[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 110 (Friday, June 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26777-26778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11995]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818]


Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On March 17, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
published the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review 
(CCR) of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy and 
preliminarily determined that Francesco Tamma S.p.A. (Tamma) is not the 
successor-in-interest to Tamma Industrie Alimentary Capitanata S.r.l. 
(TIAC), the company affiliated with Delverde, S.r.l. (Delverde), which 
was excluded from the order on pasta from Italy. We received comments 
from interested parties. Based on our analysis, for the final results, 
the Department continues to find that Tamma is not the successor-in-
interest to TIAC.

DATES: Effective June 9, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang, Office III, AD/CVD 
Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168.

Background

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy, which included Delverde 
and its affiliate TIAC (collectively, Delverde/TIAC).\1\ Pursuant to a 
decision by the Court of International Trade, on remand, the Department 
determined that Delverde/TIAC had a de minimis dumping margin and 
should be excluded from the order on pasta from Italy.\2\ In accordance 
with a decision from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United 
States Trade Representative subsequently directed the Department to 
revise the all-others rate for the Pasta Order to 15.45 percent ad 
valorem.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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) (Pasta Order).
    \2\ See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision and Revocation in 
Part: Certain Pasta from Italy, 66 FR 65889 (December 21, 2001).
    \3\ See Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in US--
Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under Section 129 of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial Revocations 
of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261, 25263 (May 4, 2007) 
(Pasta Section 129 Implementation Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2014, the Department conducted a CCR of Delverde Industrie 
Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde S.p.A.) and found that Delverde S.p.A. was 
not the successor-in-interest to Delverde based on aspects of the 
bankruptcy of Delverde, changes in management, changes in supplier 
relationships, and changes in production facilities.\4\ Thus, the 
Department found that Delverde S.p.A. was not entitled to the exclusion 
from the Pasta Order that was originally granted to Delverde, a defunct 
entity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 28481 (May 
16, 2014); unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 
76339 (September 19, 2014) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (Delverde CCR).
    \5\ See Delverde CCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2016, American Italian Pasta Company, Dakota Growers 
Pasta Company, and New World Pasta Company (the petitioners) filed a 
request for the Department to initiate a CCR of Tamma to determine 
whether Tamma is the successor-in-interest to TIAC, the company 
excluded from the Pasta Order that was previously affiliated with the 
now defunct Delverde.\6\ On September 13, 2016, we initiated a CCR with 
respect to Tamma.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Petitioners' letter titled, ``Request for 2015-2016 
Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Pasta from Italy,'' dated July 29, 2016. This letter requests an 
administrative review and changed circumstances review of Tamma. On 
August 11, 2016, the petitioners refiled this review request to 
clarify the specific company names requested for review.
    \7\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Initiation of Changed 
Circumstances Review, 81 FR 62864 (September 13, 2016) (Initiation 
Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 21, 2017, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of 
this CCR, in which it determined that Tamma is not the successor-in-
interest to TIAC, the company in the Delverde/TIAC entity, which was 
excluded from the Pasta Order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 82 FR 14501 (March 
21, 2017) (Preliminary Results) and the accompanying Preliminary 
Decision Memorandum.

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

[[Page 26778]]

    On March 31, 2017, Tamma submitted comments regarding the 
Preliminary Results.\9\ On April 17, 2017, the petitioners submitted 
their rebuttal brief.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Tamma's Case Brief, entitled ``Certain Pasta from Italy: 
Changed Circumstances Review Case Brief of Francesco Tamma S.p.A.,'' 
dated March 31, 2017.
    \10\ See Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief, entitled ``Certain Pasta 
from Italy: Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief for Francesco Tamma 
S.p.A.'', dated April 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable 
under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a full description of the scope of the order, see 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this changed circumstances review are addressed in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 
the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and 
is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, 
and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 
B8024, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a 
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The 
signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Based on the record evidence and our analysis of the comments 
received, the Department continues to find that Tamma is not the 
successor-in-interest to TIAC pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

    As a result of this determination, the Department will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated antidumping 
duties for all shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or 
exported by Tamma and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the 
Federal Register at the 15.45 percent all-others rate established in 
the antidumping duty investigation, as modified by the section 129 
determination.\13\ This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect 
until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Pasta Section 129 Implementation Determination, 72 FR 
at 25263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of 
the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective 
order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this final results notice in 
accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: June 1, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Discussion of Interested Party Comments
    Comment: Whether a Successor-in-Interest CCR Analysis Should Be 
Based on an Event/Events or on the Totality of the Circumstances on 
the Record
V. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2017-11995 Filed 6-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P