[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51194-51199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19986]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-805]


Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To 
Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by one producer/exporter 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, 2000 through 
June 30, 2001.
    We preliminarily determine that during the period of review (POR), 
Filiz Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Filiz) 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. In addition, we are 
not revoking the antidumping order with respect to Filiz, because it 
has not had zero or de minimis dumping margins for three consecutive 
reviews and has not had three years of sales in commercial quantities 
at not less than NV. See Intent Not 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

[[Page 51195]]

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: August 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyman Armstrong or Cindy Robinson, 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) 482-3601 or (202) 482-3797, 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 (April 2001).

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 
2, 2001, we published in the Federal Register the notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of this order, for the 
period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001 (66 FR 34910).
    On July 31, 2001, we received a request for review from Filiz, a 
Turkish exporter/producer of pasta, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(2). In addition, on July 31, 2001, Filiz 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. On August 20, 2001, we published the notice of initiation 
of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 
1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, for Filiz. See Notice of Initiation, 66 
FR 43570 (August 20, 2001).
    On August 28, 2001, we sent the antidumping duty questionnaires to 
Filiz. For Filiz, the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost 
test during the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in 
which this company participated.\1\ Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we had reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales by this company 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). Thus, we initiated a cost 
investigation of Filiz at the time we initiated the antidumping review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The fourth administrative review covering the period July 1, 
1999, through June 30, 2000, was the most recently completed review 
for Filiz. See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To 
Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 67 FR 298 (January 3, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filiz submitted its sections A through D questionnaire responses on 
October 25, 2001. The Department issued a supplemental sections A 
through D questionnaire to Filiz on February 6, 2002. Filiz submitted 
its response to our supplemental questionnaire on March 4, 2002.
    On March 12, 2002, the Department published a notice postponing the 
preliminary results of this review until July 30, 2002.\2\ See Certain 
Pasta from Italy and Turkey: Extension of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 11095 (March 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There was a typographical error in the notice of ``Extension 
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews''; 
the preliminary results of this review are actually due on July 31, 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We verified the sales and cost information submitted by Filiz from 
March 20 through March 29, 2002. On May 7, 2002, petitioners submitted 
comments requesting that the Department not revoke the antidumping duty 
order with respect to Filiz. On May 8, 2002 Filiz submitted rebuttal 
comments regarding revocation with respect to its sales of subject 
merchandise.

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 the cost and 
sales information provided by Filiz. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our 
verification results are outlined in a verification report placed in 
the case file in the CRU. We revised certain sales and cost data based 
on verification findings, see, Filiz's Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum (Preliminary Calculation Memorandum) (July 31, 2002) and 
Verification of the Sales Questionnaire of Filiz (July 22, 2002) on 
file in the CRU.

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.

[[Page 51196]]

    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 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, 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 home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared Filiz'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 Filiz'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 Filiz.
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 the 
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 (SG&A) expenses and packing, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the respondent's 
information as submitted, except in instances where we used revised 
data based on verification findings. See the Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum 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 the 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.

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices

    As required under section 773(b) of the Act, for 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 Filiz's sales had been made at prices below the COP within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities. For Filiz, 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 Filiz'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. Therefore, for purposes of this 
administrative review, for Filiz we

[[Page 51197]]

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-factory or delivered prices to 
comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price 
for 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 
costs, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit, advertising, 
promotions, and warranties, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 351.411 of the 
Department's regulations, we based this adjustment on the difference in 
the variable COM for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using twelve-month average costs, as adjusted for inflation for each 
month of the twelve-month period, 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 market at the same LOT as the U.S. 
EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there are no sales at the 
same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a 
different LOT.
    Pursuant to section 351.412 of the Department's regulations, to 
determine whether comparison market sales are at a different LOT, we 
examine 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 are at a 
different LOT and the differences affect 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 make an a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    For Filiz, 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, 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum on file in the CRU.

Intent Not To Revoke

    On July 31 2001, Filiz 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 NV. 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 accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), Filiz's request was 
accompanied by certifications from Filiz that it had not sold the 
subject merchandise at less than NV for a three-year period including 
this review period, and would not do so in the future. In addition, 
Filiz stated that it had sold subject merchandise in commercial 
quantities during this time. Filiz also agreed to immediate 
reinstatement in the relevant antidumping order, as long as any firm is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 
that, subsequent to revocation, Filiz sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV. The Department conducted verifications of Filiz's 
responses for this period of review.
    In the two prior reviews of this order we determined that Filiz 
sold pasta from Turkey at not less than NV or at de minimis margins. We 
have preliminarily determined that Filiz sold pasta products at less 
than NV during the instant review period. However, in determining 
whether a requesting party is entitled to revocation, the Department 
must be able to determine that the company has continued to participate 
meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at 
issue. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part: Pure 
Magnesium from Canada (Pure Magnesium from Canada), 63 FR 26147 (May 
12, 1998) and Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part: Certain 
Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 
Republic of Korea 65 FR 54197 (September 7, 2000).
    This practice has been codified in 19 CFR 351.222(e), which states 
that a party requesting a revocation review is required to certify that 
it has sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities during the 
periods forming the basis of the revocation request. See also, Section 
351.222(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, which states that, 
``before revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, 
the Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or 
five) years, there were exports to the United States in commercial 
quantities of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or 
termination will apply.''; see also, the preamble of the Department's 
latest revision of the revocation regulation stating: ``The threshold 
requirement for revocation continues to be that respondent not sell at 
less than normal value for at least three consecutive years and that, 
during those years, respondent exported subject merchandise to the 
United States in commercial quantities'' Amended Regulation Concerning 
the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 FR 
51236, 51237 (September 22, 1999). For purposes of revocation, the 
Department must be able to determine that past

[[Page 51198]]

margins reflect 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. As the Department 
has previously stated, the commercial quantities requirement is a 
threshold matter. See e.g., Pure Magnesium from Canada, 64 FR 50489, 
50490 (September 17, 1999). Thus, a party must have meaningfully 
participated in the marketplace in order to substantiate the need for 
further inquiry regarding whether continued imposition of the order is 
warranted.
    Based on the current record, we find that Filiz did not sell 
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities during the 
three consecutive reviews cited by Filiz to support its request for 
revocation. During the current POR (July 2000 through June 2001), Filiz 
made only one sale in the United States. Moreover, the total tonnage of 
this sale was small. By contrast, during the period covered by the 
antidumping investigation (May 1994 through April 1995), Filiz made 
numerous sales in the United States whose total quantity is 400 times 
greater than the quantity Filiz sold in the United States during the 
fifth administrative review period (the current review period). See 
Verification of the Sales Questionnaire of Filiz at exhibit 20. In 
other words, Filiz's sales for the entire year covered by the fifth 
review period were only 0.22 percent of its sales volume during the 
twelve-months covered by the investigation. Similarly, during the third 
and fourth administrative reviews, Filiz made only one sale during each 
of these respective reviews. See Verification of the Sales 
Questionnaire of Filiz at exhibit 20. Even, if Filiz receives a de 
minimis margin during the review at issue, this margin is not based on 
commercial quantities within the meaning of the revocation regulation. 
The number of sales and total sales volume is so small, both in 
absolute terms, and in comparison with the period of investigation and 
other review periods, that it does not provide any meaningful 
information about Filiz's normal commercial experience without the 
discipline of the antidumping duty order. See, Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum. Therefore, we find that Filiz did not meaningfully 
participate in the marketplace, and thus, because it has not sold the 
subject merchandise for three years in commercial quantities within the 
meaning of 19 CFR 351.222(e), does not qualify for revocation.
    Because the requirements under the regulations 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 Filiz.

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 margin exists for the period July 
1, 2000 through June 30, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filiz................................................              16.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in such 
briefs, 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rates 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 rate for the company 
listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de 
minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies, 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

[[Page 51199]]

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: July 31, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-19986 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S