[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34410-34414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16299]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-805]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of 
antidumping duty administrative review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and two producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from Turkey for the period July 1, 
1999 through June 30, 2000.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Filiz Gida Sanayi 
ve Ticaret A.S. (Filiz) and Pastavilla Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret 
A.S. (Pastavilla) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value 
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service 
to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export 
price (EP) and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding should also 
submit with them: (1) A statement of the issues; (2) a brief summary of 
their comments; 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Lyman Armstrong, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office 6, 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) 482-3601, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to Department regulations refer to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Case History

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on pasta from Turkey (61 FR 38545). On July 
20, 2000, we published in the Federal Register the notice of 
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this order, for 
the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000 (65 FR 45035).
    From July 20 to July 31, 2000, we received requests for review from 
Borden Foods Corporation (Borden), which is an affiliate of Borden 
Inc., a petitioner \1\ in the case, from New World Pasta \2\, and from 
individual Turkish exporters/producers of pasta, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b)(2). In all, requests were made to review four Turkish 
companies. On September 6, 2000, we published the notice of initiation 
of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 
1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, for Filiz, Pastavilla, Beslen Makarna 
Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and its affiliate, Beslen Pazarlarma Gida 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively Beslen), and Maktas Makarnacilik 
ve Ticaret A.S. (Maktas). See Notice of Initiation, 65 FR 53980 
(September 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Borden Inc., Hershey Foods Corp. 
(Hershey Pasta), Grocery Corp Inc., and Gooch Foods, Inc. (effective 
January 1, 1999, Hershey Pasta and Grocery Corp. Inc. became New 
World Pasta, Inc.).
    \2\ See letter from Collier Shannon Scott dated July 31, 2000, 
submitted on behalf of Borden and New World Pasta, on file in room 
B-099 of the Department's main building. On September 7, 2000, 
Collier Shannon Scott submitted a letter stating that its July 31, 
2000 letter should have been on behalf of New World Pasta alone, 
because Borden had submitted its own letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 6, 2000, Borden withdrew its request for certain 
companies enumerated in its original letter. Of the four companies 
named in the Initiation Notice, we are rescinding a review of one 
company, Maktas, because Borden withdrew its request and there was no 
request from any other interested party. See Memorandum from Melissa G. 
Skinner to Bernard Carreau, ``Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review'' dated June 21, 2001 (Partial Rescission Memo) 
and the Partial Recission section below.
    On September 13, 2000, we sent questionnaires to the remaining 
three companies for which we initiated the review: (1) Filiz; (2) 
Pastavilla; and (3) Beslen.
    For Pastavilla and Filiz, the Department disregarded sales that 
failed the cost test during the most recently completed segment of the 
proceeding in which these companies 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 Pastavilla and Filiz at the time we 
initiated the antidumping review.
    On September 21, 2000, Filiz stated that it had no U.S. entries or 
sales during the POR prior to January 1, 2000, 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, 2000. Accordingly, on October 5, 2000, we informed Filiz that it 
could limit its reporting of home market data to the period January 1 
through June 30, 2000. In that letter we also advised Filiz that if it 
elected to limit its reporting of home market cost 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.
    Filiz and Pastavilla submitted their section A questionnaire 
responses on October 4, 2000, and sections B through D on November 3, 
2000.
    The Department issued supplemental sections A through C 
questionnaires to

[[Page 34411]]

Pastavilla and Filiz on November 16, and November 28, 2000, 
respectively. Pastavilla submitted its response to our supplemental 
questionnaire on November 30, 2000. We received Filiz's response to our 
supplemental questionnaire on December 18, 2000.
    The Department issued supplemental section D questionnaires to 
Pastavilla and Filiz on January 25, 2001. We received responses from 
both parties on February 8, 2001.
    On January 30, 2001, the Department published a notice postponing 
the preliminary results of this review until June 21, 2001 (66 FR 
8198).
    The Department issued a second supplemental sections A through D 
questionnaire to Filiz on March 26, 2001. We received Filiz's response 
to our supplemental questionnaire on April 19, 2001.
    We verified the sales information submitted by Pastavilla from 
April 23-27, 2001.

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

    On September 6, 2000, Borden withdrew its request for a review of 
Maktas. Because there were no other requests for review for Maktas, and 
because Borden's letter withdrawing its request was timely filed, we 
are rescinding the review with respect to Maktas in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(1).
    On October 3, 2000, Beslen submitted a letter stating that it had 
no shipments of scope merchandise during the POR. We verified this 
through data from the U.S. Customs Service. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), we are preliminary rescinding our review of Beslen since 
it made no sales or shipments of subject merchandise during the review 
period.

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).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales 
information provided by Pastavilla. 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 a verification report placed in 
the case file in the CRU. We revised certain sales and cost data based 
on verification findings. See the company-specific verification report 
and calculation memorandum.

Product Comparisons

    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.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    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 normal value (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.

Export Price

    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 was not otherwise warranted based on the facts 
on the record. We based EP on the packed C&F and FOB 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 paid that were attributable to an export subsidy, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the

[[Page 34412]]

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 section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because 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 
both producers.

B. Arm's Length Test

    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, rebates, 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 Rescission 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.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether each 
respondent's 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 instances where we used revised 
data based on verification findings. See the company-specific 
calculation memoranda on file in the CRU, for a description of any 
changes that we made.
    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 each respondent submit the product-specific cost of manufacturing 
(COM) incurred during each month of the period for which it reported 
home market sales. We then calculated an average COM for each product 
after indexing the reported monthly costs 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 average COM in the currency value of each 
respective month. Because Filiz limited its reporting of home market 
sales to a six-month period we requested that it submit product-
specific COM incurred during each month of the six-month period and 
made our calculations on that basis.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    As required under section 773(b) of the Act, for Pastavilla and 
Filiz, we compared the weighted-average COP to the weighted-average per 
unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, 
to determine whether their respective 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 cost data 
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. For each respondent, 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 (also subtracted from the 
COP), and packing expenses. We added interest revenue.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Pastavilla's sales of a given 
product during the twelve-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 (indexed for inflation), 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. For Filiz, where 20 percent or 
more of the sales of a given product during its 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. 
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 section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for 
purposes of this administrative review, for both companies 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.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to 
comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price 
for 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, 
billing adjustments, 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 Sec. 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 twelve-month average costs (six-month average costs for Filiz), 
as adjusted for inflation for each month of the twelve-month period 
(six-month period for Filiz), as described in the Cost of Production 
Analysis section above.

E. Level of Trade (LOT)

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV based on sales in the comparison

[[Page 34413]]

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 Sec. 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.
    Filiz had no home market sales at the same LOT. Consequently, we 
could not match EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market. 
Nor could we determine a LOT adjustment. Therefore, we made no LOT 
adjustment.
    For Pastavilla, all EP sales were compared to home market sales at 
the same LOT. Therefore, no LOT adjustment was necessary.
    For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of 
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the 
June 21, 2001, ``99/00 Administrative Review of Pasta from Italy and 
Turkey: Level of Trade Findings Memorandum'' on file in the CRU.

Intent Not To Revoke

    On July 24 2000, Pastavilla 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 continued application of the AD order is otherwise 
necessary to offset dumping; 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 24, 2000 request for revocation in part, Pastavilla 
submitted the required certifications and agreement. Based on the 
preliminary results in this review and the final results of the two 
preceding reviews, Pastavilla has not had zero or de minimis dumping 
margins for three consecutive reviews.
    Because the requirements under the regulation have not been 
satisfied, if these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final 
results, we do not intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with 
respect to merchandise produced and exported by Pastavilla.

Currency Conversion

    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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period July 
1, 1999 through June 30, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filiz...................................................            3.59
Pastavilla..............................................            1.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose the 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.

Assessment Rate

    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

[[Page 34414]]

subtracted international movement expenses (e.g., international 
freight) from the gross sales value.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total 
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales during the review period.
    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 rates for the companies 
listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review; (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.

Notification to Importers

    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.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-16299 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P