[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77852-77855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31752]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818]


Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review and determination to revoke the antidumping duty order in part: 
Certain pasta from Italy.

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

[[Page 77853]]

SUMMARY: On August 8, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. This 
review covers the following exporters/producers of subject merchandise: 
(1) Commercio-Rappresentanze-Export S.r.l. (``Corex''); (2) F.lli De 
Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. (``De Cecco''); (3) La Molisana 
Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (``La Molisana''); (4) Pastificio Fratelli 
Pagani S.p.A. (``Pagani''); (5) Pastificio Antonio Pallante 
(``Pallante''); (6) P.A.M. S.r.l. (``PAM''); and (7) N. Puglisi & F. 
Industria Paste Alimentare S.p.A. (``Puglisi''). The period of review 
(``POR'') is July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, these final results 
differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed in 
the section ``Final Results of Review.'' For our final results, we have 
found that during the POR, La Molisana and PAM sold subject merchandise 
at less than normal value (``NV''). We have also found that during the 
POR, Corex, De Cecco, Pallante, Pagani, and Puglisi did not make sales 
of the subject merchandise at less than NV (i.e., ``zero'' or de 
minimis dumping margins). In addition, we are revoking the antidumping 
order with respect to De Cecco, based on three years of sales in 
commercial quantities at not less than NV. See ``Intent to Revoke'' 
section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Geoffrey Craig, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office VI, Group II, Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3965, or (202) 482-4161, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

    On August 8, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results 
of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta 
from Italy. See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping 
Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta from Italy, 65 FR 48467 (August 8, 
2000) (``Preliminary Results''). The review covers seven manufacturers/
exporters. The POR is July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999. We invited 
parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. We received 
case briefs on September 7, 2000, from PAM, De Cecco, and La 
Molisana.\1\ A public hearing was not held with respect to this 
review.\2\ The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On September 28, 2000, we rejected one page of the case 
brief submitted by PAM, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2) and 19 CFR 
351.302(d), because we found that the page contained untimely new 
factual information. PAM resubmitted the page of the case brief 
without the new information on October 2, 2000.
    \2\ Although on September 7, 2000 PAM requested a hearing, that 
request was subsequently withdrawn on September 18, 2000. No other 
party requested a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or 
not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional 
ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, 
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 Instituto Mediterraneo Di 
Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by 
Ecocert Italia or by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici.
    The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under 
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise 
subject to the order is dispositive.

Scope Rulings

    The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
    (1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that 
multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative 
glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is 
excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders. See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated 
August 25, 1997, 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

[[Page 77854]]

Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is available 
in the CRU.

The following scope ruling is pending:

    (5) 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).

Determination to Revoke

    On July 28, 1999, De Cecco submitted a request, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222, that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order with 
respect to its sales of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.222(e), this request was accompanied by a certification that De 
Cecco had not sold the subject merchandise at less than NV for a period 
of three consecutive reviews, which included this review period, and 
that it sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities to the 
United States during each of these three years. De Cecco also has 
stated that it would not sell the subject merchandise at less than NV 
to the United States in the future, and agreed to the reinstatement of 
the antidumping order with respect to its merchandise, as long as any 
exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department 
concludes that De Cecco sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    In our preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f), 
we stated our intent to revoke in part the order for certain pasta from 
Italy as it pertains to De Cecco's sales of the subject merchandise. 
See Preliminary Results. No parties submitted comments on De Cecco's 
request for revocation.
    Therefore, because De Cecco has made sales at not less than NV for 
three consecutive reviews in commercial quantities (see Memorandum from 
Jarrod Goldfeder to File, ``Shipments of Pasta to the United States by 
De Cecco,'' dated July 31, 2000) and because there is no evidence on 
the record to indicate the likelihood of resumption of sales at dumped 
prices, we are revoking the antidumping duty order in part with respect 
to De Cecco's sales of the subject merchandise. See Certain Welded 
Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke Order In Part, 65 FR 
39367 (June 26, 2000).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review'' 
(``Decision Memorandum'') from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this 
notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the 
Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties 
can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and 
the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is 
on file in the CRU, room B-099 (``B-099'') of the main Department 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Manufacturer/exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corex..............................  zero
De Cecco...........................  0.22 (de minimis)
La Molisana........................  5.26
Pagani.............................  0.49 (de minimis)
Pallante...........................  0.08 (de minimis)
PAM................................  5.04
Puglisi............................  0.07 (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific 
assessment rates 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 the importer-specific assessment rate 
is above de miminis, we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping 
duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. We will 
direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the 
entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that 
importer's entries under the order during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of certain pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except where the 
margin is de minimis or zero we will instruct Customs not to collect 
cash deposits; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies 
not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to 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 deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

[[Page 77855]]

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

    Dated: December 6, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum

PAM

Comment 1: Excluding certain sales from the database
Comment 2: Model matching for unenriched pasta
Comment 3: Selection of normal values
Comment 4: Exchange rate conversion
Comment 5: Level of trade methodology
Comment 5A: General level of trade methodology
Comment 5B: Inventory carrying cost
Comment 5C: Freight and delivery
Comment 6: Shape-based methodology
Comment 7: Short-term borrowing rate
Comment 8: Verification
Comment 9: Sampling methodology
Comment 10: Department of Commerce's release of data
Comment 11: Constructed export price language in the margin program
Comment 12: Administrative process
Comment 13: Accuracy of final results
Comment 14: Cost of production and constructed value data
Comment 15: Weight-averaging methodology
Comment 16: Disregarding sales below cost
Comment 17: Misstated cost data
Comment 18: Raw material cost
Comment 19: Home market sales used in below-cost test
Comment 20: Below-cost sales
Comment 21: General and administrative expenses
Comment 22: Financial expense rate

De Cecco

Comment 23: Constructed export price offset and commission offset
Comment 24: U.S. selling expenses
Comment 25: Countervailing duty variable

La Molisana

Comment 26: Treatment of negative net-U.S. prices
Comment 27: Total overall cost of production data for calculation of 
cost of production and constructed value
Comment 28: Ministerial Error
[FR Doc. 00-31752 Filed 12-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P