[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34414-34422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Antidumping 
Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of 
antidumping duty administrative review and intent to revoke the 
antidumping duty order in part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (``pasta'') from Italy 
for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, (1) Barilla G.e.R. 
F.lli S.p.A. (``Barilla''), (2) Delverde S.p.A. and its affiliate, 
Tamma Industrie Alimentari di Capitanata, S.r.L. (collectively, 
``Delverde''), (3) Pastificio Guido Ferrara S.r.l. (``Ferrara''), (4) 
Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. and its affiliate Industrie 
Alimentari Molisane S.r.l. (collectively, ``Pallante''), (5) P.A.M., 
S.r.l. and its affiliate Liguori (collectively, ``PAM''), and (6) 
Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.r.l. (``Riscossa'') 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 equal to the difference between the export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') and NV.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, (1) Commercio-
Rappresentanze-Export S.p.A. (``Corex''), (2) Pastificio F.lli Pagani 
S.p.A. (``Pagani''), (3) N. Puglisi & F. Industria Paste Alimentari 
S.p.A. (``Puglisi''), and (4) Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio 
(``Rummo'') did not make sales of the subject merchandise at less than 
NV (i.e., made sales at ``zero'' or de minimis dumping margins). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 
Also, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
this administrative review, we intend to revoke the antidumping duty 
order with respect to Puglisi and Corex, based on three years of sales 
at not less than NV. See ``Intent to Revoke'' section of this notice.
    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 
the 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: July 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Geoffrey Craig, 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) 482-4161, 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 the 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 Italy (61 FR 38547). 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 13 to July 31, 2000, we received requests for review from 
the Borden Foods Corporation (``Borden''), which is an affiliate of 
Borden Inc., a petitioner \1\ in the case, from New World

[[Page 34415]]

Pasta,\2\ and from individual Italian exporters/producers of pasta, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). There were requests made for 31 
Italian 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 and listed 30 companies. 
Notice of Initiation, 65 FR 53980 (September 6, 2000). Although Borden 
requested a review of De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (``De 
Matteis''), we did not initiate a review of De Matteis because it 
received a de minimis margin in the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation and, thus, is excluded from the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. This letter was written on 
behalf of Borden and New World Pasta. However, 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 submitted its own letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 6, 2000 and September 7, 2000, respectively, Borden 
and New World Pasta withdrew their request for certain companies 
enumerated in their original letters. Of the 30 companies \3\ named in 
the Initiation Notice, we are rescinding a review of 14 companies 
because petitioners withdrew their 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This list included companies known to be affiliated. After 
accounting for known affiliated parties, there are 27 companies in 
the Initiation Notice. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 13, 2000, we sent questionnaires to the remaining 
companies that we initiated a review of: (1) Arrighi S.p.A. Industrie 
Alimentari (``Arrighi''); (2) Barilla; (3) Corex; (4) Delverde; (5) Di 
Martino Gaetano E. F.lli S.r.l. (``Di Martino''); (6) Ferrara; (7) La 
Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (``La Molisana''); (8) Puglisi; 
(9) Pallante; (10) Pagani; (11) Riscossa; (12) PAM; and (13) Rummo.
    During the most recently completed segment in which each of the 
following companies participated, the Department disregarded sales that 
failed the cost test: Corex, Delverde, La Molisana, Puglisi, Pallante, 
PAM and Rummo.\4\ 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 companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The third administrative review was the most recently 
completed review for Corex, La Molisana, Puglisi, Pallante, and PAM. 
See Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 2000). The most 
recently completed review that Rummo participated in was the second 
administrative review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Italy, 65 FR 7349 
(February 14, 2000). The LTFV investigation was the most recent 
segment of the proceeding in which Delverde participated. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first administrative review, which was the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding involving Arrighi and Pagani, the 
Department initiated cost investigations of Arrighi and Pagani. 
However, we were unable to complete those investigations because we had 
to base the final determination on facts otherwise available. The use 
of facts otherwise available precluded the Department from determining 
whether, in fact, sales below the cost of production would be 
disregarded from the home market sales response in that proceeding. 
Nonetheless, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we 
initiated cost investigations on Arrighi and Pagani at the time we 
initiated this antidumping review based on the fact that we initiated 
COP investigations for these companies in the most recently completed 
review involving these companies and presumably would have disregarded 
sales that failed the cost test but for having to base their margins on 
total facts available.
    However, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to 
Arrighi because it submitted a letter stating that it had no shipments 
of subject merchandise during the POR. As discussed in the Partial 
Recission section below, using customs data, we verified that Arrighi 
did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
    Also, on September 27, 2000 and October 18, 2000, respectively, La 
Molisana and Di Martino withdrew their requests for a review. Thus, as 
also discussed in the Partial Recission section below, we are 
rescinding the review for La Molisana and Di Martino because they 
withdrew their requests in a timely manner and there was no other 
request by an interested party to review La Molisana or Di Martino.
    We also received a letter from Barilla stating that it did not 
intend to respond to the Department's questionnaire. See ``Facts 
Available'' section of this notice.
    After several extensions, the remaining respondents submitted their 
responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire by November 15, 
2000, and section D responses by January 16, 2001, except Riscossa and 
Ferrara who were not required to respond to section D.
    From October 2000 to April 2001, the Department issued supplemental 
and second supplemental section A through C questionnaires to the 
responding companies. From November 2000 to March 2001, supplemental 
and second supplemental section D questionnaires were issued to all 
relevant companies.
    We verified the sales information submitted by Corex from February 
12-16, 2001; Riscossa from February 26-March 2, 2001; Pallante from 
March 12-23, 2001; Ferrara from March 26-29, 2001; and Puglisi from 
April 30-May 4, 2001. We verified the cost information submitted by 
Corex from February 19-23, 2001; Pallante from March 12-23, 2001; and 
Puglisi from May 7-11, 2001.
    On January 30, 2001, the Department published a notice postponing 
the preliminary results of this review until June 21, 2000 (66 FR 
8198).

Partial Rescission

    We initiated a review of 30 companies. However, this list included 
companies known to be affiliated. After accounting for known affiliated 
parties,\5\ there are 27 companies in the Initiation Notice. On 
September 6, 2000, we received a revised letter from Borden shortening 
its list to five companies for the Department to review. New World 
Pasta submitted a letter withdrawing its request for the Department to 
review any companies. In its September 6, 2000 letter, Borden included 
Arrighi as a company that it wanted the Department to review. On 
October 4, 2000, Arrighi submitted a letter stating that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review. We 
verified this information through customs data. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the review in part 
as to Arrighi because it made no sales or shipments of subject 
merchandise during the review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Delverde S.r.l. has an affiliate, Tamma Industrie 
Alinmentari di Capitanata, SrL. Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. 
is affiliated with Industrie Alimentari Molisane S.r.l and P.A.M., 
S.r.l. has an affiliate, Liguori. Each of these pairs of affiliates 
was treated as a single entity in the prior segments of this 
proceeding.

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

[[Page 34416]]

    There were eight companies that self-requested a review. On 
September 27, 2000 and October 18, 2000, respectively, La Molisana and 
Di Martino withdrew their requests for a review. Because there were no 
other requests for review of Di Martino and La Molisana and because the 
letters withdrawing the requests were timely filed, we are rescinding 
the review with respect to Di Martino and La Molisana in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
    We are rescinding the review, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), with respect to the remaining 14 companies for which 
petitioners withdrew their request and the producer did not self-
request a review. See the ``Partial Rescission Memo'' which lists the 
14 companies that we are rescinding.

Use of Facts Available

    Barilla notified the Department in an October 6, 2000 letter that 
it did not intend to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if any interested party: (A) 
Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of 
the information or in the form or manner requested; (C) significantly 
impedes an antidumping investigation; or (D) provides such information 
but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in making 
its determination. Because Barilla wholly failed to respond to our 
questionnaire, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we have 
applied facts available (``FA'') to determine its dumping margin.

Selection of Adverse FA

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997). We find that Barilla's refusal 
to answer the questionnaire in whole or part and its failure to offer 
alternative methods of compliance constitutes a failure to act to the 
best of its ability. For this reason, and to ensure that Barilla does 
not benefit from that lack of cooperation, we are employing an adverse 
inference in selecting from facts otherwise available.
    In assigning an adverse facts available rate in an administrative 
review, the Department's practice is to use the highest rate given to 
any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. See e.g., Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and 
Strip from Germany, 64 FR 43342 (August 10, 1999). In the first 
administrative review, we based the antidumping duty rate for Arrighi, 
Barilla, and Pagani on the highest margin from the petition, as 
adjusted by the Department, 71.49 percent. See Notice of Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Pasta From Italy, 64 FR 6615 (February 10, 1999).
    Pagani did not contest the 71.49 percent rate. However, Barilla and 
World Finer Foods, Inc. (an importer of Arrighi pasta) sued the 
Department on the basis that the adverse facts available rate selected 
by the Department was not properly corroborated. The Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') ruled that the Department must determine 
an appropriate facts available rate for Arrighi and assess Barilla a 
dumping margin that, while adverse, ``bears a rational relationship to 
the probability of dumping.'' See World Finer Foods v. the United 
States, Slip Op. 00-72 (CIT June 26, 2000) at 26-27.
    On September 15, 2000, we filed with the Court the final results of 
redetermination pursuant to the CIT's remand order. We assigned Arrighi 
a rate of 19.09 percent (net of export subsidies) which was the rate we 
calculated for Arrighi in the prior segment of the proceeding, the LTFV 
investigation. We based the adverse facts available margin for Barilla 
on secondary price information in the petition and U.S. Customs import 
statistics. Normal value was derived using a Barilla price list 
contained in the petition with an effective date of January 1, 1995. 
With respect to U.S. price, we reviewed U.S. Customs import statistics 
from the first administrative period of review and were able to 
identify an average unit value (``AUV'') specifically for Barilla. We 
calculated a margin for every product on the price list and found 
margins ranging from 39.63 to 63.63 percent with a simple average of 
45.59 percent. We applied the 63.63 percent margin to Barilla.
    On November 3, 2000, the CIT affirmed the final revised remand 
determination in World Finer Foods, Inc. v. United States, 120 F. 
Supp.2d 1131 (November 3, 2000). With respect to Barilla, the CIT found 
that ``the only margin that is available that is supported by the 
evidence is the margin of 45.59 percent, Commerce's best guess, which, 
based on this record, is adverse.'' Barilla did not appeal the CIT 
decision. See Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Italy, 66 FR 20636 (April 24, 
2001).
    After the litigation relating to the first administrative review, 
the highest rate given to a respondent is the 71.49 percent rate 
assigned to Pagani. The court did not address the appropriateness of 
this rate for Pagani because Pagani did not challenge the Department 
after the final results. The only other company to receive a facts 
available rate was De Cecco in the LTFV investigation. For De Cecco, we 
chose a simple average of the margins calculated in the petition, which 
ranged from 21.85 percent to 71.49 percent, as adjusted by the 
Department: 46.67 percent. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1344, 1345 (January 19, 1996). De Cecco 
filed suit and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') 
affirmed the CIT's rejection of the 46.67 percent rate as ``discredited 
and uncorroborated'' on the record of the LTFV investigation. See F.lli 
De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. the United States, 216 F. 
Supp.3d 1027, 1032-33 (CAFC June 16, 2000).
    Although we prefer to use the highest rate given to a company in 
the course of the proceeding as the basis for an adverse facts 
available rate, we are cognizant of the legal history of this case and 
the court's rejection of the 71.49 percent rate with respect to Arrighi 
and Barilla and the 46.67 percent rate with respect to De Cecco. The 
45.59 percent rate assigned to Barilla from the remand of the first 
administrative review is the highest rate ever upheld by the court. In 
considering the appropriateness of the 45.59 percent rate as an adverse 
facts available rate for Barilla in the current administrative review, 
we must consider whether the rate has probative value, i.e. is relevant 
and reliable. The rate is reliable because it is based on Barilla's own 
price lists and the actual average import prices. It is based on a home 
market price list (effective January 1995) which was compared to U.S. 
import prices during the first administrative period of review (July 
1996 through June 1997).
    We are mindful that the 45.59 percent rate is based upon data from 
the LTFV investigation and the first administrative review. However, 
there is no evidence on the record that is more contemporaneous since 
Barilla did not

[[Page 34417]]

participate in the second or third administrative reviews of this order 
and did not provide the Department with any information related to the 
current review. Further, we do not consider data from the LTFV 
investigation and first administrative review to be so outdated as to 
warrant rejecting said data since only three years have passed between 
the LTFV investigation and this review. Moreover, in the current 
review, we have found individual sales transactions of other 
respondents at or above 45.59 percent. Thus, it is reasonable to 
conclude that the 45.59 percent rate is still relevant to Barilla's 
current level of dumping.
    Next, we consider whether the 45.59 percent rate is appropriately 
adverse. Inasmuch as we found the 45.59 percent rate to be adverse in 
our remand determination, and the CIT upheld this determination, and 
there is no new information that would lead us to conclude this rate is 
not adverse in this review, we find the 45.59 percent rate to still be 
an appropriately adverse rate. Thus, we are assigning Barilla an 
adverse facts available rate of 45.59 percent.

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, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, 
or by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica.
    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 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).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information provided by Corex, Pallante, and Puglisi, and the 
sales information provided by Ferrara and Riscossa. 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. 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, 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.

[[Page 34418]]

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in 
the United States at less than normal 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.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    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 EP or CEP as applicable, by an amount equal 
to the countervailing duty rate attributed to export subsidies in the 
most recently completed administrative review, 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 by 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. 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 4867, 4869 (August 8, 2000). Accordingly, consistent with 
our methodology in prior reviews (see id.), 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 for that respondent. 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.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    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.

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, 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 of 
Corex, Delverde, PAM, Pallante, Pagani, Puglisi, and Rummo, 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 instances where we used

[[Page 34419]]

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.
2. Startup Adjustment
    PAM claimed a start-up adjustment for its new pasta production line 
at the D'Apuzzo facility. Construction of the new line began on April 
30, 2000 and the new line was ready for commercial production on August 
23, 2000. During this period, the existing lines were periodically shut 
down because the new production line was installed in close proximity 
to the rest of the facility. PAM claims a startup adjustment equal to 
the amount of the fixed overhead which can be attributed to the period 
of time that the D'Apuzzo facility was closed during the POR for 
installation of the new production lines.
    We are not allowing a startup adjustment in this case. 
Specifically, section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act states that the 
Department will make an adjustment for startup costs where the 
following two conditions are met: (1) A producer is using new 
production facilities or producing a new product that requires 
substantial additional investment, and (2) the production levels are 
limited by technical factors associated with the initial phase of 
commercial production.
    We have examined PAM's claim and determined that the criteria for 
granting a startup adjustment have not been satisfied in this case. The 
construction of a new pasta production line does not constitute a ``new 
facility,'' nor is PAM producing a ``new product'' that required 
substantial additional investment, within the meaning of section 
773(f)(1)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. Rather, the addition of a new 
production line within an already existing facility is a ``mere 
improvement'' that the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. I, (1994) at 835 (``SAA'') states 
will not qualify for a startup adjustment. Moreover, PAM has not 
identified any additional costs associated with ``substantially 
retooling'' its existing facility, which, according to the SAA might 
satisfy the first criterion. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13200 (March 18, 
1998) (where the Department disallowed a startup adjustment because the 
respondent failed to demonstrate that the production line in question 
constituted a ``new facility'' and manufactured a ``new product'').
    Section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act establishes that both prongs of 
the startup test must be met to warrant a startup adjustment; 
therefore, this finding is sufficient to deny PAM's claim. As a result, 
we have not addressed PAM's arguments concerning technical factors that 
limit commercial production levels. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From Chile, 63 FR 41786, 41788 (August 5, 1998).
3. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    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 (also 
subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses.
4. 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 a respondent's sales of a 
given product 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, Delverde, PAM, Pallante, 
Pagani, Puglisi, and Rummo in this administrative review.

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, where appropriate, 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.
    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.
    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 19 CFR 351.411 of the Department's 
regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable 
cost of manufacturing (``COM'') for the foreign like product and 
subject merchandise, using POR-average costs.
    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.

E. Normal Value Based on CV

    For Corex, where we could not determine the NV based on comparison 
market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of a 
comparable product above COP, 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

[[Page 34420]]

Corex in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market.
    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.

F. Level of Trade (``LOT'')

    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 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. PAM was the only company for which we made an 
LOT adjustment.
    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). We granted a CEP offset for the following 
companies: Delverde; Puglisi; and Rummo.
    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: Preliminary Determination Level of Trade Findings' memoranda on 
file in the CRU.

G. Company-Specific Issues

    We relied on the respondents' information as submitted, except in 
instances where, based on verification findings, we made modifications 
to the calculation of normal value and EP or CEP. See the company-
specific calculation memoranda on file in the CRU, for a description of 
any changes that we made.

Currency Conversion

    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.

Intent To Revoke

    On July 13, 2000 and July 31, 2000, Puglisi and Corex, 
respectively, submitted letters to the Department requesting, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.222(b), revocation of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to their 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 the continued application of the antidumping duty 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).
    On July 31, 2000 and September 13, 2000, respectively, Puglisi and 
Corex submitted the required certifications and agreements.
    Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final 
results of the two preceding reviews, Puglisi and Corex 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 Sec. 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 Puglisi and Corex 
made sales of subject merchandise to the United States in commercial 
quantities, we find that Puglisi's and Corex's aggregate sales to the 
United States were made in

[[Page 34421]]

commercial quantities during all segments of this proceeding. Both the 
quantity and number of Puglisi's and Corex's shipments to the United 
States of subject merchandise 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 Puglisi and 
Corex in each of the last three administrative reviews are reflective 
of the company's normal commercial experience. See Memorandum from 
Geoffrey Craig to File, ``Shipments of Pasta to the United States by 
Puglisi,'' dated June 21, 2001; and Memorandum from Cindy Robinson to 
File, ``Shipments of Pasta to the United States by Corex,'' dated June 
21, 2001.
    With respect to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(ii), in considering whether 
continued application of the order is necessary to offset dumping, 
``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.'' Proposed 
Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 64 FR 
29818, 29820 (June 3, 1999). 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 Puglisi and 
Corex are 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 Puglisi and Corex. 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.

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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barilla...................................................         45.59
Corex.....................................................          0
Delverde..................................................          0.58
Ferrara...................................................          4.39
Pagani....................................................          0
Pallante..................................................          2.40
PAM.......................................................          4.48
Puglisi...................................................        * 0.10
Rummo.....................................................        * 0.02
Riscossa..................................................          1.81 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De Minimis.

    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.

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 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 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 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.

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

[[Page 34422]]

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. 01-16300 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P