[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77857-77859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-805]


Certain Pasta From Turkey: 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: certain pasta from Turkey.

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

SUMMARY: We determine that sales of the subject merchandise have not 
been made below normal value (NV).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Cindy Lai Robinson, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office VI, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-3965 or (202) 482-3797, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

[[Page 77858]]

Case History

    On August 8, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. See Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy, 65 FR 48474 
(``Preliminary Results''). As discussed in the preliminary results, 
this review covers shipments by one respondent, Filiz Gida Sanayi ve 
Ticaret A.S (``Filiz''), during the period of review (``POR'') July 1, 
1998 through June 30, 1999. Interested parties did not submit case 
briefs nor did they request a hearing. There have been no changes since 
the preliminary results.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or 
not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional 
ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, 
diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg 
white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail 
market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or 
polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.
    Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or 
canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of 
non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.
    The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under 
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise 
subject to the order is dispositive.

Scope Rulings

    The Department has issued the following scope ruling to date:
    (1) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope 
inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a 
result of allowable industry tolerances 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'').

Price Comparisons

    We calculated export price and normal value (``NV'') based on the 
same methodology described in the Preliminary Results.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether the respondent participating in the 
review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the 
POR at prices below its cost of production (``COP'') within the meaning 
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We calculated the COP for these final 
results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results.
    We found 20 percent or more of Filiz's sales of a given product 
during the six-month reporting period were at prices less than the 
weighted-average COP for the reporting period and thus determined that 
these below cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within 
an extended period of time in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 
(C) of the Act. As discussed in the preliminary results, in our 
September 1, 1999 letter, we granted Filiz a six-month limited 
reporting period, and we 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 forgo the application of the 
``recovery of cost'' test pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Filiz agreed to accept this limitation on September 7, 1999. 
Consequently, without the application of ``recovery of cost'' test, we 
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 these 
final results, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act. While we disregarded some below-cost sales, 
sufficient sales remained that passed the cost test in the current 
review. Therefore, it was unnecessary to calculate constructed value in 
this case.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
Preliminary Results. As noted above, we received no comments from the 
petitioners or Filiz.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that Filiz had a zero 
weighted-average margin for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 
1999.

Assessment Rate

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject 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. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis 
we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on that 
importer's entries of subject merchandise.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for Filiz in this administrative 
review, we divided the total dumping margins for Filiz by the total net 
value for Filiz's sales during the review period.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Turkey 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption upon publication 
of these final results of administrative review, as provided by 
sections 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
Filiz will be zero; (2) for other previously reviewed or investigated 
companies, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, 
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in 
any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 
51.49 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from 
Turkey, 61 FR 38545 (July 24, 1996).

[[Page 77859]]

    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)(1) and 19 
USC 1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: December 1, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-31754 Filed 12-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P