[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5794]



[[Page 61118]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818]


Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2005, the United States Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') held void ab initio the Department of 
Commerce's (``the Department'') initiation of the sixth administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order with regard to PAM, S.p.A. and 
JCM, Ltd. (``PAM'') in all respects. See PAM S.p.A. & JCM, Ltd. v. 
United States, Court No. 04-00082, Slip. Op. 05-124 (CIT, Sept. 14, 
2005) (``PAM v. United States''). Consistent with the decision of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal 
Circuit'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (``Timken''), the Department is notifying the public that the PAM 
v. United States decision was ``not in harmony'' with the Department's 
original results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14\th\ Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0395.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2002, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order for 
certain pasta from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). In response, the 
Department received requests for review of thirteen respondent 
companies, including PAM, from domestic petitioners.\1\ Petitioners 
served their requests for administrative reviews upon all respondent 
companies except for PAM. On August 27, 2002, the Department published 
a notice of initiation of its sixth antidumping duty administrative 
review covering the period of July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, 
listing PAM and twelve other companies as respondents. See Initiation 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Requests for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002). 
Thereafter, PAM notified the Department that PAM was not served 
properly with a request for review. On August 7, 2003, the Department 
published its preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order where it applied adverse facts available for 
PAM to arrive at an antidumping margin of 45.49 percent. See 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 (August 7, 2003). On February 10, 2004, the 
Department published its final results, which affirmed its decisions in 
the preliminary results. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part: For 
the Sixth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Pasta from Italy, 69 FR 6255 (Feb. 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    PAM challenged that the initiation of this review, as well as its 
subsequent results, should be void ab initio because petitioners failed 
to serve their request for initiation of the review in violation of 19 
C.F.R. Sec.  351.303(f)(3)(ii) (2002). The CIT granted PAM's motions 
for judgment on the agency record, held void ab initio the initiation 
of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to PAM, and directed the Department to rescind the sixth 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order with respect to 
PAM.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant 
to 19 U.S.C. Sec.  1516a(e), the Department must publish notice of a 
decision of the CIT which is ``not in harmony'' with the Department's 
results. The CIT's decision in PAM v. United States was not in harmony 
with the Department's final antidumping duty results. Therefore, 
publication of this notice fulfills the obligation imposed upon the 
Department by the decision in Timken. In addition, this notice will 
serve to continue the suspension of liquidation. If this decision is 
not appealed, or if appealed, it is upheld, the Department will rescind 
the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to PAM.

    Dated: October 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-5794 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S