[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 319-323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-77]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818]


Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of new shipper antidumping duty 
review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A. 
(``Russo'') , the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain pasta (``pasta'') from Italy for the period of review (``POR'') 
July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002. We preliminarily determine 
that during the POR, Russo sold subject merchandise at less than normal 
value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final 
results of this new shipper review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties equal to 
the difference between the export price (``EP'') and NV. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Kinsey or Brian Ledgerwood, 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) 482-4793 or (202) 482-3836, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38547. On December 17, 
2002, we received a request from Russo to initiate a new shipper review 
of Russo's sales of pasta from Italy. On February 24, 2003,

[[Page 320]]

Russo submitted additional factual information regarding the new 
shipper review. On March 7, 2003, the Department published the notice 
of initiation of this new shipper antidumping duty review covering the 
period July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, listing Russo as the 
sole respondent. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of 
New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 68 FR 11044 (March 7, 2003) 
(``Initiation Notice'').
    On March 11, 2003, we sent a questionnaire to Russo, and instructed 
Russo to fill out sections A-C of the questionnaire. The Department did 
not require Russo to respond to section D of the questionnaire at that 
time.
    On April 1, 2003, the Department requested additional information 
from Russo regarding the date of Russo's first sale. Respondent 
submitted its response on April 10, 2003.
    On May 7, 2003, after several extensions, Russo submitted its 
response to sections A-C of the original questionnaire.
    On May 22, 2003, petitioners \1\ submitted cost allegations against 
Russo. On June 6, 2003, respondent submitted a response to petitioners' 
cost allegations. We determined that petitioners' cost allegations 
provided a reasonable basis to initiate a cost of production (``COP'') 
investigation, and as a result, we initiated a cost investigation of 
Russo. See the COP initiation memorandum, dated June 24, 2003, in the 
case file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-
099 (``the CRU'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New World Pasta Company; Dakota Growers Pasta Company; 
Borden Foods Corporation; and American Italian Pasta Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also on June 24, 2003, we informed Russo that it was now required 
to respond to section D of the antidumping questionnaire. See June 24, 
2003, letter from the Department to the respondent, on file in the CRU. 
On August 4, 2003, after one extension, we received Russo's response to 
section D of the questionnaire.
    On July 28, 2003, the Department published a 120-day extension of 
the preliminary results of this review. See Certain Pasta from Italy: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 68 FR 44284 (July 28, 2003).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Note: due to a clerical error, this Federal Register notice 
was published reporting a preliminary results due date of January 2, 
2004. The correct deadline for these preliminary results is December 
29, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 26, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Russo. On October 2, 2003, we issued a letter 
clarifying information requested in the September 26, 2003, 
supplemental questionnaire. On October 24, 2003, after one extension, 
we received Russo's response to the supplemental questionnaire, 
including a response to the Department's clarification letter. On 
October 14, 2003, the Department issued another supplemental 
questionnaire to Russo. The Department received the response to this 
supplemental questionnaire on October 31, 2003. On November 7, 2003, 
the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire, the response 
to which Russo filed on November 12, 2003.
    We conducted verification of Russo's sales and cost information 
from November 10, 2003, through November 21, 2003.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces 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 and Anti-Circumvention Inquiries

    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, on file in 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 requested 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``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.
    (5) On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-
circumvention inquiry to determine whether importation by Pastificio 
F.lli Pagani S.p.A. (``Pagani'') of pasta in bulk and subsequent 
repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or

[[Page 321]]

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). On September 
19, 2003, we published affirmative final determinations on the anti-
circumvention inquiry. See Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: 
Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the sales and cost information provided by Russo. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's and its affiliate's facilities and examination of 
relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are 
detailed in the verification reports placed in the case file in the 
CRU. We made certain minor revisions to certain sales and cost data 
based on verification findings. See December 24, 2003, memorandum to 
James Terpstra from Alicia Kinsey and Brian Ledgerwood, regarding 
verification of the sales response of Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A. 
(Russo) in the New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of 
Certain Pasta from Italy (``Russo's sales verification report''); see 
also December 24, 2003, memorandum to Neal M. Halper, through Theresa 
L. Caherty, from Michael P. Harrison, regarding verification of the 
cost of production and constructed value response of Russo in the New 
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Certain Pasta from 
Italy (``Russo's cost verification report''); see also December 24, 
2003, Analysis Memorandum for Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A. 
(``Russo's calculation memorandum''), on file in the CRU.

Affiliation and Collapsing

    In Russo's May 7, 2003, response to the Department's questionnaire, 
Russo indicated that it is affiliated with a company that produces 
subject merchandise. On September 26, 2003, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to Russo seeking additional information 
about its affiliate. On October 2, 2003, petitioners submitted comments 
on Russo's May 7, 2003, questionnaire response. Petitioners' comments 
included a request that the Department seek additional information 
about its affiliate. In Russo's October 24, 2003, response to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire, Russo provided additional 
information regarding the nature of the company and its production of 
subject merchandise. Although Russo acknowledges that the companies are 
affiliated, it has argued that the two companies should not be 
collapsed for purposes of this new shipper review.
    Section 771(33) of the Act considers the following persons, among 
others, to be affiliated: Any officer or director of an organization 
and the organization; persons directly or indirectly owning, 
controlling, or holding, with power to vote, five percent or more of 
the outstanding stock or shares of an organization and the 
organization; two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person; and any person 
who controls any other person and that person.
    Section 351.401(f)(1) of the Department's regulations states that 
in an antidumping proceeding, the Department ``will treat two or more 
affiliated producers as a single entity where those producers have 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling of either facility in order to 
restructure manufacturing priorities and the Secretary concludes that 
there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or 
production.'' Section 351.401(f)(2) identifies factors to be considered 
to determine whether a significant potential for manipulation exists. 
However, it is not necessary to consider these factors if, under 
section 351.401(f)(1), the production facilities would require 
substantial re-tooling to restructure manufacturing priorities. See 
Slater Steels Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 03-108 (CIT August 21, 
2003) at 7, fn. 8; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 3159 
(January 23, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 
Comment 15 (January 23, 2002).
    During the POR, Russo's affiliate held a controlling interest of 
Russo's outstanding shares. Based on this information, and 
documentation presented in the questionnaire responses and at 
verification that evidence a corporate grouping, the Department has 
determined that Russo has sufficiently established that the two 
companies are affiliated. See the December 24, 2003, memorandum to 
Melissa Skinner from James Terpstra, Re: Whether to Collapse Pastificio 
Carmine Russo S.p.A. (``Russo'') and its affiliate in the Preliminary 
Results (``Russo Collapsing Memo''), in the case file in the CRU. See 
also Russo's sales and cost verification reports, also in the case file 
in the CRU.
    Having determined that the two companies are affiliated, the 
Department must next examine whether the producers have production 
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
``substantial retooling * * * in order to restructure manufacturing 
priorities.'' Based on Russo's questionnaire responses, and evidence 
gathered at verification, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that the two companies' production facilities would require substantial 
retooling to restructure manufacturing priorities. Russo produces only 
commodity pasta through automation, while its affiliate only produces 
hand-made pasta using artisan production techniques. Russo's affiliate 
is not capable of producing commodity pasta shapes, nor is Russo 
capable of producing hand-made pasta using artisan production 
techniques without substantial retooling. Due to the proprietary nature 
of the facts on which this determination is based, see the Russo 
Collapsing Memo for a more detailed analysis.
    On the basis of this information, the Department has preliminarily 
determined not to collapse Russo and its affiliate, pursuant to section 
351.401(f)(1) of the Department's regulations.

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. When there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales with the most similar product based on the characteristics 
listed above, in descending order of priority.
    For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have 
calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the 
difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (``VCOM'') between 
each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for 
comparison.

[[Page 322]]

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in 
the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as 
described in the ``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. See Russo's sale verification report and Russo's 
calculation memorandum, available in the CRU.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP because all of Russo's U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise were sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. We 
based EP on the packed free-on-board (``FOB'') prices to the first 
unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect any discounts.
    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 export duties. In 
addition, when appropriate, we increased EP 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) of the Act.
    Russo reported the resale of subject merchandise that it purchased 
in Italy from unaffiliated producers. In those situations in which 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 EP 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 the instant 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 Rescission 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). This 
decision was upheld in the final results of that review. Accordingly, 
consistent with our methodology in prior reviews (see id.), when Russo 
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.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    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 
Russo'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 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Russo had an 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, we determined that Russo's home market was 
viable.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 
Russo, 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 expenses (``SG&A'') 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 data with minor revisions based on verification findings. See 
Russo's calculation memorandum on file in the CRU, for a description of 
any minor revisions that we made.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    As required under section 773(b)(2) 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.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Russo's sales of subject merchandise 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 Russo's sales 
of subject merchandise were at prices less than the COP, we determined 
such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' See section 
773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Russo's sales were made within an extended 
period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, 
because they were made over the course of the POR, which was a period 
of not less than six months. We compared prices to POR-average costs 
and we determined that such sales were not made at prices which would 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for 
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded Russo's below-
cost sales made in substantial quantities and used the remaining sales 
as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act. See Russo's calculation memorandum on file in the CRU, for 
our calculation methodology and results.

C. 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, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, 
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, and commissions, 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

[[Page 323]]

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 will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of 
the other selling expenses incurred in the one market or the 
commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less.
    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 section 351.411 of the Department's 
regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in VCOM between 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average 
costs.
    Sales of pasta purchased by the respondent from unaffiliated 
producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same 
manner described above in the ``Export Price'' section of this notice.

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade 
(``LOT'') as the EP sales.
    Pursuant to section 351.412(c)(2) of the Department's regulations, 
to determine whether home 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 home 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 a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act.
    Based on our analysis of the facts of this new shipper review, we 
preliminarily determine that there is no appreciable difference in the 
selling functions between the sales on which NV is based and the export 
transactions. Therefore, we did not find different levels of trade in 
the two markets. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and 
a summary of our LOT findings for these preliminary results, see 
Russo's calculation memorandum, on file in the CRU.

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.

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margin exists for Russo for the 
period July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A..............................        9.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
ordinarily will be held 44 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results, 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 
Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in such briefs, may be filed 
no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d).
    Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. Further, parties submitting briefs are requested to provide 
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any 
such briefs on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of 
this 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 will calculate an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise produced 
by Russo. Upon issuance of the final results of this new shipper 
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 CBP 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 produced by Russo 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 rate for Russo in this new shipper 
review, we divided its total dumping margin by the total net value of 
Russo's sales during the review period.
    The following deposit rate will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this new shipper review for shipments of certain 
pasta produced by Russo entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: the cash deposit rate for Russo will be the 
rate established in the final results of this review; if the rate is 
less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will 
be zero. 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 and countervailing duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This new shipper review is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 24, 2003.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-77 Filed 1-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P