 30, 1998). On July 9, 1999, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 64 FR 38181 (July 15, 1999). On July 30, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade (the petitioners) requested a review of 61 producers/exporters of fresh Atlantic salmon.

On October 5, 1999, the petitioners withdrew their request for all companies except: (1) Cultivos Marinos Chiloe Ltda. (Cultivos Marinos); (2) Chisal S.A (Chisal); (3) Cultivadora de Salmones Linao Ltda. (Linao); (4) Fiordo Blanco, S.A. (Fiordo Blanco); (5) I.P. (Invertec Pesquera) Mar de Chiloe, S.A. (Invertec); (6) Pesquera Mares Australes (Mares Australes); (7) Salmones Pacific Star (Pacific Star); (8) Salmones Mainstream, S.A. (Mainstream); (9) Salmones Pacifico Sur, S.A. (Pacifico Sur); and (10) Salmones Tecmar, S.A. (Tecmar). Petitioners subsequently withdrew their request for a review of Invertec and Chisal. See Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, below.

Also on July 30, 1999, the following companies requested that the Department conduct an administrative review for the period from July 28, 1998, through June 30, 1999: (1) Cultivos Marinos; (2) Pesquera Eicosal Ltda. (Eicosal); (3) Fiordo Blanco; (4) Linao; (5) Mainstream; (6) Mares Australes; (7) Pacifico Sur; and (8) Tecmar.

On August 30, 1999, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period July 28, 1998, through June 30, 1999. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 64 FR 47167 (August 30, 1999).

On October 5, 1999, the petitioners withdrew their requests for review of the following companies:

In addition, on October 21, 1999, and November 12, 1999, the petitioners withdrew their request that the Department conduct an administrative review of the entries of Invertec and of Chisal, respectively. Pursuant to 19 CFR 315.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the review with respect to these companies.

From April 2000 through July 2000, we conducted verifications of sales and cost data submitted by respondents Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, Fiordo Blanco, Salmones Mainstream, Mares Australes, and Pacifico Sur. The verification of most elements of the sales data submitted by Fiordo Blanco is scheduled to take place at the offices of the respondent's affiliated Canadian reseller in early August 2000. Shortly before the issuance of these preliminary results of review, Fiordo Blanco submitted a letter purporting to contain minor corrections to its sales data. Given the lateness of that filing, we have not considered it for these preliminary results of review. Further, the Department has not yet determined whether this submission properly contains only minor corrections to the record pursuant to verification. The Department will make this determination after the sales verification scheduled to take place in Canada in August 2000.

The product covered by this review is fresh, farmed Atlantic salmon, whether imported “dressed” or cut. Atlantic salmon is the species Salmo salar, in the genus Salmo of the family salmoninae. “Dressed” Atlantic salmon refers to salmon that has been bled, gutted, and cleaned. Dressed Atlantic salmon may be imported with the head on or off; with the tail on or off; and with the gills in or out. All cuts of fresh Atlantic salmon are included in the scope of the review. Examples of cuts include, but are not limited to: crosswise cuts (steaks), lengthwise cuts (fillets), lengthwise cuts attached by skin (butterfly cuts), combinations of crosswise and lengthwise cuts (combination packages), and Atlantic salmon that is minced, shredded, or ground. Cuts may be subjected to various degrees of trimming, and imported with the skin on or off and with the “pin bones” in or out.

Excluded from the scope are (1) fresh Atlantic salmon that is “not farmed” ( i.e., wild Atlantic salmon); (2) live Atlantic salmon; and (3) Atlantic salmon that has been subject to further processing, such as frozen, canned, dried, and smoked Atlantic salmon, or processed into forms such as sausages, hot dogs, and burgers.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable as item numbers 0302.12.0003 and 0304.10.4093 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

We have preliminarily determined, as a result of a partial verification conducted by the Department, to base Fiordo Blanco's antidumping rate on the facts available in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. The Department conducted verification of cost and some sales data in Chile before the issuance of the preliminary results of this review, and is scheduled to conduct additional verification procedures at the Canadian offices of Fiordo Blanco's North American distributor after the issuance of the preliminary results. As described below, during the verification in Chile, the Department determined that there were errors in the reporting of date of sale for U.S. and Canadian sales, which call into question the overall reliability of the data submitted by Fiordo Blanco for purposes of these preliminary results. Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned to Fiordo Blanco a margin based on adverse facts available, which, in this case, is the highest margin calculated for any respondent in the original investigation.

The specific findings at verification which led to this decision are as follows. From June 26 through June 30, 2000, the Department conducted a verification in Puerto Montt, Chile, of the cost data submitted by Fiordo Blanco. The major portion of the sales verification was scheduled to take place after the issuance of the preliminary results of this review, at the Canadian offices of Heritage, Fiordo Blanco's affiliated North American consignment reseller, where all of the sales to the first unaffiliated customers in the U.S. and Canadian markets were generated. However, since certain expenses associated with those sales were incurred in Chile, and recorded in the books of Fiordo Blanco's Chilean operations, the Department conducted verification of those elements in Chile, concurrent with the cost verification.

In its questionnaire responses, Fiordo Blanco had stated that the appropriate date of sale for both markets was the date of shipment. Fiordo Blanco noted that material terms of sale were established earlier, on the date that sales personnel recorded a customer's order, but claimed that the date of order could not be easily reported:

In conducting verification of reported expenses based on the books of Fiordo Blanco in Chile, the verifiers noted an irregularity in the reporting of date of sale, which appeared to derive from the records maintained by Heritage in Canada. Late on the evening prior to the last day of verification, the respondent notified the verifiers that it had inadvertently reported the date of order, rather than the date of shipment, as the date of sale. (According to Fiordo Blanco, the date of shipment had not been reported at all, and the date of order, which was in fact recorded electronically, had been erroneously reported instead.) The company could not explain why the date of order, which it had suggested was not recorded electronically, had been inadvertently reported to the Department in lieu of the shipment date. Heritage officials, contacted by telephone, were also unable to reconcile these inconsistencies.

In preparing these preliminary results, two weeks after the verification of Fiordo Blanco's data in Chile, the Department requested that Fiordo Blanco provide order dates and shipment dates for a randomly selected sample of thirty U.S. and Canadian sales, and also provide documentation supporting these dates. The Department compared these dates to those originally reported in the Section B and C responses, and found that for some sales the respondent had actually reported the date of shipment as the date of sale, and for others it had reported the date of order. There appeared to be no systematic pattern to the choice of date of sale, and the respondent was unable to explain this discrepancy. See Memorandum from the Team to the File, dated July 11, 2000.

These discrepancies and contradictions in the reporting of date of sale are of concern in that the date of sale is an important element in identifying appropriate sales comparisons, particularly in an administrative review. While additional verification at Fiordo Blanco's North American affiliate, scheduled to take place after the issuance of these results, might give the Department greater confidence in the reliability of Fiordo Blanco's submitted data, at present the Department cannot rely on these data to calculate a dumping margin for the preliminary results of review. As such, consistent with section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has based the preliminary results of review for Fiordo Blanco on the facts available.

Consistent with section 782(d) of the Act, Fiordo Blanco was given opportunities to correct its defective submissions. On January 18, 2000, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Fiordo Blanco, requesting confirmation that the date of shipment from Heritage's warehouses was the earliest date upon which all material terms of sale are set. In its response, Fiordo Blanco confirmed that the date of shipment was the only date tracked and that it had been reported as the date of sale. On April 17, 2000, Fiordo Blanco submitted the overall reconciliation of the company's sales database to its financial statements, as called for in section A of the antidumping questionnaire. This exercise required the respondent to confirm that the appropriate sales had been reported for the POR, and was an opportunity for Fiordo Blanco to examine the correctness of its reported dates of sale. Fiordo Blanco did not mention any problem with the date of sale in its submitted reconciliation. Despite these opportunities, Fiordo Blanco did not act to the best of its ability to confirm the accuracy of its reported data and to provide any necessary corrections. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the use of adverse facts available is appropriate, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.

Where we must base the entire dumping margin for a respondent in an administrative review on facts available because that respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of inferences adverse to the interests of that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use, as adverse facts available, information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. We have preliminarily assigned to Fiordo Blanco, as adverse facts available, a rate of 10.69 percent, the highest rate determined for any respondent during any segment of this proceeding. This rate was calculated for a respondent in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.

Because information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information, 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) says that “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See H.R. Doc. 316, vol. 1, at 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, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. 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, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). In this review, we are not aware of any circumstances that would render inappropriate the preliminary use of the margin selected for Fiordo Blanco.

We note that, as scheduled, the Department intends to conduct a sales verification at the offices of Heritage after the issuance of these preliminary results. Depending on the findings of that verification, the Department may find it appropriate, for the final results of review, to calculate a dumping margin for Fiordo Blanco using some or all of the data submitted by the respondent.

We compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison markets that are identical with respect to the matching characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondents that fit the definition of the scope of the review and were sold in the comparison markets during the POR fall within the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: form, grade, weight band, and trim. 1 As in the original LTFV investigation, we have determined that it is generally not possible to match similar products, because there are significant differences among products that cannot be accounted for by means of a difference-in-merchandise adjustment. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 2664 (January 16, 1998). Therefore, we have compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales of identical merchandise, and have not compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales of similar merchandise. Where there were no appropriate sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to constructed value (CV).

For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, before the date of importation, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold inside the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under subsections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where sales were made through an unaffiliated consignment seller, we did not consider the consignment seller to be the customer; rather, we considered the customer to be the consignment seller's customer.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we reduced the EP and CEP by movement expenses and export taxes and duties, where appropriate. Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to CEP. In this case, all CEP sales were made through unaffiliated resellers for the account of the producer/exporter. Consistent with past practice, for these sales we deducted from the CEP commissions charged to, and other direct expenses incurred for the account of, the producer/exporter. We did not deduct an amount for CEP profit, because the commission already contains an element for profit realized by the unaffiliated reseller.

We determined the EP or CEP for each company as follows:

We calculated an EP for all of Cultivos Marinos' sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Cultivos Marinos to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

We calculated an EP for all of Eicosal's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Eicosal to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

During the POR, Linao made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Linao to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the account of the producer/exporter by an unaffiliated consignment broker in the United States after the date of importation. EP and CEP sales were based on the packed, delivered and duty-paid (DDP) U.S. port and C&F U.S. port price for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for discounts and rebates, as well as movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added the amount for duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including commissions, direct selling expenses (credit expenses and industry association fees), and indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States by the unaffiliated consignment agent on behalf of the exporter which were charged to the respondent separately from the commission.

We calculated an EP for all of Mainstream's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Mainstream to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international freight, brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

We calculated an EP for all of Mares Australes' sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Mares Australes to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), customs brokerage fees, international freight, U.S. customs duties and U.S. handling charges. We also added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

We calculated an EP for all of Pacific Star's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Pacific Star to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), customs brokerage fees, international freight, U.S. customs duties and U.S. handling charges. We also added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

During the POR, Pacifico Sur made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Pacifico Sur to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the account of the producer/exporter by an unaffiliated consignment broker in the United States after the date of importation. EP and CEP sales were based on the packed DDP U.S. port and C&F U.S. port price for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added the amount for duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including commissions and other direct selling expenses (credit, industry association fees, product claims and repacking).

We calculated an EP for all of Tecmar's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Tecmar to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties. We also added the amount for duty drawback to the starting price, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market sales and U.S. sales by Cultivos Marinos and Eicosal, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in Chile permitted a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the quantity of sales in the home market was more than five percent of the quantity of sales to the U.S. market. Accordingly, for those two respondents we based NV on home market sales. 2

Respondents Linao, Mares Australes, Pacific Star, Mainstream, Pacifico Sur, and Tecmar did not have viable home markets, as defined above. Therefore, for these respondents, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in each respondent's largest third-country market. For Linao, Mainstream, 3 and Pacific Star, the largest third-country market is Brazil; for Tecmar, the largest third-country market is Argentina. Respondents Mares Australes and Pacifico Sur did not have any viable comparison market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we based NV for these respondents on CV.

Based on timely allegations filed by the petitioners, we initiated cost of production (COP) investigations of Cultivos Marinos, Fiordo Blanco, Pacific Star, and Tecmar, to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP. See Memorandum From Case Analysts to Gary Taverman , dated January 12, 2000. In addition, because we disregarded below-cost sales in the final determination of the LTFV investigation of Eicosal, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by this company have been made at prices below the COP during the period of the first review. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we also initiated a COP investigation of sales by Eicosal.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general expenses. We relied on the submitted COPs except in the specific instances noted below, where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.

We made the following company-specific adjustments to the cost data submitted in this review:

Cultivos Marinos: We adjusted Cultivos Marinos' general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio to include certain depreciation expenses which had been omitted from its submitted calculation and we adjusted the company's financial expense ratio to exclude offsets for estimated monetary gains associated with debt.

Eicosal: We calculated Eicosal's financial expenses from its parent company's consolidated financial statements. We also adjusted Eicosal's financial expense ratio to exclude offsets for estimated monetary gains associated with debt.

Pacific Star: We adjusted Pacific Star's financial expense ratio to exclude offsets for estimated monetary gains associated with debt.

Tecmar: We adjusted Tecmar's financial expense ratio to exclude offsets for estimated monetary gains associated with debt.

As required by section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for each respondent subject to a cost investigation to the comparison-market sales prices of the foreign like product, in order 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. On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the comparison-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, taxes, rebates, commissions, and other direct and indirect selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where (1) 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we disregarded the below-cost sales.

We found that for certain fresh Atlantic salmon products, Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, Pacific Star, and Tecmar made comparison-market sales at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

We determined price-based NVs for respondent companies as follows. For all respondents, we made adjustments for any differences in packing, and we deducted movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments, pursuant to 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).

Company-specific adjustments are described below.

Cultivos Marinos: We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland freight, interest revenue and billing adjustments. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expense). No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed.

Eicosal: We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expense, inspection fees, and bank charges). No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed.

Linao: We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB plant or C&F port-city prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, airport handling fees, and customs brokerage. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, quality control and inspection, certification expenses, and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and association fees). We also added the amount for third country duty drawback to the starting price.

Mainstream: We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB plant or C&F port-city prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight, customs fees and airport handling charges. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, sanitary certification, association fees, bank charges and loan guarantees) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and bank charges). We also added the amount for third country duty drawback to the starting price.

Pacific Star: We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB plant or C&F port-city prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, airport handling fees, and Customs brokerage. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, quality control and inspection, certification expenses, and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and association fees). We also added the amount for third country duty drawback to the starting price.

Tecmar: We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB plant or C&F port-city prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Argentina. We adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight and brokerage and handling. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, quality control, health certificate and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, quality control, inspection and bank charges). We also added the amount for third country duty drawback to the starting price.

For those sales for which we could not determine NV based on comparison-market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP, or CEP, to CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing. For Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, Pacific Star, and Tecmar, we calculated CV based on the methodology described in the COP section, above. For Linao, Mares Australes, and Pacifico Sur, we calculated CV as discussed below. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we used the actual amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison market to calculate SG&A expenses and profit. For Mares Australes and Pacifico Sur, which had no comparison market sales, we relied on the weighted-average SG&A and profit ratios of the two respondents with home market sales, consistent with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS differences, pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. We also adjusted, where applicable, for the commission offset described in Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices , above.

Company-specific adjustments are described below.

Cultivos Marinos: We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expense).

Eicosal: We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expense, inspection fees, and bank charges).

Linao: We adjusted Linao's financial expense ratio to exclude offsets for estimated monetary gains associated with debt. In addition, we made COS adjustments by deducting average direct selling expenses incurred by Linao for third-country market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and association fees).

Mares Australes: We adjusted Mares Australes' general and administrative expense ratio to include charges to a provision for catastrophic stock losses and certain other miscellaneous expenses. In addition, we made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and association fees) and deducting the weighted-average direct selling expenses incurred by the two respondents that had a viable home market during the period.

Pacific Star: We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, quality control and inspection, certification expenses, and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, products claims, and repacking expenses and association fees).

Pacifico Sur: We adjusted Pacifico Sur's financial expense ratio to exclude offsets for estimated monetary gains associated with debt. In addition, we made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and association fees) and deducting the weighted-average direct selling expenses incurred by the two respondents that had a viable home market during the period. Because Pacifico Sur had commissions in the U.S. market, we also adjusted the CV by a commission offset, based on the weighted-average indirect selling expenses incurred by the two respondents that had a viable home market during the period.

Tecmar: We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, quality control, health certificate and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, quality control, inspection and bank charges).

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sale in the comparison market or, when the NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has held that the Department's practice of determining LOT 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 II ). The Department believes, however, that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgment in Borden II 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 has appealed Borden II to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Department has continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) of the Act prior to starting a LOT analysis, as articulated in the Department's regulations at section 351.412.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade, and the difference affects price comparability with U.S. sales, 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 make a level-of-trade adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision).

To apply these guidelines in this review, we obtained information from each respondent about the marketing stage involved in its reported U.S. and comparison-market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for each of its channels of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. Generally, if the claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.

In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for each respondent, we took into account the specific customer types, channels of distribution, and selling practices of each respondent. We found that, for all respondents, the fact pattern was virtually identical. Sales to both the U.S. and comparison markets were made to distributors, retailers, and, less commonly, to further-processors. In all cases, the selling functions performed by the respondents for the different customer types and channels of distribution were very limited, and identical in both markets. Therefore, for all respondents, we found that there was a single level of trade in the United States, and a single, identical level of trade in the comparison market. As such, it was not necessary to make any level of trade adjustments.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 28, 1998, through June 30, 1999:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 of these preliminary results of review. 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. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. Eicosal, Linao, Mainstream, Mares Australes, Pacific Star, and Tecmar reported the entered value of each of their sales. Cultivos Marinos and Pacifico reported the entered value of some, but not all, of their sales. For those sales for which the entered value was not reported, we calculated entered value by subtracting international freight from the gross unit price of the U.S. sale. We calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all of the entries made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service upon completion of the final results of this administrative review.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 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 period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 4.57 percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.  4

This notice serves as a preliminary 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 entities 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.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 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 are to at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

On November 30, 1999, the petitioners requested an administrative review of Wo Hing (H.K.) Trading Co. (Wo Hing), Rizhao Hanxi Fisheries & Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd. (Rizhao), Fook Huat Tong Kee PTE. Ltd. (Fook Huat), and Zhejiang Materials Industry (Zhejiang). In response to the petitioners' request, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review on December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72644), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b). On December 27, 1999, we issued questionnaires to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), Wo Hing, Rizhao, and Fook Huat. We sent a questionnaire to Zhejiang in care of MOFTEC, since we were unable to obtain an address or phone number for that company. We did not receive a response to the questionnaire from either the PRC embassy or MOFTEC.

The products subject to this antidumping duty administrative review are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.

The scope of this order does not include the following:

(a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or

(b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed.

The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 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. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to the Customs Service to that effect.

One respondent-company replied to our questionnaire. Wo Hing reported that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). We have confirmed with the U.S. Customs Service that Wo Hing made no shipments during the POR. Accordingly, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Wo Hing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department and thereby precludes the Department from conducting an analysis of its sales made during the instant POR, the Department may, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, make its determination on the basis of the facts available. Since we received no responses other than from Wo Hing, it was not necessary to provide the respondents with an opportunity to remedy deficiencies in their responses pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act. Hence, we preliminarily determine to use the facts available in determining the dumping margin for Rizhao, Fook Huat, and Zhejiang.

We preliminarily determine that Rizhao, Fook Huat, and Zhejiang do not merit separate rates because these respondents did not provide any response to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates. See, e.g., Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 57390 (November 6, 1996). Consequently, consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, because these companies do not qualify for separate rates, they, along with all other exporters of subject merchandise, are deemed to be covered by the PRC-entity rate discussed below.

Section 776(b) of the Act permits us to draw an adverse inference where a party has not cooperated to the best of its ability in a proceeding. This section of the Act deems a respondent uncooperative where the party “* * * has not acted to the best of its ability to comply with requests for necessary information.” See the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA) at 870. We find that, in not responding to our requests for information, the three respondents failed to cooperate to the best of their ability and, consequently, we have used an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondents in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.

The statute provides that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from 1) the petition, 2) the final determination in the investigation segment of the proceeding, 3) a previous review under section 751 of the Act or a determination under section 753 of the Act, or 4) any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. In addition, the SAA establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” SAA at 870. In employing adverse inferences, the Department is instructed to consider “the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.” Id .

The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department also considers the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, from Japan; Notice of Final Results and Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 60472, 60477 (November 10, 1997). In this case, we have used a rate of 376.67 percent, which is the rate currently applicable to all exporters of garlic from the PRC and the rate determined in the investigation and every administrative review of the order conducted to date.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. See id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. A respondent's own current rate has probative value. In this case, the respondents are currently subject to a PRC-wide cash-deposit rate of 376.67 percent. It is reasonable to assume that, if they could have demonstrated that their actual dumping margins are lower, they would have participated in this review and attempted to do so. See Sparklers from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 18059, 18061 (April 6, 2000). In addition, the rate selected was corroborated, to the extent practicable, in an earlier review (see Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review, 61 FR 68229 (December 27, 1996)). We have no new information that would lead us to reconsider the reliability of that rate. Further, 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 may not be relevant, the Department will attempt to find a more appropriate basis for facts available. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin).

In the less-than-fair-value investigation, we received no responses to requests for information on behalf of the respondent-companies. We therefore assigned a best-information-available margin of 376.67 percent for all manufacturers and producers of the subject merchandise. See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994). We selected the rate of 376.67 from the petition because it was the highest rate provided in that document. We assigned this margin in all subsequent reviews, where the respondents likewise did not respond to our requests for information. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review, 62 FR 23758 (May 1, 1997); Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review, 62 FR 51082 (September 30, 1997); Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 33295 (May 23, 2000). There is no other information reasonably at our disposal that would render the rate not relevant.

In the current review, we are assigning the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent since the respondents did not respond to our requests for information. We find that this rate is of probative value. Therefore, we find that the rate is an appropriate basis for adverse facts otherwise available.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin of 376.67 percent exists for all producers/exporters of the subject merchandise as the PRC-entity for the period November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999.

Interested parties may request a hearing not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Interested parties may also submit written arguments in case briefs on these preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held three days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs.

The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including a discussion of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit rate will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: for all PRC exporters and for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review.

This deposit rate, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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.

We are issuing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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 Department regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy (61 FR 38547). On July 15, 1999, we published in the Federal Register the notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of this order, for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 (64 FR 38181).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) the following producers and/or exporters of pasta from Italy requested an administrative review of their sales: Corex; De Cecco; La Molisana; Maltagliati; Pagani; Pallante; PAM; Puglisi; and Rummo. On July 28, 2000, De Cecco also requested revocation of the order with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. On August 30, 1999, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 for all nine companies. Notice of Initiation, 64 FR 47167 (August 30, 1999). 1

For De Cecco, La Molisana, Pagani, PAM, Puglisi and Rummo, the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test during the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which each company participated. Therefore, 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 NV in this review were made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”). Therefore, we initiated cost investigations on these six companies at the time we initiated the antidumping review. During the course of this review, we completed the administrative review for the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 7349 (February 14, 2000). Because the Department had disregarded sales for Corex, Maltagliati, and Pallante that failed the cost test during this recently completed review, on February 9, 2000, for the same reasons noted above, we initiated cost investigations on Corex, Maltagliati and Pallante.

On August 30, 1999, 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 of the questionnaire by October 29, 1999, and Section D responses by January 3, 2000 (except Corex, which submitted its Section D response on February 22, 2000). Pallante voluntarily submitted its section D response on December 12, 1999, prior to the February 9, 2000 initiation of the cost investigation for Pallante.

The Department issued supplemental section A through C questionnaires to the responding companies by January 7, 2000, and second supplemental questionnaires to De Cecco on January 3, 2000, and to Pallante on March 2, 2000. Supplemental section D questionnaires were issued to all companies, except Corex, by February 18, 2000. Second supplemental section D questionnaires were issued to Pallante on March 2, 2000, and to PAM on April 4, 2000. Responses to all supplemental questionnaires were received by April 18, 2000.

We verified the sales information submitted by De Cecco from February 17-19 and March 13-17, 2000; Pagani from March 20-24, 2000; PAM from May 15-19, 2000; and La Molisana from May 22-26, 2000, and June 8-9, 2000. We verified the cost information submitted by De Cecco from May 8-16, 2000, and La Molisana from May 15-19, 2000.

On February 4, 2000, the Department published a notice postponing the preliminary results of this review until June 30, 2000 (65 FR 5591). On June 28, 2000, the Department published a notice further postponing the preliminary results of this review until July 31, 2000 (65 FR 39868).

On August 26, 1999, Rummo withdrew its request for a review. On November 26, 1999, Maltagliati withdrew its request for a review. Because there were no other requests for review for Rummo and Maltagliati, and because the letters withdrawing the requests were timely filed, we are rescinding the review with respect to Rummo and Maltagliati in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

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, diastasis, 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 Institute Metatherian Di Certification, 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.

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, in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099 (“the CRU”).

(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, which is available in the CRU.

(3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention investigation of Barilla, an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on December 8, 1997 (62 FR 65673). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its final determination that Barilla's importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention, with respect to the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). 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 is 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, which is available in the CRU. The following scope ruling is pending:

(1) On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pagani's importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention, with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and cost information provided by De Cecco and La Molisana, and the sales information provided by Pagani and PAM. 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 company-specific verification reports placed in the case file in the CRU.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) pasta shape; (2) type of wheat; (3) additives; and (4) enrichment. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most similar product based on the characteristics listed above, in descending order of priority. Where there were no appropriate comparison market sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing between each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for comparison.

To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed 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.

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 by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP where sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser took place in the United States. 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 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 imposed 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, cost of credit, 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 sections 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, we determined that it was reasonable to assume that 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, consistent with our methodology in prior reviews ( see Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Italy, 63 FR 42368, 42370 (August 7, 1998)), when respondents purchased pasta from other producers and we were able to identify resales of this merchandise to the United States, we excluded these sales of the purchased pasta from the margin calculation. Where the purchased pasta was commingled with the respondent's production and the respondent 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 database, we included the sales of commingled purchased pasta in our margin calculations.

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 its 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, Australia, which had an aggregate sales quantity greater than five percent of the aggregate quantity sold in the United States.

Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market which were determined not to be at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the prices of sales of comparison products to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, where the prices to the affiliated party were on average less than 99.5 percent of the prices to unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were not at arm's length. See e.g., Notice of Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR 60472, 60478 (November 10, 1997), and Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule (“ Antidumping Duties ”), 62 FR 27295, 27355-56 (May 19, 1997). We included in our NV calculations those sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-length test in our analysis. See 19 CFR 351.403; Antidumping Duties, 62 FR at 27355-56.

Before making any comparisons to NV, 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 COP. 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 recalculated the indirect selling expense ratio based on information submitted by Corex on October 6, 1999. See Memorandum from Cindy Robinson to John Brinkmann dated July 31, 2000 (“Corex Analysis Memo”).

For certain products, or control numbers (“CONNUMs”), Corex did not provide complete cost information in its COP database. For these CONNUMS, we calculated COP using the cost of manufacturing (“COM”) reported in Corex's sales database. We calculated interest expense and G&A using information submitted in Corex's October 6 and December 27, 1999 responses. See, Corex Analysis Memo.

De Cecco: We adjusted the G&A ratio by excluding packing from the cost of sales denominator in the G&A calculation because the G&A ratio should be applied to a COM amount that does not include the cost of packing. We also adjusted the interest expense factor by deducting packing from the COM used in the denominator of the calculation. We changed the numerator of the interest expense factor by including the interest expense of other affiliated companies owned by the De Cecco family. See Office of Accounting Memorandum from Michael P. Harrison to Neal Halper, “De Cecco Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,” dated July 31, 2000.

La Molisana: We adjusted La Molisana's reported G&A ratio to exclude direct income taxes and to include certain expenses which were non-deductable for income tax purposes. We also adjusted La Molisana's reported interest expense ratio to exclude foreign exchange rate gains and losses on accounts receivable. See Office of Accounting Memorandum from Ernest Gziryan and Heidi Norris to Neal Halper, “La Molisana Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,” dated July 31, 2000.

Pagani: We adjusted the numerator of the G&A expense ratio calculation by excluding expenses related to Molino Rovato and including Pagani's other operating expenses. For the denominator we used Pagani's unconsolidated cost of goods sold (“COGS”) instead of the reported consolidated figure. In addition, we adjusted Pagani's COGS by adding Pagani's inventory adjustments, and deducting other operating expenses, the write-down of receivables, packing expenses, and G&A expenses.

We recalculated Pagani's financial expense ratio to include only those interest expenses related to Alimco, the consolidated parent company. For the numerator, we used the interest expenses for Alimco as reported in the consolidated audited financial statements instead of the reported summation of interest expenses for Pagani, Molino Rovato, Foods Control, and Alimco. For the denominator, we deducted G&A expenses, the write-down of receivables, and other operating charges from Alimco's consolidated COGS figure. As a result, we recalculated the company's interest expense ratio. See Office of Accounting Memorandum from Gina Lee to Neal Halper, “Pagani Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,” dated July 31, 2000.

PAM: Based on the lack of differentiation between the types and mixes of wheat used by PAM in pasta production, we have weight-averaged the costs of four of the five wheat types reported by PAM, leaving only two wheat types with separate costs. See PAM Sales Verification Report and the Office of Accounting Memorandum from Heidi Norris to Neal Halper, “PAM Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,” dated July 31, 2000 (“PAM Accounting Memorandum”).

In addition, we have revised the fixed overhead expenses to exclude packaging and packing costs that should be reported as a sales price adjustment. We also revised PAM's financial expense ratio to exclude offsets for income earned on fixed bonds, treasury bonds, common funds, and sales of bonds. Finally, we revised the denominator in PAM's G&A and financial expense ratio calculations to exclude G&A, selling, and packing expenses. Id.

As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per unit price of the 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.

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. Specifically, we have disregarded below-cost sales made by Corex, De Cecco, La Molisana, PAM, Pallante, Pagani, and Puglisi in this administrative review.

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 sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance of sale (“COS”) adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, bank charges, billing adjustments, 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 and section 19 CFR 351.411 of the Department's regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable COM 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 are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we make an allowance for the indirect selling expenses in the other market up to the amount of the commissions.

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.

For Corex, where 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, 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. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred by Corex in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We calculated Corex's CV based on the methodology described in the Cost of Production Analysis section of this notice, above.

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.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.

Pursuant to section 351.412 of the Department's regulations, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, 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 LOT 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 LOT of the export transaction, we made a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, if the NV LOT was more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there was no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT 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, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).

For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the July 31, 2000, “98/99 Administrative Review of Pasta from Italy and Turkey: Preliminary Determination Level of Trade Findings” memoranda on file in the CRU. The company-specific LOT analysis is included in the business proprietary analysis memorandum for each company.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) has held that the Department's practice of determining LOT 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 II). The Department believes, however, that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgment in Borden II 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 has appealed Borden II to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Department has continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) of the Act prior to starting a LOT analysis, as articulated in the Department's regulations at section 351.412.

De Cecco: Pursuant to sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, we reclassified De Cecco's reported EP sales as CEP sales since the agreement for sale occurred in the United States between PMI, De Cecco's U.S. affiliate, and the unaffiliated customer. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Melissa Skinner, “Reclassification of De Cecco EP Sales as CEP Sales,” dated July 31, 2000.

La Molisana: Based on verification findings, we revised the calculation of the ENASARCO (commission benefit) expense and other discounts in the home market database, and recalculated marine insurance, billing adjustments, other U.S. transportation expenses, and commissions in the U.S. database. See Memorandum from Jarrod Goldfeder and Russell Morris to John Brinkmann, “Analysis Memorandum for La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A.,” dated July 31, 2000. In addition, we reclassified as indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States, certain indirect advertising expenses incurred in the United States that La Molisana had included as part of U.S. indirect selling expenses incurred in Italy. Id.

Pallante: We recalculated home market imputed credit expenses and billing adjustments to correct errors discovered during our analysis of the home market database. See Memorandum from Dennis McClure to John Brinkmann, “Analysis Memorandum for Pastificio Antonio Pallante s.r.l. (PAP) and its affiliate, Industrie Alimentari Molisane s.r.l. (IAM),” dated July 31, 2000.

Pagani: Based on verification findings, we revised quantity discounts in the home market database and recalculated credit expenses in the U.S. database. See Memorandum from Geoff Craig and Russell Morris to John Brinkmann, “Analysis Memorandum for Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.,” dated July 31, 2000.

PAM: Based on verification findings, we recalculated indirect selling expenses and commission benefits in the home market database, and foreign brokerage and handling, packing costs and discounts in the U.S. sales database. We also revised certain prices that were incorrectly reported in the U.S. Sales databbase. See Memorandum from Jarrod Goldfeder to John Brinkmann, “Analysis Memorandum for PAM S.r.l.,” dated July 31, 2000. In addition, we excluded from the home market database, certain reported sales that we determined were not Italian market sales. We also included in the U.S. database certain sales made to a customer in Italy that were exported to the United States, and excluded from the U.S. database duplicate sales that were erroneously reported. Furthermore, based on our findings at the sales verification, we found that there were insignificant differences between four of PAM's five reported wheat types. See Memorandum from Jarrod Goldfeder to John Brinkmann, “Verification of the Sales Response of P.A.M. S.r.l. in the 98/99 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Certain Pasta from Italy,” dated June 6, 2000. Accordingly, where appropriate, we have combined these four wheat types and revised PAM's control numbers used for product matching. See “Product Comparisons” section above.

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.

On July 28, 1999, De Cecco submitted a letter to the Department requesting, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b), revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise.

The Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia , that one or more exporters and producers covered by the order submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the request in commercial quantities; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider the following in determining whether to revoke the order in part: (1) Whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether it is not likely in the future to sell the subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation in part has agreed in writing to the immediate reinstatement of the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR. 351.222(b)(2).

In its July 28, 1999 request for revocation in part, De Cecco submitted the required certifications and agreement. On October 26, 1999, the Department established a time frame for parties to submit factual information relating to the Department's consideration of De Cecco's request for the revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. We did not receive any comments in response to this request.

Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final results of the two preceding reviews, De Cecco has had de minimis dumping margins for three consecutive reviews. Further, in determining whether three years of no dumping establish a sufficient basis to make a revocation determination, the Department must be able to determine that the company continued to participate meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at issue. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in Part , 64 FR 2173, 2175 (January 13, 1999); see also Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part , 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 16, 1999); and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands , 65 FR 742 (January 6, 2000). This practice has been codified in section 351.222(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, which states that, “before revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five) years, there were exports to the United States in commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or termination will apply.” 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1) (emphasis added); see also 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). For purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to determine that past margins are reflective of a company's normal commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are an abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to offset dumping.

With respect to the threshold matter of whether De Cecco made sales of subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities, we find that De Cecco's aggregate sales to the United States were made in commercial quantities during all segments of this proceeding. Although both the quantity and number of De Cecco's shipments to the United States of subject merchandise have decreased since the imposition of the antidumping duty order, they have remained at sufficiently high levels to be considered commercial quantities. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the “zero” or de minimis margins calculated for De Cecco in each of the last three administrative reviews are reflective of the company's normal commercial experience. See Memorandum from Jarrod Goldfeder to File, “Shipments of Pasta to the United States by De Cecco,” dated July 31, 2000.

With respect to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(ii), the likelihood issue, “when additional evidence is on the record concerning the likelihood of future dumping, the Department is, of course obligated to consider the evidence by the parties which relates to the likelihood of future dumping.” Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 63 FR 17986, 17988 (April 13, 1998) (citing Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part , 61 FR 49727, 49730 (September 23, 1996)). In doing so, the Department may consider such “factors as conditions and trends in the domestic and home market industries, currency movements, and the ability of the foreign entity to compete in the U.S. marketplace without [sales at less than normal value].” Id. ; see also Proposed Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders , 64 FR 29818, 29820 (June 3, 1999) (explaining that when additional evidence as to whether the continued application of an antidumping duty order is necessary to offset dumping is placed on the record, “the Department may consider trends in prices and costs, investment, currency movements, production capacity, as well as all other market and economic factors relevant to a particular case”). Thus, based upon three consecutive reviews resulting in zero or de minimis margins, the Department presumes that the company requesting revocation is not likely to resume selling subject merchandise at less than the NV in the near future unless the Department has been presented with evidence to demonstrate that dumping is likely to resume if the order were revoked. In this proceeding, we have not received any evidence that would demonstrate that De Cecco is likely to resume dumping in the future if the order were revoked. Therefore, we also preliminarily determine that the order is no longer necessary to offset dumping.

Because all requirements under the regulation have been satisfied, if these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by De Cecco. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), if these findings are affirmed in our final results, we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the first day after the period under review, and will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to refund any cash deposit.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 of these preliminary results of review. 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. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e. , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where appropriate, in order to calculate the entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses ( e.g. , international freight) from the gross sales value.

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 rates 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 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(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 the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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 Department regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on pasta from Turkey (61 FR 38545). On July 15, 1999, we published in the Federal Register the notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of this order, for the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999 (64 FR 38181).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the following producers and/or exporters of pasta from Turkey requested an administrative review of their sales: Filiz and Pastavilla Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (“Pastavilla”). On August 30, 1999, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, for Filiz and Pastavilla. Notice of Initiation, 64 FR 47167, (August 30, 1999).

Because the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test during the most recently completed segment of the preceding in which Filiz and Pastavilla participated, 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 NV in this review were made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”). Therefore, we initiated a cost investigation on Filiz and Pastavilla at the time we initiated the antidumping review. In its August 25, 1999, request for an administrative review, Filiz stated that it had no U.S. entries or sales during the POR prior to January 1, 1999, and therefore requested that, for purposes of reporting home market sales and cost data, the POR be shortened to the six-month period from January 1 through June 30, 1999. Accordingly, on September 1, 1999, we informed Filiz that it could limit its reporting of home market data to the period January 1 through June 30, 1999. In that letter we also advised Filiz that if it elected to limit its reporting of home market data to the six-month period, in the 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.

On August 30, 1999, we issued an antidumping questionnaire  1 to Filiz and Pastavilla. On September 16, 1999, Pastavilla withdrew its request for a review. Filiz submitted its section A questionnaire response on September 23, 1999, and sections B, C, D on October 20, 1999.

The Department issued a supplemental section A through D questionnaire to Filiz on December 16, 1999. Filiz submitted its response to our supplemental questionnaire on January 13, 2000.

On February 4, 2000, the Department published a notice postponing the preliminary results of this review until June 30, 2000 (65 FR 5591). On June 28, 2000, the Department published a notice further postponing the preliminary results of this review until July 31, 2000 (65 FR 39868).

We verified the sales and cost information submitted by Filiz from April 10-19, 2000.

On September 16, 1999, Pastavilla withdrew its request for a review. Because there were no other requests for review for Pastavilla, and because Pastavilla's letter withdrawing its request was timely filed, we are rescinding the review with respect to Pastavilla in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

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 subject to the order is dispositive.

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 is 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, in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099 (“the CRU”).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and cost information provided by Filiz. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report placed in the case file in the CRU.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, the Department first attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the U.S. and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) pasta shape; (2) type of wheat; (3) additives; and (4) enrichment. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most similar product based on the characteristics listed above, in descending order of priority.

For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing between each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for comparison.

To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Turkey were made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Because Turkey's economy experienced high inflation during the POR (over 60 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., Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 63 FR 68429, 68430 (December 11, 1998) 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.

For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We based EP on the packed C&F prices to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States.

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, insurance, foreign brokerage handling and loading charges, and international freight. In addition, we increased the EP by the amount of the countervailing duties imposed that were attributable to an export subsidy, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C).

Based on our findings at verification, we revised Filiz' short-term interest rate used in its imputed credit calculation by excluding two long-term loans. See Memorandum from Cindy Robinson to John Brinkmann dated July 31, 2000 (“Filiz Analysis Memo”).

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 Filiz' volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because Filiz' 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 Filiz.

Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market which were determined not to be at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the prices of sales of comparison products to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, where the prices to the affiliated party were on average less than 99.5 percent of the prices to unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were not at arm's length. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR 60472, 60478 (November 10, 1997), and Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule (Antidumping Duties), 62 FR 27295, 27355-56 (May 19, 1997). We included in our NV calculations those sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-length test in our analysis. See, 19 CFR 351.403; Antidumping Duties, 62 FR at 27355-56.

Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether Filiz' comparison market sales were made below the COP. 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. With the exception of the interest expense ratio, we relied on Filiz' information as submitted. We revised Filiz' reported interest expense ratio, by excluding packing cost from the cost of goods sold. See Filiz Analysis Memo.

As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced high inflation during the POR. Therefore, to avoid the distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, we requested that Filiz submit the product-specific cost of manufacturing (“COM”) incurred during each month of the six-month period for which it reported home market sales. We then calculated a six-month average COM for each product after indexing the reported monthly costs during the six-month period 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 six-month average COM in the currency value of each respective month.

As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per unit price of the 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. Since Filiz limited its reporting of home market sales to a six-month period, we did not conduct an analysis to determine 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.

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 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. In such cases, because of the limited six-month reporting period used by Filiz, 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 sections 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.

We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price for inland freight, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing costs, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance of sale adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit, advertising, promotions, and warranties, 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. Pursuant to section 351.411 of the Department's regulations, we based this adjustment on the difference in the variable COM for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using six-month average costs, as adjusted for inflation for each month of the six-month period, as described in the Cost of Production Analysis section above.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the U.S. EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT.

Pursuant to section 351.412 of the Department's regulations, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, 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 LOT 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 LOT of the export transaction, we made a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the July 31, 2000, “98/99 Administrative Review of Pasta from Italy and Turkey: Level of Trade Findings Memoranda” on file in the CRU. The company-specific LOT analysis is included in the business proprietary Filiz Analysis Memo.

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, Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 63 FR 68429 (December 11, 1998).)

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.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 of these preliminary results of review. 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. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e., at or above 0.5 percent) the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where appropriate, in order to calculate the entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses ( e.g., international freight) from the gross sales value.

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 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 rate for Filiz will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies, 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 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 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(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 the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions in effect as of December 31, 1994. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 353 (1995).

On December 13, 1996, the Department published final results of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China covering the periods June 1, 1990 through May 31, 1991, June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992, and June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews , 61 FR 65527 (December 13, 1996) ( Final Results ).

The Peer Bearing Company and the Timken Company contested the Department's decision in the Final Results . In issuing its decision in this case, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) instructed the Department to make the following changes to its margin calculations for the Final Results: (1) change the best-information-available (BIA) rate for Chin Jun Industrial, Ltd. (Chin Jun), (2) correct a clerical error in the calculation of inland freight, (3) recalculate marine insurance expense on a value, rather than weight, basis, and (4) recalculate the exporter's-sales-price (ESP) offset of foreign market value (FMV). See Peer Bearing Company v. United States , Consol. Court No. 97-01-00023, Slip Op. 98-70 (CIT May 27, 1998). The Department issued final results of redetermination on remand on August 26, 1998, and the CIT affirmed the Department's final remand results. See Peer Bearing Company v. United States , Slip Op. 98-161 (CIT December 7, 1998) aff'd mem., sub nom. The Timken Co. v. United States , No. 99-1204 (Fed. Cir. October 6, 1999). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this action, we are amending our final results of reviews, and we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries subject to these reviews.

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, we are now amending the final results of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the People's Republic of China for the periods of review 6/90 through 5/91, 6/91 through 5/92, and 6/92 through 5/93. The revised weighted-average margins are as follows:

Accordingly, the Department will determine and the Customs Service will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by firms covered by these reviews. We will instruct the Customs Service to apply 7.07 percent in its liquidation of entries from companies to which we assigned a BIA rate or which did not receive a separate rate.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register (61 FR 38544) the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy. On July 15, 1999, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this countervailing duty order (64 FR 38181). We received requests for review and initiated the review, covering calendar year 1998, on August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47167). Corrections to the initiation notice were published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1999 (64 FR 48897) and November 4, 1999 (64 FR 60161). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review of the order covers the following producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested: Delverde S.p.A. (“Delverde”), Tamma Industrie Alimentari S.r.L. (“Tamma”), Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastaficio (“Rummo”), and Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.r.L. (“Riscossa”). La Molisana, which had requested to be included in this review, withdrew its request on October 14, 1999 ( see Partial Rescission of Review section, below). This review covers 29 programs.

On October 4, 1999, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Government of Italy (“GOI”), the Commission of the European Union (“EC”), and the above-named companies under review. We received responses to our questionnaires and issued supplemental questionnaires throughout the period November 1999 through January 2000. Responses to the supplemental questionnaires were received in January and February 2000.

On April 6, 2000, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register extending the time limit for issuing these preliminary results until no later than July 31, 2000 (65 FR 18069). We issued a second set of supplementary questionnaires to Delverde and Tamma on June 6, 2000, and to the GOI on June 9, 2000. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires on June 23, 2000.

On October 14, 1999, La Molisana submitted a timely request for withdrawal from this administrative review. Therefore, consistent with the Department's regulations and practice, we are rescinding this review with respect to La Molisana. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

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 the Conzorzio 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.

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 countervailing duty order. ( See August 25, 1997 memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building.)

(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 countervailing duty order. ( 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., which is on file in the CRU.)

(3) 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 countervailing duty order. 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 countervailing duty order. ( See May 24, 1999 memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, which is on file in the CRU.)

The period of review (“POR”) for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

Delverde began a company reorganization during the POR that continued through 1999. Although Delverde did not operate under its new organization during the POR, the company made the reorganization legally effective for accounting and tax purposes as of January 1, 1998.

Prior to the reorganization, Delverde was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a non-producing holding company, Sangralimenti S.r.L. (“Sangralimenti”). This holding company also held an ownership interest in Pietro Rotunno, S.r.L. (“Rotunno”) which ceased producing pasta in 1994. The principal result of the reorganization was the merger of Delverde S.r.L. and Sangralimenti. The new, merged entity is known as Delverde S.p.A. As part of the reorganization, Sangralimenti's ownership interest in Rotunno was sold to an unrelated company. Except for the merger with Sangralimenti, the ownership structure of Delverde changed little as a result of the reorganization.

In previous segments of this proceeding, the Department found that Delverde and Tamma warranted treatment as a single company because of Tamma's  1 ownership in Delverde's holding company, Sangralimenti, and common corporate officers. Therefore, in the investigation and previous reviews of this case, we calculated a single countervailing duty rate for these two companies. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta (“Pasta”) from Italy , 61 FR 30287 (June 14, 1996) (“ Pasta Investigation ”); Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 63 FR 43905 (August 17, 1998) (“ Pasta First Review ”); and Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the Second Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 44489 (August 16, 1999) (“ Pasta Second Review ”).

However, in this administrative review, we are applying the 1998 countervailing duty regulations which are effective for the first time in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 702(a)(2). These regulations require “cross-ownership” before the Department will assign subsidies received by one company to another company ( see preamble to Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 63 FR 65348, 65401 (November 25, 1998)). According to section 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of the Department's regulations, cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. The regulations state that this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting ownership interest between two corporations. The preamble to the Department's regulations identifies situations where cross ownership may exist even though there is less than a majority voting interest between two corporations: “in certain circumstances, a large minority interest (for example, 40 percent) or a ‘golden share’ may also result in cross-ownership.” ( See 63 FR 65401.)

Based on our new regulations and for purposes of these preliminary results, we do not believe that Tamma's ownership interest in Delverde is sufficient to establish cross-ownership between Tamma and Delverde. Although Tamma's ownership in Delverde is significant, it does not have a majority ownership interest; nor does it have a “golden share” in Delverde. Additionally, there is a small number of other shareholders which, together, effectively control more shares in Delverde than Tamma.

Our treatment of Delverde and Tamma is consistent with our finding in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France , 64 FR 73277 (December 29, 1999). At issue in that case was the relationship between two respondents, Usinor and GTS, a company in which Usinor indirectly owned 48 percent. We treated Usinor and GTS as two separate companies because Usinor was not the majority shareholder in GTS and because, despite its large ownership position, Usinor did not control GTS directly or indirectly. Due to the high level of Usinor's ownership interest in GTS, we also examined a number of factors in making our determination that cross-ownership did not exist. Among them was whether Usinor controlled GTS via control over its Board of Directors and its management decision making process.

Despite our preliminary decision to calculate separate rates for Delverde and Tamma, we intend to examine this issue further. Although Tamma's ownership interest in Delverde is less than fifty percent, it is substantial. Moreover, other aspects of the corporate relationship, such as common corporate officers, in combination with Tamma's ownership interest, raises a concern as to whether cross-ownership exists. Therefore, for the final results, we will further consider the issue and seek additional information, if necessary, to fully address whether or not cross-ownership exists between these two companies. We invite comments from all interested parties.

Benchmarks for Long-term Loans and Discount Rates: The companies under review did not take out any long-term, fixed-rate, lira-denominated loans or other debt obligations which could be used as benchmarks in any of the years in which the government grants or loans under review were received. Therefore, for years prior to 1995, we used the Bank of Italy reference rate, adjusted upward to reflect the mark-up an Italian commercial bank would charge a corporate customer, as the benchmark interest rate for long-term loans and as the discount rate. For subsidies received in 1995 and later, we used the Italian Bankers' Association (“ABI”) interest rate, increased by the average spread charged by banks on loans to commercial customers plus an amount for bank charges.

Allocation Period: In the investigation of this case, the Department used, as the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies, the average useful life (“AUL”) of renewable physical assets in the food-processing industry as recorded in the Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (“the IRS tables”), i.e. , 12 years. However, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) subsequently ruled against this allocation methodology for non-recurring subsidies ( see British Steel plc v. United States , 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1289 (CIT 1995) (“ British Steel I ”)). In accordance with the CIT's remand order, the Department determined that the most reasonable method of deriving the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies was a company-specific AUL of renewable physical assets. This remand determination was affirmed by the CIT on June 4, 1996 ( see British Steel plc v. United States , 929 F.Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996) (“ British Steel II ”)).

Therefore, in past administrative reviews of this case, we used a company-specific AUL to allocate non-recurring subsidies that were not countervailed in the investigation. However, for non-recurring subsidies which had already been countervailed in the investigation, the Department used the original allocation period, i.e. , 12 years, because it was deemed neither reasonable nor practicable to reallocate those subsidies over a different time period. This methodology was consistent with our approach in Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997).

As mentioned above, the Department is operating under new countervailing duty regulations in this review. Pursuant to section 351.524(d)(2) of these regulations, the Department will use the AUL in the IRS tables as the allocation period unless a party can show that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry. If a party can show that either of these time periods differs from the AUL in the IRS tables by one year or more, the Department will use the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry as the allocation period.

Riscossa and Rummo do not contest the 12-year allocation period in the IRS tables. Delverde and Tamma, however, have urged the Department to apply the methodology used in previous administrative reviews. To this end, Delverde and Tamma have resubmitted their calculation of the company-specific AUL from Pasta Second Review based on the depreciation and value of productive assets as reported in their financial statements. Delverde and Tamma have not stated which allocation period they believe is appropriate for subsidies received during the current POR.

Pursuant to our new regulations, information submitted in the questionnaire responses, and our practice to not reallocate subsidies, we have preliminarily decided to allocate non-recurring subsidies as follows:

(a) Subsidies countervailed in the investigation ( i.e. , subsidies received in 1994 and earlier) will continue to be allocated over 12 years.

(b) Subsidies countervailed in the first two administrative reviews ( i.e. , subsidies received in 1995, 1996, and 1997), which were allocated over the respondents' company-specific AULs, will continue to be allocated over the company-specific AULs.

(c) Subsidies received during the current POR ( i.e. , 1998) will be allocated over 12 years as specified in the IRS tables, in accordance with our regulations because no company demonstrated that its AUL differed from the 12-year period in the IRS tables.

Benefits to Mills: During the POR, Tamma and Riscossa owned semolina mills (semolina is the main input product in pasta). Neither Tamma nor Riscossa's mills were separately incorporated, i.e. , both the semolina and the downstream product (pasta) were produced within a single corporate entity. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.525(b)(6)(i) of the regulations, the Department has attributed subsidies provided for the production of semolina and pasta to the sales by the corporate entities that received them.

One of the companies under review, Delverde, purchased an existing pasta factory from an unaffiliated party in 1991. The previous owner of the purchased factory had received non-recurring countervailable subsidies prior to the transfer of ownership. In Pasta Investigation , we calculated the amount of the prior subsidies that passed through to Delverde with the acquisition of the factory, following the spin-off methodology described in the Restructuring section of the General Issues Appendix (“GIA”), appended to Final Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products from Austria , 58 FR 37225, 37265 (July 9, 1993). We followed the same methodology in Pasta First Review and Pasta Second Review.

After the Department's final determination in Pasta Investigation , Delverde sued in the CIT, arguing that the Department's spin-off methodology was erroneous and inconsistent with the Act. Initially, the CIT agreed with Delverde and remanded the case to the Department. See Delverde I , 989 F.Supp. at 234. However, after the Department had explained its spin-off methodology in more detail and further argued its reasonableness on remand, the CIT affirmed the Department's methodology. See Delverde II , 24 F.Supp.2d at 315 (“ Delverde II ”). Delverde appealed the CIT's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) which held on February 2, 2000, that the Department may not presume that non-recurring subsidies survive a transfer in a subsidized company's ownership. Accordingly, the CAFC vacated the CIT's decision in Delverde II and stated that it would instruct the CIT to remand the case to the Department. See Delverde v. United States , 202 F.3rd 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). On June 20, 2000, the CAFC denied the Department's petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. See Delverde, S.r.L. v. United States , Court No. 99-1186 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

The Department has not received a remand from the CIT and has, thus, not yet addressed what revisions to our change-in-ownership methodology are necessary. We are examining what information may be relevant to the change in ownership issue decided in Delverde and, if necessary, will issue a questionnaire as soon as possible. For these preliminary results, we have continued to use the spin-off methodology described in the GIA in the same way as it was used in Pasta Investigation and previous administrative reviews. We invite comments from interested parties on revisions to our change of ownership methodology.

Law 64/86 provided assistance to promote development in the Mezzogiorno (the south of Italy). Grants were awarded to companies constructing new plants or expanding or modernizing existing plants. Pasta companies were eligible for grants to expand existing plants but not to establish new plants, because the market for pasta was deemed to be close to saturated. Grants were made only after a private credit institution chosen by the applicant made a positive assessment of the project. (Loans were also provided under Law 64/86; see below.)

In 1992, the Italian Parliament abrogated Law 64/86 and replaced it with Law 488/92 ( see below). This decision became effective in 1993. However, companies whose projects had been approved prior to 1993 were authorized to receive grants under Law 64/86 after 1993. Delverde, Tamma, and Riscossa benefitted from industrial development grants under Law 64/86 during the POR.

In Pasta Investigation , the Department determined that these grants conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They provided a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, these grants were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.

In Pasta Investigation , the Department treated the industrial development grants as non-recurring based on the analysis set forth in the Allocation section of the GIA , 58 FR at 37226. In the current review, no new information has been placed on the record that would cause us to depart from this treatment. In Pasta Investigation and previous administrative reviews, we applied the methodology described in our old (proposed) countervailing duty regulations when determining whether to allocate non-recurring grants over time or expense them in the year of receipt (“the 0.5 percent test”). Accordingly, grant disbursements exceeding 0.5 percent of a company's sales in the year of receipt were allocated over time while grants below or equal to 0.5 percent of sales were countervailed in full (“expensed”) in the year of receipt ( see Countervailing Duties (Proposed Rules), 54 FR 23366, 23384 (19 CFR 355.49(a)(3)) (May 31, 1989)). However, section 351.524(b)(2) of our new countervailing duty regulations directs us to allocate over time those non-recurring grants whose total authorized amount exceeds 0.5 percent of a company's sales in the year of authorization. We applied this new regulation only to disbursements received during the POR, i.e. , we did not redo the 0.5 percent test for disbursements received prior to the POR because we had already calculated a benefit stream for those disbursements in the investigation or in a previous administrative review.

Pursuant to section 351.504(c) of our regulations, we used our standard grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the regulations to calculate the countervailable subsidy from those grants that passed the 0.5 percent test. We divided the benefit attributable to each company in the POR by its total sales, or total pasta sales, as appropriate, in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 64/86 industrial development grants to be 1.73 percent ad valorem for Delverde, 3.10 percent ad valorem for Tamma, and 0.77 percent ad valorem for Riscossa.

In 1986, the European Union (“EU”) initiated an investigation of the GOI's regional subsidy practices. As a result of this investigation, the GOI changed the regions eligible for regional subsidies to include depressed areas in central and northern Italy in addition to the Mezzogiorno. After this change, the areas eligible for regional subsidies are the same as those classified as Objective 1, Objective 2, and Objective 5(b) areas by the EU ( see below). The new policy was given legislative form in Law 488/92 under which Italian companies in the eligible sectors (manufacturing, mining, and certain business services) may apply for industrial development grants. (Loans are not provided under Law 488/92.) Law 488/92 grants are made only after a preliminary examination by a bank authorized by the Ministry of Industry. On the basis of the findings of this preliminary examination, the Ministry of Industry ranks the companies applying for grants. The ranking is based on indicators such as the amount of capital the company will contribute from its own funds, the number of jobs created, regional priorities, etc. Grants are then made based on this ranking.

Delverde and Tamma benefitted from Law 488/92 industrial development grants in the POR. The grants were provided for modernization of both companies' pasta factories and Tamma's warehouse.

Industrial development grants under Law 488/92 were found countervailable in Pasta Second Review . The grants were a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, these grants were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.

In Pasta Second Review , the Department treated industrial development grants under Law 488/92 as non-recurring based on the analysis set forth in the Allocation section of the GIA , 58 FR at 37226. In the current review, no new information has been placed on the record that would cause us to depart from this treatment. We allocated the grant over time because it met the 0.5 percent test, as described above. Pursuant to section 351.504(c) of our regulations, we used our standard grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the regulations to calculate the countervailable subsidy. We divided the benefits attributable to each company in the POR by its total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 488/92 industrial development grants to be 0.28 percent ad valorem from Delverde and 0.09 percent ad valorem for Tamma.

Law 183/76 is known to the Department as a law that authorizes companies located in the Mezzogiorno to take reductions or exemptions in social security contributions for the hiring of new employees. Law 183/76 also allows for the provision of industrial development grants.

In 1983, Riscossa applied for an industrial development grant under Law 183/76. The GOI approved the application and disbursed the grant in tranches. Only the last of these disbursements, received by Riscossa in 1988, falls within that company's 12-year AUL period. Therefore, only this last disbursement has been countervailed in the current review.

In Pasta Investigation and the prior review, the Department determined that the industrial development grant received by Riscossa conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It was a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, we found this grant to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. The Department has not received any new information in this review which would merit a reexamination of this determination.

We have previously treated Riscossa's industrial development grant as a non-recurring grant based on the analysis set forth in the Allocation section of the GIA , 58 FR at 37226. In the current review, no new information has been placed on the record that would cause us to depart from this treatment. We allocated the last disbursement of this grant over time because it met the 0.5 percent test, as described above. Pursuant to section 351.504(c) of our regulations, we calculated the countervailable subsidy using our standard grant methodology, as described in section 351.524(d) of the regulations. We divided the benefit attributable to Riscossa in the POR by the company's total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 183/76 industrial development grant to be 0.08 percent ad valorem for Riscossa.

In addition to the industrial development grants discussed above, Law 64/86 also provided reduced rate industrial development loans with interest contributions paid by the GOI on loans taken by companies constructing new plants or expanding or modernizing existing plants in the Mezzogiorno. For the reasons discussed above, pasta companies were eligible for interest contributions to expand existing plants, but not to establish new plants. The interest rate on these loans was set at the reference rate with the GOI's interest contributions serving to reduce this rate. In 1992, the Italian parliament abrogated Law 64/86. This decision became effective in 1993. Project approved prior to 1993, however, were authorized to receive interest subsidies after 1993.

Delverde and Tamma benefitted from outstanding Law 64/86 industrial development loans during the POR.

In Pasta Investigation , the Department determined that the Law 64/86 loans conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They were a direct transfer of funds from the GOI providing a benefit in the amount of the difference between the benchmark interest rate and the interest rate paid by the companies after accounting for the GOI's interest contributions. Also, they were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.

In accordance with section 351.505(c)(2) of our regulations, we calculated the benefit for the POR by computing the difference between the payments Delverde and Tamma made on their Law 64/86 loans during the POR and the payments the companies would have made on a comparable commercial loan. We divided Delverde's and Tamma's benefits attributable to the POR by their total sales or total pasta sales, as appropriate, in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 64/86 industrial development loans to be 0.56 percent ad valorem for Delverde and 0.23 percent ad valorem for Tamma.

Under Law 304/90, the GOI provided grants to promote the sale of Italian food and agricultural products in foreign markets. The grants were given for pilot projects aimed at developing links and integrating marketing efforts between Italian food producers and foreign distributors. The emphasis was on assisting small- and medium-sized producers.

Delverde received a grant under this program for an export sales pilot project in the United States. The purpose of the project was to increase the presence of all Delverde's products in the U.S. market, not only pasta.

In Pasta Investigation , the Department determined that these export marketing grants conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They were a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, these grants were found to be specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act because their receipt was contingent upon exportation. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.

Each project funded by Law 304/90 grants requires a separate application and approval, and the projects represent one-time events in that they involve an effort to establish warehouses, sales offices, and a selling network in overseas markets. Therefore, in Pasta Investigation, the Department treated the grant received under this program as non-recurring based on the analysis set forth in the Allocation section of the GIA, 58 FR at 37226. In the current review, we have found no reason to depart from this treatment. We allocated the grant over time because it met the 0.5 percent test, as described above.

Pursuant to section 351.504 (c) of our regulations, we used our standard grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the regulations to calculate the countervailable subsidy. We divided the benefit attributable to the POR by the value of Delverde's total exports to the United States in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 304/90 export marketing grants to be 0.26 percent ad valorem for Delverde.

Italian law allows companies, particularly those located in the Mezzogiorno, to use a variety of exemptions and reductions ( “sgravi” ) of the payroll contributions that employers make to the Italian social security system for health care benefits, pensions, etc. The sgravi benefits are regulated by a complex set of laws and regulations and are sometimes linked to conditions such as creating more jobs. The benefits under some of these laws ( e.g., Laws 1089/68, 183/76, 30/97, and 449/97) are available only to companies located in the Mezzogiorno. Other laws ( e.g., Laws 407/90 and 863/84) provide benefits to companies all over Italy, but the level of benefits is higher for companies in the south than for companies in other parts of the country. All the respondent companies in this review benefitted from the sgravi program during the POR.

In Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that the various forms of social security reductions and exemptions conferred countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They represent revenue foregone by the GOI and confer a benefit in the amount of the savings received by the companies. Also, they were found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act because they were limited to companies in the Mezzogiorno. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.

In the investigation and previous reviews, we treated social security reductions and exemptions as recurring benefits. In the current review, we have found no reason to depart from this treatment. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided each company's savings in social security contributions during the POR by that company's total sales in the POR. In those instances where the applicable law provided a higher level of benefits to companies in the south, we divided the amount of the ăsgravi benefits that exceeded the amount available to companies in other parts of Italy by the recipient company's total sales in the POR, in accordance with section 351.503(d) of the regulations. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the sgravi program to be 0.30 percent ad valorem for Delverde, 0.21 percent ad valorem for Tamma, 0.36 percent ad valorem for Rummo, and 0.26 percent ad valorem for Riscossa.

Under Law 598/94, the GOI pays a portion of the interest on certain loans granted to small- and medium-sized industrial companies. These loans are to be used for investments related to technological innovation and/or environmental protection. Rummo received interest subsidies under this program in the POR in connection with a long-term, variable-rate loan obtained prior to the POR. The GOI paid the interest subsidies directly to the lending bank shortly after Rummo had made the full twice-yearly interest payments to the bank. The bank then credited the amount of the GOI's payments to Rummo's account.

The GOI has stated that the general level of subsidies under Law 598/94 is 30 percent of the initial interest payable, but is 45 percent for companies in disadvantaged regions of Italy. Because Rummo is located in a disadvantaged region it received the higher level of benefits.

We preliminarily determine that the higher level of interest subsidies for companies in disadvantaged regions under Law 598/94 confers a countervailable benefit within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It is a direct transfer of funds from the GOI. As discussed in section 351.508 of the regulations, because the interest subsidy is tied to a particular loan and because Rummo knew that it would receive the subsidy when it applied for the loan, we are treating the interest subsidy as a reduced-interest loan in accordance with section 351.508(c)(2) of the regulations.

Because the higher level of subsidies under Law 598/94 is limited to companies in certain regions of Italy, we preliminarily determine that this program is regionally specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. In accordance with sections 351.503(d) and 351.505(c)(2) of our regulations, we calculated the benefit for the POR by dividing the portion of the interest subsidy that exceeded the amount available to companies in non-disadvantaged regions by Rummo's total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 598/94 interest subsidies to be 0.10 percent ad valorem for Rummo.

Under Law 236/93, which is administered by the regional governments but funded by the GOI, grants are provided to Italian companies for worker training. Delverde received a grant under this program during the POR. The company submitted an application to the Regional Council of Abruzzo where Delverde is located. The application was examined by an evaluating committee appointed by the Regional Council, which approved the application in 1997. The grant was disbursed in tranches, the first of which was received by Delverde in the POR. Since the grant did not cover the entire training cost, Delverde also contributed its own funds.

The Department considers worker training programs to provide a countervailable benefit to a company when the company is relieved of an obligation it otherwise would have incurred. See section 351.513(a) of the regulations. Companies normally incur the costs of training to enhance the job-related skills of their own employees. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the Law 236/93 training grant relieved Delverde of an obligation that the company otherwise would have incurred.

The Department has not received any information from the GOI or the Regional Government of Abruzzo (“GOA”) showing how the funds under Law 236/93 were distributed across Italian regions and industries. Delverde has stated that assistance under the program was available to production facilities in the region of Abruzzo, but there is no information on the record as to whether funding under Law 236/93 was also available to companies in other regions of Italy. Because this information is not on the record, we must base our preliminary specificity determination on facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 776 (b) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to use adverse facts available because the GOI and the GOA did not cooperate to the best of their ability to provide information requested on the distribution of benefits by industry and by region as requested by the Department. Specifically, in our January 12, 2000, supplemental questionnaire to the GOI, we asked that certain questions be forwarded to the GOA concerning the Law 236/93 training grants, including a request for information about which other industries received benefits under the program. We received a partial response from the GOA, but, as noted above, we did not receive a response to our question about which other industries had received benefits under this law. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that the GOI and the GOA have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to comply with our request for information regarding this program ( see 19 CFR 351.308). On this basis, as adverse facts available, we preliminarily find the Law 236/93 grant received by Delverde to be specific.

We also preliminarily determine that the Law 236/93 grant confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It provides a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant.

Under section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the Department normally considers worker training subsidies to provide recurring benefits. Therefore, to calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the amount received by Delverde in the POR by the company's total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Law 236/93 training grant to be 0.02 percent ad valorem for Delverde.

The European Social Fund (“ESF”), one of the EU's structural funds, was created under Article 123 of the Treaty of Rome to improve employment opportunities for workers and to help raise their living standards. There are six different objectives identified for the structural funds: Objective 1 covers projects located in underdeveloped regions; Objective 2 addresses areas in industrial decline; Objective 3 relates to the employment of persons under the age of 25; Objective 4 funds training for employees in companies undergoing restructuring; Objective 5 pertains to agricultural areas; and Objective 6 applies to regions with very low population ( i.e., the far north).

Delverde and Riscossa received ESF grants during the POR. Riscossa's grant was provided under Objective 4; there is no information on the record about the EU objective pertaining to Delverde's grant.

In the case of Riscossa, the Regional Government of Puglia (“GOP”) approved a program in 1997, allowing Riscossa to receive an employee training grant jointly funded by the ESF, the GOP, and the GOI through the National Rotational Fund. The GOP published the details and goals of the program in the Official Bulletin of the Puglia Region on January 30, 1997. Riscossa arranged for a private company to organize a training course and requested the GOP to provide funds to cover the cost of the course, as allowed by the program. These funds were given to Riscossa, which in turn paid the company offering the course. Riscossa itself was responsible for covering about 20 percent of the cost of the course.

In the case of Delverde, the company received a grant for employee training which was disbursed to the company in several tranches. The grant, which was provided under a regional operational program, was jointly funded by the ESF and the GOI through the National Rotational Fund. Previous tranches of this grant were found to be countervailable in Pasta First Review.

The Department considers worker training programs to provide a countervailable benefit to a company when the company is relieved of an obligation it otherwise would have incurred. See 19 CFR 351.513(a). Companies normally incur the costs of training to enhance the job-related skills of their own employees. Riscossa in particular has stated that it would have paid for the training using its own funds in the absence of the grant. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the training grants relieved Riscossa and Delverde of an obligation that the companies otherwise would have incurred.

The Department has requested, but has not received, information from the GOI and the EC showing how ESF funds under Objective 4 were distributed across Italian regions and industries. Nor, despite requests, have we received such information regarding payments from the National Rotational Fund, the GOP, or the regional operational program under which Delverde received its grant. Therefore, because this information is not on the record, we must base our preliminary specificity determination on facts available pursuant to section 776 (a) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to use adverse facts available because the EC, the GOI and the GOP did not cooperate to the best of their ability to provide information requested on the distribution of benefits by industry and by region as requested by the Department. In its questionnaire response, the EC has stated that it does not maintain any company-specific data. For information on how EU funds are distributed within individual EU member countries, the EC refers to the national or regional government authorities in the country in question. Therefore, in our January 12, 2000, supplemental questionnaire, we asked the GOI to provide such information. In addition, we asked that certain questions be forwarded to the GOP concerning the training grant provided to Riscossa, including a request for information on which other industries in the region received benefits under the program. As noted above, we did not receive a response to any of these questions from either the GOI or the GOP. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that the GOI and the GOP have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to comply with our request for information regarding this program ( see 19 CFR 351.308(a)). On this basis, as adverse facts available, we preliminarily find the ESF grants received by Delverde and Riscossa to be specific.

Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the ESF grants confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They provide a direct transfer of funds from the GOI, the GOP, and the EU bestowing a benefit a in the amount of the grant.

Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the Department normally considers worker training subsidies to provide recurring benefits. Therefore, to calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the amounts received by Delverde and Riscossa in the POR by the companies' total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.01 percent ad valorem for Delverde and 0.02 percent ad valorem for Riscossa.

Since 1962, the EU has operated a subsidy program which provides restitution payments to EU pasta exporters based on the durum wheat content of their exported pasta products. The program is designed to compensate pasta producers for the difference between EU prices and world market prices for durum wheat. Generally, under this program, a restitution payment is available to any EU exporter of pasta products, regardless of whether the pasta was made with imported wheat or wheat grown within the EU. The amount of the restitution payment is calculated by multiplying the prevailing restitution payment rate on the date of exportation by the weight of the unmilled durum wheat used to produce the exported pasta. The weight of the unmilled durum wheat is calculated by applying a conversion factor to the weight of the pasta. The EU calculates the restitution payment rate on a monthly basis by first computing the difference between the world market price of durum wheat and an internal EU price and then adding a monthly increment (in all months except June and July, which are harvest months). The EU will not normally allow the restitution payment rate to be higher than the levy that the EU imposes on imported durum wheat, as such a situation would lead to circular trade.

Because there was no significant price difference between the EU price and the world market price on durum wheat during most of the POR, the restitution payment rate was zero until mid-October 1998 when it was set at 0.91 percent for exports to the United States. The export restitution payments received by the respondents in the POR included restitution for exports made prior to the POR.

In Pasta Investigation, the Department determined that export restitution payments conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. Each payment represents a direct transfer of funds from the EU bestowing a benefit in the amount of the payment. The restitution payments were found to be specific because their receipt is contingent upon export performance. In this review, the GOI, the EU, and the responding companies have not provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.

Delverde and Rummo received export restitution payments during the POR for shipments of pasta to the United States.

In Pasta Investigation, we treated the export restitution payments as recurring benefits pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(c). We have found no reason to depart from this treatment in the current review. Therefore, to calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the export restitution payments received by Delverde and Rummo in the POR for pasta shipments to the United States by the value of each company's pasta exports to the United States in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the export restitution program to be 0.70 percent ad valorem for Delverde, and 0.07 percent ad valorem for Rummo.

Fiscalizzazione is a nationwide program that allows for a reduction of certain social security payments similar to the sgravi program discussed above. In Pasta Investigation and previous administrative reviews, the Department found the fiscalizzazione program to confer a countervailable subsidy on companies in the Mezzogiorno because manufacturing enterprises in the south were allowed to take higher deductions for certain categories of social security payments than companies in the north.

The questionnaire responses submitted in the current review show that the particular category of social security contributions for which higher deductions were allowed for companies in the south was abolished as of January 1, 1998. The only remaining fiscalizzazione program in 1998 was related to orphans of Italian workers (“ENAOLI”). Contributions under this program were the same for all companies in the manufacturing sector regardless of where they were located. Thus, the particular deductions under the fiscalizzazione program which we previously found countervailable no longer exist. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that the fiscalizzazione program did not confer a countervailable subsidy in the POR.

Rummo reported receiving grants under Law 113/86 in 1990 and 1994 to offset the cost of worker training. The program, which no longer is in effect, according to Rummo, was available only to companies located in the Mezzogiorno.

Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the Department normally considers worker training subsidies to provide recurring benefits. Because Rummo did not receive any training grants under Law 113/86 in the POR, we preliminarily determine that this program did not confer a countervailable subsidy in the POR.

During the period 1987 through 1991, Rummo was allowed to reduce the value added tax (“VAT”) the company paid on the purchase of fixed assets in accordance with Law 64/86. The VAT reduction was eight percent of the value of the asset.

Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the Department normally considers rebates of indirect taxes to provide recurring benefits. Because Rummo did not receive the VAT reductions under Law 64/86 in the POR, we preliminarily determine that this program did not confer a countervailable subsidy in the POR.

Rummo has stated that it received VAT tax benefits under Law 357/94 in 1995 and 1996 but that no benefits were received in the POR. No other information on this program has been made available to the Department.

Pursuant to section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, the Department normally considers tax programs to provide recurring benefits. Because Rummo did not use the tax benefits under Law 357/94 in the POR, we preliminarily determine that this program did not confer a countervailable subsidy in the POR.

We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rates for producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the chart shown below. If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to assess countervailing duties at these net subsidy rates. The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at these rates on the f.o.b. value of all shipments of the subject merchandise from the producers/exporters under review entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review.

Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested reviews will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g), the predecessor to 19 CFR 351.212(c)). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies, except those covered by this review, will be unchanged by the results of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. (“Barilla”) and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L. (“Gruppo”) which were excluded from the order during the investigation) at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996) or the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results of an administrative review in which a company participated. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry, except for Barilla and Gruppo which were excluded from the order during the original investigation.

The calculations will be disclosed to the interested parties in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the regulations.

Because we are rescinding the review with respect to La Molisana, the company-specific rate for this company remains unchanged.

Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. Parties who submit 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. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs.

Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due.

The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The committee will review the current status of the fishery as described in the recent 31st Stock Assessment Workshop Report and other available information, including landings data, survey indices and recommendations for updated biological reference points. The committee will identify issues and outline options for consideration in the annual plan adjustment, including options for separate management of inshore and offshore fisheries in the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA), options for fisheries in the deep-water canyons and for a Grand Banks fishery, and for the protection of spawning activity. The committee will also discuss the impact of sea turtle protection measures in the SFMA on the monkfish fishery. The committee will also discuss scheduling of upcoming meetings, including advisory panel meetings, to complete the annual plan adjustment framework.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

Issues to be discussed include but are not limited to; research efforts at offshore habitat areas “The Point” in North Carolina and “The Charleston Bump” in South Carolina, the development of North Carolina State Habitat Conservation Plans, sand mining and beach renourishment activities and policy statement development, ecosystem management-report to Congress, National Coalition for Marine Conservation report on prey/predator interactions and management implications, marine fiber optic cable placement, Gray's Reef State of the Reef Report, dolphin/ wahoo essential fish habitat, marine reserves and marine protected areas, and deepwater port development.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by August 21, 2000.

The NWS is in the process of replacing the NIDS with a Government operated Radar Product Central Collection/Distribution Service (RPCCDS). Once the RPCCDS is operational, it will be accessible by all users. The NIDS Agreement with three private vendors distributing WSR-88D products to external users was extended through September 30, 2000. The amended NIDS Agreement provides for additional extensions, beyond September 30, 2000, in 90-day increments, as necessary, until the NWS has completed the transition to the replacement RPCCDS.

The RPCCDS has been developed by the NWS and preliminary testing is in progress. The NWS Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System network is used to collect the WSR-88D products from the NWS, Federal Aviation Administration, and Department of Defense WSR-88D sites and deliver them to central radar collection servers that are integrated in the NWS Telecommunication Gateway in Silver Spring, Maryland. The NWS has developed a Demonstration Plan for the RPCCDS to validate the operational readiness of the RPCCDS. The Demonstration Plan is available in “pdf” format on the NWS RPCCDS web page at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oso/rpccds.html .

In order to provide an adequate period of operational testing and sufficient advance notification to all users of the transition to the RPCCDS, the NIDS Agreement is further extended until December 31, 2000. Once the RPCCDS is operational, the NIDS Agreement will be terminated, but no sooner than December 31, 2000. Once operational, the NWS RPCCDS will provide an open distribution of radar products to all users without data redistribution restrictions.

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

a. The Kissimmee Chain of Lakes is located in Central Florida. These lakes have previously undergone seven extreme drawdowns; Lake Tohopekaliga in 1971, 1979 and 1987; Lake Kissimmee in 1977 and 1996; East Lake Tohopekaliga in 1990 and Lake Alligator in 2000. The drawdowns were designed to improve aquatic habitat that had been negatively impacted by flood control practices and nutrient enrichment. Following refill of the lakes the number of fish food organisms, sport fish and forage fish increased; new desirable aquatic vegetation communities became established; and organic sediments decreased in the lakes.

b. The purpose of this project is to restore the environmental ecosystem of the lakes, which will provide habitat for fisheries, birds and other wildlife. Beneficial effects associated with the drawdown plan include bottom substrate improvements as organic build-up is reduced. This will lead to an increase in diversity and density of desirable vegetation. The drawdown will also allow the control of nuisance aquatic plants, such as hydrilla, water hyacinth, cattails, alligator weed, smartweed and pickerelweed, which proliferate under the unnatural static lake level conditions. In addition, the water quality of the lakes will be enhanced by the nutrient uptake and filtration abilities by the recruitment of native plant species. Restoring littoral habitat, which favors bass, will increase native fish species.

c. Drawdown and in-lake habitat enhancement efforts in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes should be conducted on a regular basis to mimic natural processes that would benefit the natural resources of these lakes. Enhancement activities may include muck removal, burning, discing and herbicide application to reduce dense vegetation, tussock formation and organic build-up on lake bottoms.

d. In an effort to mimic natural processes the proposed cycle is for each lake to be drawn down every seven to ten years, which would mean rotating between lakes once a year. The rotating schedule will provide the benefit of supplying sportfish species somewhere in the area consistently and limit access problems to one area at a time.

a. Several drawdown alternatives will be identified and evaluated during the study.

b. Potential environmental resources and issues to be evaluated in the DEIS include project impacts on:

(1) Fish and wildlife resources.

(2) Wetlands resources.

(3) Wildlife habitat & values.

(4) Vegetation.

(5) Water quality.

(6) Surface & groundwater resources.

(7) Endangered or threatened species.

(8) Historical or archeological resources.

(9) Aesthetics.

(10) Nuisance and exotic plant species.

(11) Downstream effects.

(12) Air quality & noise.

(13) Soils.

(14) Navigation and recreation.

(15) Freeze protection.

(16) Local tropical fish farms.

c. Because of the magnitude and duration of this project the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the South Florida Water Management District have determined that a DEIS should be prepared for the Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The scoping process as outlined by the Council on Environmental Quality will be followed to involve Federal, State, and local agencies; and other interested persons and organizations. A scoping letter will be sent to interested Federal, State, local agencies and interested parties requesting comments and concerns regarding issues to consider during the study. Responses to this letter will help identify potential environmental impacts to be evaluated in the DEIS. Additional comments are welcome and may be provided to the above address. Public meetings may be held in the future. Exact dates, times, and locations will be published in local papers.

It is estimated that the DEIS will be available to the public by the spring of 2001.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Student Right-to-Know (JS)*.

Frequency:

Affected Public: Individuals or household, Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 9,800.

 Burden Hours: 189,900.

Abstract: These regulations require institutions that participate in a title IV, Higher Education Act of 1965 program to make available to students the graduation rates of full-time undergaduates, and institutions that also are attended by students receiving athletically related student aid to make available to prospective student-athletes, and their parents, coaches, and counselors the graduation rates of students, and student athletes, by race, gender, and sport. This exact collection was cleared in the spring of 1999. Nothing has been changed.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe Schubart at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.