[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47880-47887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18037]



[[Page 47880]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818]


Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order 
in Part: For the Seventh Administrative 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, partial rescission of 
antidumping duty administrative review and revocation 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 of review (``POR'') July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Barilla Alimentare, 
S.p.A. (``Barilla''), Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. 
(``Corticella'') and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. 
(``Combattenti'') (collectively, ``Corticella/Combattenti''), Industria 
Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A. (``Indalco'') and its affiliate Fusco 
S.r.l. (``Fusco'') (collectively, ``Indalco''), Pasta Lensi S.r.l. 
(``Lensi''), P.A.M. S.p.A. (``PAM''), Pastificio Riscossa F. lli 
Mastromauro, S.r.l. (``Riscossa''), and Pastificio Carmine Russo 
S.p.A./Pastificio Di Nola S.p.A. (``Russo''), 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 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, Pastificio Guido 
Ferrara S.r.l. (``Ferrara'') did not make sales of the subject 
merchandise at less than NV (i.e., sales were made at ``zero'' or de 
minimis dumping margins). If these preliminary results are adopted in 
the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 
Furthermore, requests for review of the antidumping order for the 
following eight companies were withdrawn: N. Puglisi & F. Industria 
Paste Alimentari S.p.A. (``Puglisi''), Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio 
(``Rummo''), Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. (``Pallante''), 
Industrie Alimentari Molisane S.r.l. (``IAM''), Pastificio Lucio 
Garofalo S.p.A. (``Garofalo''), Pastifico Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. 
(``Pagani''), La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.a. (``La 
Molisana''), and Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.l. (``Tomasello''). 
Because the withdrawal requests were timely and there were no other 
requests for review of the companies, we are rescinding the review for 
these companies. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(i).
    Finally, we preliminarily intend to revoke the antidumping duty 
order with respect to subject merchandise produced and also exported by 
Ferrara because Ferrara sold the merchandise at not less than NV for a 
period of at least three consecutive years. See 19 CFR 351.222 (b)(2) 
and the ``Revocation'' section of this notice.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results, partial rescission, and revocation. As a further matter, an 
analysis of the record evidence indicates that Corticella/Combattenti 
and its toll producer, Coopertive Lomellina Cerealicoltori S.r.l. 
(CLC), are affiliated. The Department recognizes that, given the nature 
of their affiliation, a related issue could arise with respect to 
whether there is a potential for manipulation of price or production 
and, if so, whether Corticella/Combattenti and CLC should receive the 
same antidumping duty rate. Therefore, the Department is also 
soliciting comments on this issue for consideration in the final 
results of review.
    Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding 
should also submit with them: (1) A statement of the issues and (2) a 
brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submitting written 
comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic 
version of the public version of any such comments on diskette.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Young or Carrie Farley, 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-
6397 or (202) 482-0395, 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 July 2, 
2003, we published in the Federal Register the notice of Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 39511.
    By July 31, 2003, we had received requests for review from 
petitioners,\1\ and from fifteen individual Italian exporters/producers 
of pasta, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). In addition, on July 
31, 2003, Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (``Lensi'') and Ferrara requested that the 
Department revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to their 
companies. See ``Revocation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On August 19, 2003, petitioners withdrew their request for 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order with respect to 
Puglisi.
    On August 22, 2003, we published the notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 
2002, through June 30, 2003, listing these fifteen companies as 
respondents: Barilla, Rummo, Pallante, IAM, Pagani, PAM, Ferrara, 
Garofalo, Indalco, Riscossa, Russo, Corticella, La Molisana, Lensi, and 
Tomasello.\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50752 
(August 22, 2003) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although the Department initiated this review on fifteen 
companies, included within that number were companies known to be 
affiliated, namely, Pallante/IAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 2, 2003, La Molisana withdrew its request for 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order. On September 8, 
2003, Tomasello withdrew its request for administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order.
    On September 10, 2003, we sent questionnaires to the twelve 
remaining companies.
    On October 3, 2003, petitioners withdrew their request for 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order with respect to 
Pallante/IAM, Pagani, and Rummo. On October 14, 2003, Garofalo withdrew 
its request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order.
    During the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in 
which Indalco and PAM participated, the Department found and 
disregarded sales

[[Page 47881]]

that failed the cost test.\3\ Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 of these companies, and instructed the 
companies to fill out sections A-D \4\ upon issuance of the initial 
questionnaire. The companies submitted their section D responses on 
October 31, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The most recently completed review in which Indalco and PAM 
participated was the sixth administrative review. See Notice of 
Final Results of the Sixth Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy and Determination Not to 
Revoke in Part, 69 FR 6255 (February 10, 2004) (``Sixth 
Administrative Review of Pasta from Italy'').
    \4\ Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and 
Merchandise. Section B: Comparison Market Sales. Section C: Sales to 
the United States. Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed 
Value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding involving 
Barilla,\5\ the Department based its final determination on adverse 
facts available. Because the use of adverse facts available precluded 
the Department from determining whether sales below the COP would be 
disregarded from Barilla's home market sales response in that 
proceeding, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 
Department requested that Barilla respond to section D of the 
questionnaire. Barilla submitted its section D response on November 3, 
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The most recently completed review in which Barilla 
participated was the fourth administrative review. See Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, and Revocation of 
Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta from Italy, 67 FR 300 
(January 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After several extensions, the respondents submitted their responses 
to the appropriate sections of the questionnaire during the months of 
October and November 2003. In its initial release of the antidumping 
questionnaire, the Department did not require Corticella, Ferrara, 
Lensi, Riscossa, or Russo to respond to section D of the questionnaire.
    On September 12, 2003, we informed Ferrara and Russo that though we 
did not initially require them to complete section D, should the 
Department disregard sales below cost in the then on-going final 
results of the sixth review of pasta from Italy (for Ferrara), and the 
final results of the new shipper review of pasta from Italy (for 
Russo), they would be required to submit section D of the 
questionnaire. Ferrara opted to complete section D before the final 
results of the sixth review were completed, and submitted sections A-D 
on October 31, 2003. The Department, in the final results of the sixth 
review, did disregard sales that failed the cost test for Ferrara. See 
Sixth Administrative Review of Pasta from Italy. The Department also 
disregarded sales that failed the cost test for Russo in the final 
results of the new shipper review. See Notice of Final Results of New 
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from 
Italy, 69 FR 18869 (April 9, 2004). On April 20, 2004, we informed 
Russo that it was required to submit a section D response to the 
Department's questionnaire. Russo submitted its section D response on 
May 18, 2004.
    In November 2003, petitioners submitted allegations of sales below 
cost against Corticella and Riscossa. We determined that petitioners' 
cost allegations provided a reasonable basis to initiate COP 
investigations, and as a result, we initiated cost investigations of 
these two companies. See the company-specific COP initiation memoranda, 
dated December 18, 2003, in the case file in the Central Records Unit 
(``the CRU''), main Commerce building, room B-099. Also on December 18, 
2003, we informed these two companies that they were required to 
respond to section D of the antidumping questionnaire. See December 18, 
2003, letters from the Department to these respondents requiring 
section D questionnaire responses, in the CRU. On January 20, 2004, we 
received responses to the section D questionnaires from Corticella and 
Riscossa.
    On March 17, 2004, the Department published an extension of 
preliminary results of this review, extending its preliminary results 
until July 30, 2004.\6\ See Certain Pasta from Italy and Turkey: 
Extension of Preliminary Results of 2002/2003 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 12641 (March 17, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As a result of a typographical error, the Department 
published the preliminary signature date as July 29, 2004. The 
actual signature date is July 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the months of January, February, March, April, and May of 
2004, the Department issued supplemental, second supplemental, and 
third supplemental questionnaires to each respondent, as applicable.
    We conducted verification of the sales information as follows: (1) 
Barilla from June 7 through June 11, 2004; (2) Corticella from May 24 
though June 11, 2004; (3) Ferrara from March 22 through March 26, 2004; 
(4) Lensi from May 17 though May 21, 2004; (5) PAM from March 15 
through March 19, 2004; and (6) Riscossa from June 21 through June 25, 
2004. We verified the cost information submitted by: (1) Barilla from 
June 14 through June 18, 2004; (2) Corticella from May 24 though June 
4, 2004; (3) Ferrara from March 29 through April 1, 2004; and (4) 
Riscossa from June 14 through June 18, 2004. We verified the CEP 
information submitted by (1) Lensi from March 29 though March 31, 2004; 
and (2) Barilla from June 30 through July 2, 2004.

Partial Rescission

    In September and October 2003, Garofalo, La Molisana, Tomasello, 
and petitioners with respect to Pallante/IAM, Pagani, and Rummo 
withdrew their requests for administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order. Because the requests were timely filed, i.e., with 30 days 
of publication of the Initiation Notice, and because there were no 
other requests for review of the above-mentioned companies, we are 
rescinding the review with respect these companies in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this order 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

[[Page 47882]]

and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise 
subject to the order is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the sales and cost information provided by Barilla, Corticella, 
Ferrara, and Riscossa, the sales information provided by Lensi and PAM, 
and the CEP information provided by Barilla and Lensi. 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 detailed in the 
company-specific verification reports placed in the case file in the 
CRU. We made minor revisions to certain sales and cost data based on 
verification findings. See the company-specific verification reports 
and calculation memoranda, in the CRU.

Use of Partial Facts Available

    The Department has determined preliminarily that the use of partial 
facts available is appropriate for purposes of determining the 
preliminary dumping margin for subject merchandise sold by Barilla. 
Specifically, the Department has applied partial facts available for 
various expenses and adjustments with respect to the margin program for 
Barilla. See Barilla's July 30, 2004, Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum (``Barilla's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum'').
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person--(A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.''
    From June 30, through July 2, 2004, the Department conducted a 
verification of Barilla's questionnaire response at the headquarters of 
the company's U.S. affiliate in Chicago, Illinois. At verification, the 
Department's verifiers asked Barilla to present minor changes, if any, 
to its questionnaire response resulting from the company's preparation 
for verification. The Department previously notified Barilla of these 
requirements in its May 26, 2004, verification outline. See the May 26, 
2004, letter from the Department to Barilla, in which the verification 
outline is transmitted. In response to the Department's request, 
Barilla submitted a list of minor corrections as Verification Exhibit 
1.
    During the verification of Barilla's U.S. discount and rebate 
fields, however, the verifiers discovered certain errors and omissions 
that were not among those listed in Barilla's minor correction exhibit. 
Specifically, in its questionnaire response, Barilla indicated that it 
offered discounts to its U.S. customers. See page C-29 of Barilla's 
October 31, 2003, section C response. Barilla also explained in its 
questionnaire response that it offered rebates based on contracts with 
its individual customers. See Id. at page C-31 and C-32. However, 
during verification, the verifiers discovered that Barilla failed to 
report a number of cash discounts offered to its CEP customers and 
failed to report rebates granted to one of its CEP customers during the 
POR. For a more detailed discussion, see Memorandum to Eric Greynolds, 
from Lyman Armstrong and Joy Zhang, Re: Verification of the Sales 
Response of Barilla Alimentare and Barilla America (collectively, 
``Barilla'') in the 02/03 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order of Certain Pasta from Italy (``Barilla Verification Report''), 
available in the CRU.
    As long recognized by the Court of International Trade (``CIT''), 
the burden is on the respondent, not the Department, to create a 
complete and accurate record. See Pistachio Group of Association Food 
Industries v. United States, 641 F. Supp. 31, 39-40 (CIT 1987). In its 
narrative questionnaire response, Barilla indicated that it offered 
certain discounts and rebates to its U.S. customers during the POR. 
However, during verification the verifiers discovered that Barilla 
failed to report certain discounts for a small subset of its U.S. sales 
and rebates for one of its CEP customers. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we are applying partial facts 
otherwise available in calculating Barilla's dumping margin. As facts 
available, the Department applied a cash discount to all sales to all 
of Barilla's CEP customers. Further, for the one customer for which 
Barilla failed to report a rebate, the verifiers were able to establish 
the portion of the rebate that Barilla granted the customer during 
2002. Therefore, as partial facts available, we applied the rebate in 
effect for that customer in 2002 to the portion of 2003 covered by the 
POR. See Barilla's Preliminary 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. 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. When there were no 
appropriate comparison market sales of comparable merchandise, we 
compared the merchandise sold in the United States to constructed value 
(``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 (``VCOM'') between 
each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for 
comparison.
    On page 7 of its April 2, 2004, supplemental questionnaire response 
(``Russo's supplemental response''), Russo requested separate treatment 
for pasta produced at the Di Nola production workshop in Gragnano, 
Italy.\7\ The Di Nola facility produces only artisan pasta made and 
packaged by hand, using traditional techniques. The traditional artisan 
techniques used to produce pasta at the Gragnano facility imbue the 
pasta with significant differences in physical characteristics from 
pasta produced in Russo's industrial Cicciano production facility. 
Namely, the pasta has an irregular, hand-made appearance, a rougher 
surface texture, and superior texture and taste when compared to 
commodity pasta. In addition, the company uses upscale packaging that 
prominently labels the product as artisan, specialty pasta; the 
packaging and labeling of the pasta make up over 50 percent of its 
final value. See Russo's supplemental response at 6. The company 
markets the product separately to high-end boutiques, specialty and 
gourmet food shops, and to upscale restaurants. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Russo and Di Nola merged into one company effective January 
1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the heavy reliance on manual labor in the production 
process, the pasta produced at the Gragnano workshop has significantly 
higher costs of production and selling prices relative

[[Page 47883]]

to the commodity pasta produced at Russo's industrial plant in 
Cicciano, Italy. See Russo's October 31, 2003, response to sections A-C 
of the Department's questionnaire (``Russo's sections A-C response''); 
see also Russo's May 18, 2004, response to section D of the 
Department's questionnaire (``Russo's section D response''). For a 
detailed discussion of the production processes at both facilities, see 
the December 24, 2003, memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner regarding 
``Whether to Collapse Pastificio Carmine Russo, S.p.A (``Russo'') and 
Di Nola S.p.A. (``Di Nola'') in the Preliminary Results'' (``Russo 
Collapsing Memo''), originally on the record of the recently-completed 
new shipper review of pasta from Italy, and placed on the record of 
this review by the Department.
    These differences in physical characteristics, in addition to the 
differences in the packaging and labeling of the products, are so 
consequential to the purchaser of either product that the two products 
share virtually no unaffiliated customers; the products do not even 
compete in the same market. See Russo's supplemental response at 2 and 
5-6. In the Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 69 FR 319, 321 
(January 5, 2004) (``Russo New Shipper Prelim''), the Department 
determined that Russo and Di Nola, who had not yet merged into one 
company, should not be collapsed on the basis that either facility 
would require substantial retooling to produce the merchandise of the 
other. In the Russo Collapsing Memo at 3, we stated that ``though Russo 
and (Di Nola) both produce subject merchandise, the process by which 
each company produces the subject merchandise is completely different, 
resulting in qualitatively different products'' (italics added). We 
also stated that the ``differences in the production process * * * of 
each company are substantial, and create qualitative differences 
between the products.'' See Russo Collapsing Memo at 4 (italics added).
    The Department has a wealth of past precedent to support a 
segregation of products for purposes of calculating NV based on 
differences in physical characteristics, as well as cost and price 
differences. In past reviews, the Department has assigned separate 
product-control numbers to different types of pasta, ``where there has 
been substantial evidence on the record that demonstrated physical and 
cost differences. * * *'' See page 23 of the February 3, 2003, 
memorandum to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary, for Import 
Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Fifth 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;'' and page 4 of the January 3, 
2002, memorandum to Richard W. Moreland, Acting Assistant Secretary, 
for Import Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Final Results of 
Review,'' both on file in the CRU. See also Notice of Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Pasta from Italy, 64 FR 6615 (February 10, 1999); and Certain Pasta 
from Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 65 FR 
77857 (December 13, 2000).
    Moreover, in a March 1, 2004, decision, the CIT upheld the 
Department's decision in the fifth review of certain pasta from Italy 
to classify Ferrara's bronze-die and teflon-die pasta (both 
industrially produced) as separate for product-matching purposes. See 
New World Pasta Company v. United States, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1356 
(CIT 2004). In that decision, the CIT stated that ``generally, Commerce 
has wide latitude in choosing what physical characteristics to 
consider'' for product-matching purposes. Id. at 1354.
    The physical, cost, and price differences in this case are so 
significant that the Department has found that the products at issue 
are qualitatively different and that the production facilities for 
either product would require substantial retooling to produce the 
other. See Russo New Shipper Prelim; and Russo Collasping Memo. In 
light of such record evidence, the Department has preliminarily 
determined to assign different product-matching control numbers to 
pasta produced at Russo's industrial Cicciano facility and the artisan 
pasta produced at the Di Nola workshop. See the July 30, 2004, 
Memorandum to the File, RE: Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for 
Russo for the specific calculation methodology.

Proposed Modifications to Wheat Codes

    Ferrara, PAM, and Lensi have classified a variety of wheats used in 
the production of pasta as separate wheat codes, in addition to the two 
wheat codes outlined in the questionnaire.\8\ In the Pasta 
Investigation, we established that differences in wheat quality may be 
commercially significant, as measured by ash and gluten content \9\ and 
cost. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30346 (June 14, 1996) 
(``Pasta Investigation''). Where respondents have been able to justify 
differences due to ash and gluten content, as well as cost, the 
Department has found that these differences result in more appropriate 
product matches, as contemplated by section 771(16) of the Act. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 100 percent durum semolina and 100 percent whole wheat.
    \9\ Ash content is a measurement of minerals present in pasta. 
Gluten is a protein compound and is formed from the proteins in 
grains. Gluten content is a measurement of gluten found in pasta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ferrara reported two wheat codes in its sales database. We 
preliminarily determine that Ferrara's wheat code 2 has met the 
standards outlined in the Pasta Investigation for classification as a 
separate wheat code. Specifically, Ferrara's wheat code 2 has 
commercially significant ash content differences from its wheat code 1. 
See Ferrara's December 17, 2003, Questionnaire Response at 5, and 
Exhibit 4 at 3. See also July 30, 2004, Memorandum Re: Verification of 
the Sales and Cost Responses of Ferrara in the 02/03 Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Order of Certain Pasta from Italy (``Ferrara 
VR'') at Exhibit 12 at 13, which contains ash content information. 
Moreover, Ferrara's wheat code 2 is classified differently from its 
wheat code 1 under Italian law, which sets standards for ash and 
protein characteristics for pasta manufactured and sold in Italy. See 
Ferrara's March 1, 2004, Questionnaire Response, Exhibit 12 at 5-24. In 
addition, Ferrara's raw material cost for wheat code 2 is more than 
thirty percent different than its cost for wheat code 1. See Ferrara 
VR, Exhibit 4 at 1.
    We have also preliminarily determined that PAM's wheat code 5 has 
met the standard outlined in the Pasta Investigation to warrant 
classification as a separate wheat code. Specifically, PAM's wheat code 
5 has commercially significant ash and protein content differences from 
its wheat code 1. See PAM's February 24, 2004, Questionnaire Response 
at 7 and the July 30, 2004, Memorandum Re: Verification of the Sales 
and Cost Responses of PAM in the 02/03 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Order of Certain Pasta from Italy (``PAM VR''), Exhibit 5 
at 3 for the details of the ash and protein content. Moreover, PAM's 
wheat code 5 is classified differently under Italian law, which sets 
standards for ash and protein characteristics for pasta manufactured 
and sold in Italy. See PAM VR at 11. In addition, PAM's raw material 
cost for wheat code 5 is approximately ten percent different than

[[Page 47884]]

its cost for wheat code 1 and 2. See PAM VR, Exhibit 5 at 1.
    We have preliminary determined that record evidence pertaining to 
PAM's wheat code 1 does not warrant a separate wheat code. Although 
slight cost and ash and protein content differences were presented, we 
find that these differences are not commercially significant and 
therefore do not merit a separate wheat code. See PAM VR, Exhibit 5 at 
1 and 3. Therefore, PAM's wheat codes 1 and 2 will be collapsed for the 
purposes of these preliminary results.
    We have also preliminarily determined that record evidence 
pertaining to Lensi's wheat codes 2 and 4 do not warrant a separate 
classification. Although Lensi provided explanations of the types of 
wheat it uses, and provided the percentages of each type that make up 
the different wheat mixes used in the production of its pasta, Lensi 
provided no ash or protein content information, nor did it provide 
evidence of a cost differential to demonstrate that these wheat mixes 
differ in a commercially significant way. Therefore, Lensi's wheat 
codes 2 and 4 will be collapsed for the purposes of these preliminary 
results.

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 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. See the 
company-specific verification reports and calculation memoranda, 
available in the CRU.

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 when 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 when CEP was 
not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated 
CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated 
with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, 
made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed cost-
insurance-freight (``CIF''), ex-factory, free-on-board (``FOB''), or 
delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for 
exportation to, the United States. When 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, when 
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) of the Act.
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when 
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.
    Barilla, Corticella/Combattenti, Ferrara, Indalco, PAM, Riscossa, 
Russo, and Lensi reported the resale of subject merchandise 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, e.g., 
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part: For the 
Sixth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 47020, 47028 (August 7, 2003). Accordingly, 
consistent with our methodology in prior reviews (see id.), when a 
respondent 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 
and the respondent was unable to identify resale transactions, we 
included the sales of commingled purchased pasta in our margin 
calculations.

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 
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 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because 
each respondent, with the exception of Lensi, 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 the home market was viable for all 
producers except Lensi.
    Because Lensi did not have 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, the 
Department determined, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act and section 351.404(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, to use a 
third-country market, the United Kingdom, as Lensi's comparison market. 
We compared Lensi's volume of third-country sales in the United Kingdom 
of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) and (C) of 
the

[[Page 47885]]

Act, and section 351.404(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations, 
because Lensi had an aggregate volume of third-country 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 the third-country market of the United Kingdom was 
viable for Lensi.

B. Arm's-Length Test

    Barilla and Corticella/Combattenti reported sales of the foreign 
like product to an affiliated end-user and an affiliated reseller. The 
Department calculates the NV based on a sale to an affiliated party 
only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at arm's length. 
See 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's 
length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's 
current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on 
average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to 
unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that 
sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-
length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where sales to the 
affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that 
affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 
Barilla, Corticella, Ferrara, Indalco, PAM, Riscossa, and Russo, 
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 data with minor revisions 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. 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 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 during the POR 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. The 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. 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 Barilla, Corticella, 
Ferrara, Indalco, PAM, Riscossa, and Russo, for purposes of this 
administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given 
product of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the basis 
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 
See the company-specific calculation memoranda on file in the CRU, for 
our calculation methodology and results.

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, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, 
warehousing, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. We added 
interest revenue. 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, 
and billing adjustments, 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 will limit the amount 
of such allowance to the amount of either the 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 the VCOM 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. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    When we could not determine the NV based on comparison market sales 
because there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product, 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 (``COM'') 
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 Ferrara and Indalco 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

[[Page 47886]]

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

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
(``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 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 will make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in 
LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant 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). Specifically in this review, we did not make an 
LOT adjustment for any respondent. However, we are preliminarily 
granting a CEP offset for Barilla and Lensi.
    For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of 
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the 
calculation memoranda, all 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 Bank.

Revocation

    On July 31, 2003, Lensi and Ferrara submitted requests for 
revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to their sales of 
the subject merchandise as directed under 19 CFR 351.222(b). 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 that one or more exporters and producers covered by the order 
and desiring revocation 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). Both Lensi and Ferrara provided 
the certifications and agreements required by 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    Upon receipt of such a request, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2), 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.
    Both Lensi and Ferrara had de minimis dumping margins in the past 
two preceding reviews. However, in the current review we preliminarily 
find that Lensi sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See July 30, 
2004, Memorandum to the File, RE: Preliminary Calculation Memorandum 
for Lensi. Because we preliminarily find that Lensi made sales of 
subject merchandise at less than NV, we preliminarily intend not to 
revoke the antidumping order with respect to Lensi. Regarding Ferrara, 
the Department preliminarily finds that Ferrara received a de minimis 
rate for the current review. See July 30, 2004, Memorandum to the File, 
RE: Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Ferrara. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that Ferrara sold subject merchandise at not less 
than NV for three consecutive reviews as required under Sec.  
351.222(b)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations.
    In determining whether three years of no dumping establishes 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, i.e., did the company make sales in commercial quantities. 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). The Department preliminarily finds that Ferrara sold subject 
merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities during each 
of the consecutive three years as directed by 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). 
See the Ferrara VR at 31 and Exhibit 35; see also Ferrara's March 1, 
2004, Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 17. Therefore, we reasonably 
conclude that the zero or de minimis margins calculated for Ferrara in 
each of the last three administrative reviews are reflective of the 
company's normal commercial experience.
    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

[[Page 47887]]

de minimis margins, the Department presumes that the company requesting 
revocation is not likely to resume selling subject merchandise at less 
than NV in the near future unless the Department has been presented 
with evidence to demonstrate that dumping would likely resume if the 
order were revoked. In this proceeding, we have not received any 
evidence that demonstrates that Ferrara would likely resume dumping in 
the future if the order were revoked. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that the order is no longer necessary to offset dumping for 
Ferrara.
    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 subject 
merchandise produced and exported by Ferrara. Also, 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 
CBP 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, 2002, through June 30, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barilla.....................................................        7.10
Corticella/Combattenti......................................        4.00
Ferrara.....................................................        0.30
Indalco.....................................................        5.41
Lensi.......................................................        6.63
PAM.........................................................        4.79
Riscossa....................................................        1.16
Russo.......................................................        9.22
All Others..................................................       11.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
ordinarily 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 35 days after the date of 
publication. 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 written comments are 
requested to 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 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 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, 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 less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 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 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 30, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-18037 Filed 8-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P