Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke Order, in Part, 17440-17445 [E6-5031]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17440
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
Background
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(d), the Department received
timely requests submitted by Kunj,
Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell (all
producers and exporters of flanges) for
new shipper reviews of the antidumping
duty order on flanges from India. See
February 28, 2006, letters from Kunj,
Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell to the
Secretary of Commerce requesting new
shipper reviews.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b), Kunj,
Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell certified
that they are both exporters and
producers of the subject merchandise,
that they did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the period of the investigation (POI)
(July 1, 1992 through December 31,
1992), and that since the investigation
was initiated, they have not been
affiliated with any producer or exporter
who exported the subject merchandise
to the United States during the POI.
They also submitted documentation
establishing the date on which they first
shipped the subject merchandise to the
United States, the volume of those
shipments, and the date of their first
sales to unaffiliated customers in the
United States. They also certified they
had no shipments to the United States
during the period subsequent to their
first shipments.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Initiation of Review
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section
351.214(d) of the Department’s
regulations, we find that the requests
submitted by Kunj, Micro, Pradeep,
Rollwell meet the threshold
requirements for initiation of a new
shipper review. Accordingly, we are
initiating new shipper reviews of the
antidumping duty order on flanges from
India manufactured and exported by
Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell.
These reviews cover the period
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006. We intend to issue the
preliminary results of these reviews no
later than 180 days after the date on
which these reviews are initiated, and
the final results within 90 days after the
date on which we issue the preliminary
results. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of
the Act.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to suspend
liquidation of any unliquidated entries
of the subject merchandise from Kunj,
Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell, and
allow, at the option of the importer, the
posting, until completion of the reviews,
of a bond or security in lieu of a cash
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
deposit for each entry of the
merchandise produced and exported by
Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e).
Because each of the four companies
certified that it both produces and
exports the subject merchandise, the
sales of which are the basis for these
new shipper review requests, we will
permit the bonding privilege only for
those entries of subject merchandise for
which the company is both the
manufacturer and the exporter.
Interested parties may submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and
351.306.
This initiation and this notice are
issued and published in accordance
with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and
sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i)
of the Department’s regulations.
Dated: March 31, 2006.
Stephen Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–5027 Filed 4–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–475–819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary
Results of the Ninth Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review and Notice
of Intent To Revoke Order, in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the countervailing duty order on
certain pasta from Italy for the period
January 1, 2004, through December 31,
2004. We preliminarily find that the
countervailing duty rates during the
period of review for all of the
producers/exporters under review are
either zero or de minimis. See the
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’
section, below. We are also
preliminarily revoking the order with
respect to Pasta Lensi S.r.l., in
accordance with section 751(d)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3). See the
‘‘Partial Revocation’’ section, below.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results
(see the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of
this notice).
DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2006.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3534 and (202)
482–0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a countervailing duty order
on certain pasta (‘‘pasta’’ or ‘‘subject
merchandise’’) from Italy. See Notice of
Countervailing Duty Order and
Amended Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544
(July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2005, the
Department published a notice of
‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review’’ of this countervailing duty
order for calendar year 2004, the period
of review (‘‘POR’’). See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 28,
2005, we received a request for review
from Pastificio Laporta S.a.s
(‘‘Laporta’’). On July 29, 2005, we
received requests for reviews from the
following four producers/exporters of
subject merchandise: Pastificio Antonio
Pallante S.r.l. (‘‘Pallante’’), Corticella
Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. (‘‘Corticella’’)/
Pasta Combattenti S.p.a.
(‘‘Combattenti’’) (collectively,
‘‘Corticella/Combattenti’’), Atar S.r.l.
(‘‘Atar’’), and Moline e Pastificio
Tomasello S.r.l. (‘‘Tomasello’’). On
August 1, 2005, we received a request
for review and a request for revocation
from Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (‘‘Pasta Lensi’’).1
(See the ‘‘Partial Revocation’’ section,
below.) In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice
of initiation of the review on August 29,
2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005).
On August 31, 2005, we issued
countervailing duty questionnaires to
the Commission of the European Union,
the Government of Italy (‘‘GOI’’),
Pallante, Corticella/Combattenti, Pasta
Lensi, Tomasello, Laporta, and Atar. We
received all responses to our
questionnaire in October 2005. We
issued supplemental questionnaires to
1 Pasta Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC
Italia S.r.1. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed
Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy, 68
FR 41553 (July 14, 2003).
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
the respondents in November 2005, and
we received responses to our
supplemental questionnaires in
November and December 2005.
On September 15, 2005, Laporta
withdrew its request for review. On
September 29, 2005, Tomasello
withdrew its request for review. On
October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its
request for review. As discussed in the
‘‘Partial Rescission’’ section, below, we
have rescinded this administrative
review for Laporta, Tomasello, and
Pallante.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Period of Review
The period for which we are
measuring subsidies, or POR, is January
1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the 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 the order
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,
Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International
Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il
Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura
Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition,
based on publicly available information,
the Department has determined that, as
of August 4, 2004, imports of organic
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from
this order. See memorandum from Eric
B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner,
dated August 4, 2004, which is on file
in the Department’s Central Records
Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of the
main Department building. In addition,
based on publicly available information,
the Department has determined that, as
of March 13, 2003, imports of organic
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by
Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e
Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded
from this order. See memorandum from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach,
dated February 28, 2006, entitled
‘‘Recognition of Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA)
as a Public Authority for Certifying
Organic Pasta from Italy’’ which is on
file in the Department’s Central Records
Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of the
main Department building.
The merchandise subject to review is
currently classifiable under items
1901.90.9095 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.
Scope Rulings
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, which is 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 shrinkwrapped into a single package are
within the scope of the antidumping
and countervailing duty orders. See
Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to
Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998,
which is available in the CRU.
(3) On October 23, 1997, the
petitioners filed an application
requesting that the Department initiate
an anti-circumvention investigation of
Barilla S.r.l. (‘‘Barilla’’), an Italian
producer and exporter of pasta. The
Department initiated the investigation
on December 8, 1997. See Initiation of
Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta From Italy, 62 FR 65673
(December 15, 1997). On October 5,
1998, the Department issued its final
determination that, pursuant to section
781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended by the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’) effective
January 1, 1995 (‘‘the Act’’),
circumvention of the antidumping order
on pasta from Italy was occurring by
reason of exports of bulk pasta from
Italy produced by Barilla which
subsequently were repackaged in the
United States into packages of five
pounds or less for sale in the United
States. See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17441
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 Pastificio
Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.’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 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 AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On
September 19, 2003, we published an
affirmative finding of the anticircumvention inquiry. See AntiCircumvention 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).
Partial Revocation
On August 1, 2005, Pasta Lensi
requested revocation of the
countervailing duty order as it pertains
to its sales. Under section 751(d)(1) of
the Act, the Department ‘‘may revoke, in
whole or in part’’ a countervailing duty
order upon completion of a review.
Although 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 set forth under 19
CFR 351.222. Under 19 CFR
351.222(c)(3)(i), in determining whether
to revoke a countervailing duty order in
part, the Secretary will consider: (1)
Whether one or more exporters or
producers covered by the order have not
applied for or received any net
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17442
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
countervailable subsidy on the subject
merchandise for a period of at least five
consecutive years; (2) whether, for any
exporter or producer that the Secretary
previously has determined to have
received any net countervailable
subsidy on the subject merchandise, the
exporter or producer agrees in writing to
their immediate reinstatement in the
order, if the Secretary concludes that the
exporter or producer, subsequent to the
revocation, has received any net
countervailable subsidy on the subject
merchandise; and (3) whether the
continued application of the
countervailing duty order is otherwise
necessary to offset subsidization.
A request for revocation of an order in
part must address these four elements,
per 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). The
company requesting the revocation must
do so in writing and submit the
following statements with the request:
(1) The company’s certification that it
has not applied for or received any net
countervailable subsidy on the subject
merchandise for a period of at least five
consecutive years; (2) the company’s
certification that it will not apply for or
receive any net countervailable subsidy
on the subject merchandise from any
program the Secretary has found
countervailable; (3) the company’s
certification that during each of the
consecutive years, the company sold the
subject merchandise to the United
States in commercial quantities; and (4)
the company’s agreement in writing to
their immediate reinstatement in the
order, if the Secretary concludes that the
exporter or producer, subsequent to the
revocation, has received any net
countervailable subsidy on the subject
merchandise.
We preliminarily find that the request
from Pasta Lensi meets all of the criteria
under 19 CFR 351.222. Pasta Lensi’s
revocation request includes the
necessary certifications in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). With
regard to the criteria of 19 CFR
351.222(e)(2)(iii)(A), our preliminary
results show that Pasta Lensi did not
receive countervailable subsidies during
the POR and, therefore, the net subsidy
rate for Pasta Lensi is zero. See
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’
section, below. In addition, Pasta Lensi
had zero net subsidy rates in the four
previous administrative reviews in
which it was involved. See Certain
Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the
Eighth Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 37084
(June 28, 2005), covering the period
January 1, 2003, through December 31,
2003; Certain Pasta from Italy: Final
Results of the Seventh Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
70657 (December 7, 2004), covering the
period January 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2002; Certain Pasta from
Italy: Final Results of the Sixth
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 48599 (August 14, 2003),
covering the period January 1, 2001,
through December 31, 2001; and Certain
Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the
Fifth Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 52452
(August 12, 2002), covering the period
January 1, 2000, through December 31,
2000.
Based on our examination of the data
submitted by Pasta Lensi, we
preliminarily find that Pasta Lensi
qualifies for revocation of the order
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3) and
351.222(e)(2)(iii). We also preliminarily
find that the order with respect to
merchandise produced and exported by
Pasta Lensi should be revoked. If these
preliminary findings are affirmed in our
final results, we will revoke the order,
in part, with respect to pasta from Italy
produced and exported by Pasta Lensi.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the
suspension of liquidation for pasta
produced and exported by Pasta Lensi
that was entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
January 1, 2005, and will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to refund any cash deposits for such
entries.
Partial Rescission
The Department’s regulations at 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review. On
September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew
its request for review. On September 29,
2005, Tomasello withdrew its request
for review. On October 25, 2005,
Pallante withdrew its request for review.
All parties submitted their withdrawal
requests within the 90-day deadline. No
other party requested a review of
Pallante’s, Laporta’s, or Tomasello’s
sales.
Therefore, because these withdrawal
requests were timely filed, and because
no other interested party requested that
they be reviewed, we rescinded this
review with respect to Pallante,
Tomasello, and Laporta in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Certain
Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial
Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 59723
(October 13, 2005); Certain Pasta from
Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 61788 (October 26, 2005);
and Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of
Partial Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
69515 (November 16, 2005).
We have instructed CBP to liquidate
any entries from Pallante, Laporta, and
Tomasello during the POR and to assess
countervailing duties at the rate that
was applied at the time of entry.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), nonrecurring subsidies are allocated over a
period corresponding to the AUL of the
renewable physical assets used to
produce the subject merchandise. The
Department’s regulations create a
rebuttable presumption that the AUL
will be taken from the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service’s 1977 Class Life Asset
Depreciation Range System (‘‘IRS
Tables’’). See 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2). For
pasta, the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL
of 12 years. None of the responding
companies or interested parties objected
to this allocation period. Therefore, we
have used the 12-year allocation period
for all respondents.
Attribution of Subsidies
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6), the
Department will attribute subsidies
received by certain companies to the
combined sales of those companies.
Based on our review of the responses,
we preliminarily find that ‘‘crossownership’’ exists with respect to
certain companies, as described below,
and we have attributed subsidies
accordingly:
Pasta Lensi: Pasta Lensi is an Italian
producer and exporter of pasta. As
further discussed in the April 3, 2006,
proprietary memorandum entitled
‘‘Pasta Lensi S.r.l.—Attribution Issues,’’
which is on file in the Department’s
CRU, Pasta Lensi has reported that IAPC
Leasing S.r.l., another company owned
by the parent company of Pasta Lensi,
did not receive any benefits under the
programs being examined. Therefore,
there are no benefits to this company
that require attribution. Moreover, IAPC
Leasing S.r.l. does not produce subject
merchandise. Thus, we are attributing
any subsidies received to Pasta Lensi’s
sales only.
Corticella/Combattenti: Corticella/
Combattenti is an Italian producer and
exporter of pasta. As further discussed
in the April 3, 2006, memorandum
entitled ‘‘Attribution Issues: Corticella
Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. and Pasta
Combattenti S.p.a.,’’ which is on file in
the Department’s CRU, Corticella/
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
Combattent has reported that affiliates
Certosa, CLC, and the parent company
Euricom, did not receive any benefits
under the programs being examined.
Therefore, there are no benefits to these
companies that require attribution.
Thus, we are attributing any subsidies
received to the combined sales of
Corticella and Combattenti.
Atar: Atar has reported that it has no
affiliates or cross-ownership. Thus, we
are attributing any subsidies received to
Atar’s sales only.
Discount Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we used the national
average cost of long-term, fixed-rate
loans as a discount rate for allocating
non-recurring benefits over time
because no company for which we need
such discount rates took out any loans
in the years in which the government
agreed to provide the subsidies in
question. Consistent with past practice
in this proceeding, for years prior to
1995, we used the Bank of Italy
reference rate adjusted upward to reflect
the mark-up an Italian commercial bank
would charge a corporate customer. See,
e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy:
Preliminary Results and Partial Recision
of the Eighth Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 17971
(April 8, 2005) (decision unchanged in
the final results, Certain Pasta from
Italy: Final Results of the Eighth
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 2005)).
For benefits received in 1995 and later,
we used the Italian Bankers’ Association
interest rate, increased by the average
spread charged by banks on loans to
commercial customers plus an amount
for bank charges. See Memorandum the
File, ‘‘Calculations for the Preliminary
Results for Corticella Molini e Pastifici
S.p.a. and Pasta Combattenti S.p.a.’’
(April 3, 2006) (‘‘Corticella/Combattenti
Calculation Memorandum’’)
Analysis of Programs
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
I. Program Preliminarily Determined to
be Countervailable
A. Export Marketing Grants Under Law
304/90
Under Law 304/90, the GOI provided
grants to promote the sale of Italian food
and agricultural products in foreign
markets. The grants were given for pilot
projects aimed at developing links and
integrating marketing efforts between
Italian food producers and foreign
distributors. The emphasis was on
assisting small and medium-sized
enterprises.
Corticella received a grant under this
program in 1993 to assist it in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
establishing a sales office and network
in the United States. No other
respondent covered by this review
received benefits under this program
during the POR.
In the Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30288
(June 14, 1996) (‘‘Pasta Investigation’’),
the Department determined that these
export marketing grants confer a
countervailable subsidy within the
meaning of section 771(5) of the Act.
They are a direct transfer of funds from
the GOI bestowing a benefit in the
amount of the grant. See Sections
771(5)(D)(i) and (E) of the Act. Also,
these grants were found to be specific
within the meaning of section
771(5A)(B) of the Act because their
receipt was contingent upon export
performance. In this review, neither the
GOI nor the responding companies have
provided new information that would
warrant reconsideration of our
determination that these grants confer a
countervailable subsidy.
Also in the Pasta Investigation, the
Department treated these export
marketing grants as non-recurring. No
new information has been placed on the
record of this review that would cause
us to depart from this treatment.
Because the amount of the grant that
was approved by the GOI exceeded 0.5
percent of Corticella’s exports to the
United States in the year of approval,
we used the grant methodology
described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to
allocate the benefit over the AUL. We
divided the benefit attributable to the
POR by the value of the companies’ total
exports to the United States in the POR.
On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the countervailable subsidy
from these Law 304/90 export marketing
grants to be 0.12 percent ad valorem for
Corticella/Combattenti. See the
Corticella/Combattenti Calculation
Memorandum.
B. Social Security Reductions and
Exemptions—Sgravi (Article 44 of Law
448/01)
Italian law allows companies,
particularly those located in the
Mezzogiorno region (southern Italy), to
use a variety of exemptions from and
reductions (sgravi) of payroll
contributions that employers make to
the Italian social security system for
health care benefits, pensions, etc. The
sgravi benefits are regulated by a
complex set of laws and regulations,
and are sometimes linked to conditions
such as creating more jobs. We have
found in past segments of this
proceeding that the benefits under some
of these laws (e.g., Laws 183/76 and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17443
449/97) are available only to companies
located in the Mezzogiorno and other
disadvantaged regions. Other laws (e.g.,
Laws 407/90 and 863/84) provide
benefits to companies all over Italy, but
the level of benefits is higher for
companies in the south than for
companies in other parts of the country.
The law identified as having provided
countervailable sgravi benefits during
the POR is the following: Article 44 of
Law 448/01.
In the instant review, no party in this
proceeding challenged our past
determinations in the Pasta
Investigation and subsequent reviews
that sgravi benefits were countervailable
for companies located within the
Mezzogiorno region. Additionally, no
new information or evidence of changed
circumstances was received that would
warrant reconsideration of these past
determinations.
Article 44 of Law 448/01 is provided
to encourage employment in the
Mezzogiorno region by reducing the
amount of the portion of social security
contributions paid by the employer on
behalf of the employee. Effectively, the
government undertakes to pay a portion
of the social security amount on behalf
of the employer. This benefit is
provided for three years after the hire of
a new employee in the Mezzogiorno
region. To receive the benefit,
companies must increase their number
of employees from that in existence as
of December 31, 2001. This program was
terminated on January 1, 2003. Atar is
located in the Mezzogiorno region and
made use of this program.
We find that this program confers a
countervailable subsidy because the GOI
has foregone tax revenues that are
otherwise due pursuant to section
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, which provided
a benefit to Atar in the amount of the
revenue forgone, pursuant to section
771(5)(E) of the Act. This program is
specific within the meaning of section
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the
program is limited to the Mezzogiorno
region of Italy. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the
countervailable subsidy from Article 44
of Law 448/01 to be 0.20 percent ad
valorem for Atar. See Memorandum the
File, ‘‘Calculations for the Preliminary
Results for Atar S.r.l.’’ (April 3, 2006).
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined
To Be Not Countervailable
A. Social Security Reductions and
Exemptions—Sgravi (Law 407/90, Law
223/91, Law 337/90, and Article 120 of
Law 388/00)
Other various laws identified as
having also provided sgravi benefits
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
17444
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
during the POR are the following: Law
407/90 (Pasta Lensi), Law 223/91 (Pasta
Lensi and Combattenti), Law 337/90
(Corticella), and Article 120 of Law 388/
00 (Pasta Lensi, Corticella, Combattenti,
and Atar).
In the instant review, no party in this
proceeding challenged our past
determinations in the Pasta
Investigation and subsequent reviews
that sgravi benefits were not
countervailable for companies located
outside of the Mezzogiorno region
because the program was generally
available throughout Italy at a lower rate
and therefore, not specific within the
meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act.
Moreover, under such circumstances,
there is no benefit under 19 CFR
351.503(d)(1). Additionally, no new
information or evidence of changed
circumstances was received that would
warrant reconsideration of our past
determinations. Therefore, because
Pasta Lensi and Corticella/Combattenti
are not located in the Mezzogiorno
region, we preliminarily find that these
companies did not receive
countervailable subsidies under Law
407/90, Law 223/91, and Law 337/90
during the POR.
Unlike these other sgravi programs,
Article 120 of Law 388/00
(fiscalizzazione program) is a
nationwide sgravi program that provides
an equivalent level of deductions
throughout Italy and is not specific to
the Mezzogiorno region or to the pasta
industry pursuant to section 771(5A) of
the Act. Article 120 of Law 388/00
provides a deduction of certain social
security payments related to health care
or insurance. The government takes over
a minimal amount of the payments for
social contributions which are owed to
the Instituto Nazionale Previdenza
Sociale (‘‘INPS’’). Therefore, we
preliminarily find that Article 120 of
Law 388/00 is not a countervailable
subsidy because the subsidy is not
specific. Accordingly, we determine that
Atar, Pasta Lensi, and Corticella/
Combattenti did not receive
countervailable subsidies under this
program during the POR.
B. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Fairs
and Exhibition Grants
The Brescia Chamber of Commerce
provided grants to small and mediumsized enterprises, artisan and
agricultural enterprises, and pools and
cooperatives in the province of Brescia
for their direct participation in fairs and
exhibitions abroad during calendar year
2004.
Pasta Lensi was the only respondent
in this proceeding that reported
receiving grants from the Brescia
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Chamber of Commerce. Specifically,
Pasta Lensi reported receiving a grant in
2004 for a fair in Germany. However,
because there is no indication that the
Brescia Chamber of Commerce
constitutes a ‘‘public entity’’ under
section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act, or that
the Brescia Chamber of Commerce was
entrusted or directed by the GOI to
provide the grant, we preliminarily
determine that this grant does not confer
a countervailable subsidy.
C. Tremonti Law 383/01 (Formerly Law
357/94 and 489/94)
Tremonti Law 383/01 allowed for a
deduction from taxable income of 50
percent of the difference between
investments in new plant and
equipment and the average investment
rate for the preceding five years. Pasta
Lensi has stated that one of its affiliates,
IAPC Leasing, claimed a deduction for
tax benefits under this law on its 2003
tax return but that no benefits were
received in the POR because IAPC
Leasing was in a tax loss position.
Regardless of whether there was a
benefit during the POR, we find that
there is no evidence on the record that
indicates that any subsidies under this
program are specific pursuant to section
771(5A) of the Act. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that this
program did not confer a
countervailable subsidy.
L. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy
Conservation
M. Export Restitution Payments
N. Export Credits Under Law 227/77
O. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77
P. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77
Q. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans
Under Law 675/77
R. Preferential Financing for Export
Promotion Under Law 394/81
S. Urban Redevelopment Under Law
181
T. Industrial Development Grants under
Law 183/76
U. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94
V. Duty-Free Import Rights
W. European Social Fund Grants
X. Law 113/86 Training Grants
Y. European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund
Z. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on
Debt Consolidation Loans (Formerly
Debt Consolidation Law 341/95)
AA. Interest Grants Financed by IRI
Bonds
BB. Grant Received Pursuant to the
Community Initiative Concerning the
Preparation of Enterprises for the
Single Market (PRISMA)
IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined
To Have Been Terminated
We examined the following programs
at verification and preliminarily
determine they have been terminated
prior to the POR and that there will be
no remaining subsidy benefits from
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined
these programs after this POR.
To Not Be Used
A. Regional Tax Exemptions Under
We examined the following programs
IRAP
and preliminarily determine that the
B. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86
producers and/or exporters of the
and 675/55
subject merchandise under review did
C. Corporate Income Tax (IRPEG)
not apply for or receive benefits under
Exemptions
these programs during the POR:
D. Remission of Taxes on Export Credit
A. Industrial Development Grants Under
Insurance Under Article 33 of Law
Law 488/92
227/77
B. Industrial Development Loans Under E. Export Marketing Grants Under Law
Law 64/86
304/90
C. European Regional Development
F. Tremonti Law 383/01
Fund Grants
Verification
D. Law 236/93 Training Grants
E. Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions
In accordance with 19 CFR
(Sabatini Law) (Formerly Lump-Sum
351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(iii),
Interest Payment Under the Sabatini
we verified information submitted by
Law for Companies in Southern Italy) the GOI for Pasta Lensi, Atar, Corticella,
F. Development Grants Under Law 30 of and Combattenti in Rome, Italy on
1984
February 13–15, 2006. See ‘‘Verification
G. Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione
of the Questionnaire Responses of the
Iniziative Economiche (Revolving
Government of Italy in the 9th
Fund for Economic Initiatives) Loans
Administrative Review,’’ dated March
H. Industrial Development Grants Under 31, 2006. We verified information
Law 64/86
submitted by Pasta Lensi in
I. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative
Verolanuova, Italy on February 17 and
Investments
20, 2006. See ‘‘Verification of the
J. Brescia Chamber of Commerce
Questionnaire Responses of Pasta Lensi
Training Grants
S.r.l. in the 9th Administrative Review,’’
dated March 31, 2006.
K. Ministerial Decree 87/02
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for Atar and
Corticella/Combattenti. Pasta Lensi had
no countervailable subsidies. For the
period January 1, 2004, through
December 31, 2004, we preliminarily
find the net subsidy rates for the
producers/exporters under review to be
those specified in the chart shown
below:
Net subsidy rate
Pasta Lensi S.r.l ........
Corticella Molini e
Pastifici S.p.a./
Pasta Combattenti
S.p.a.
Atar S.r.l ....................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Producer/exporter
0.00 percent.
0.12 percent (de minimis).
0.20 percent (de minimis).
If the final results of this review
remain the same as these preliminary
results, because the countervailing duty
rates for all of the above-noted
companies are less than 0.5 percent and,
consequently are either zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate entries during the period
January 1, 2004, through December 31,
2004, without regard to countervailing
duties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1). The Department will
issue appropriate instructions directly
to CBP within 15 days of publication of
these final results of this review.
For all other companies that were not
reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli
S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana
S.r.l., which are excluded from the
order), the Department has directed CBP
to assess countervailing duties on all
entries between January 1, 2004, and
December 31, 2004, at the rates in effect
at the time of entry.
The Department also intends to
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties. For the
companies noted above (except Pasta
Lensi) the cash deposit rate is zero
because each company’s rate is de
minimis. If the revocation in part
becomes final for Pasta Lensi,
suspension of liquidation will cease
and, consequently, no duties will be
collected.
For all non-reviewed firms (except
Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo
Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are
excluded from the order), we will
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties at the
most recent company-specific or ‘‘all
others’’ rate applicable to the company.
These rates shall apply to all nonreviewed companies until a review of a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
company assigned these rates is
requested.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
Department will disclose to parties to
the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days
after the date of the public
announcement of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii),
interested parties may submit written
arguments in case briefs within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in case briefs, may be filed no later than
five days after the date of filing the case
briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit briefs in
this proceeding should provide a
summary of the arguments not to exceed
five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of
case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be
served on interested parties in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after
the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.
The Department will publish a notice
of the final results of this administrative
review within 120 days from the
publication of these preliminary results,
in accordance with section 751(a)(3) of
the Act.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–5031 Filed 4–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–489–502]
Notice of Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Standard Pipe from Turkey
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17445
certain welded carbon steel standard
pipe from Turkey for the period January
1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. For
information on the net subsidy rate for
the reviewed company, see the
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’
section, infra. If the final results remain
the same as the preliminary results of
this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess countervailing duties as
detailed in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of
Review’’ section, infra. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. (See the ‘‘Public
Comment’’ section, infra).
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
4014, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 1986, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
CVD order on certain welded carbon
steel pipe and tube products from
Turkey. See Countervailing Duty Order:
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and
Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 7984
(March 7, 1986) (‘‘Turkey Pipe Order’’).
On March 1, 2005, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this
CVD order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 9918 (March 1, 2005). On March 31,
2005, we received a timely request for
review from the Borusan Group
(‘‘Borusan’’), a Turkish producer and
exporter of subject merchandise. On
April 22, 2005, the Department initiated
an administrative review of the CVD
order on certain welded carbon steel
standard pipe from Turkey, covering the
period January 1, 2004, through
December 31, 2004. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 20862
(April 22, 2005).
On June 13, 2005, the Department
issued a questionnaire to Borusan and
the Government of the Republic of
Turkey (‘‘GOT’’); we received their
questionnaire responses on August 22,
2005. On October 26, 2005, we issued
supplemental questionnaires to Borusan
and the GOT. We received the
supplemental questionnaire response
from Borusan on November 25, 2005,
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17440-17445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the Ninth
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To
Revoke Order, in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for
the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. We preliminarily
find that the countervailing duty rates during the period of review for
all of the producers/exporters under review are either zero or de
minimis. See the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section, below. We
are also preliminarily revoking the order with respect to Pasta Lensi
S.r.l., in accordance with section 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3). See the ``Partial
Revocation'' section, below. Interested parties are invited to comment
on these preliminary results (see the ``Public Comment'' section of
this notice).
DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3534 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (``pasta'' or
``subject merchandise'') from Italy. See Notice of Countervailing Duty
Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2005,
the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of this countervailing duty order for calendar
year 2004, the period of review (``POR''). See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 38099 (July 1,
2005). On July 28, 2005, we received a request for review from
Pastificio Laporta S.a.s (``Laporta''). On July 29, 2005, we received
requests for reviews from the following four producers/exporters of
subject merchandise: Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. (``Pallante''),
Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. (``Corticella'')/Pasta Combattenti
S.p.a. (``Combattenti'') (collectively, ``Corticella/Combattenti''),
Atar S.r.l. (``Atar''), and Moline e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.l.
(``Tomasello''). On August 1, 2005, we received a request for review
and a request for revocation from Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (``Pasta
Lensi'').\1\ (See the ``Partial Revocation'' section, below.) In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of
initiation of the review on August 29, 2005. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pasta Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC Italia
S.r.1. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR
41553 (July 14, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 31, 2005, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to
the Commission of the European Union, the Government of Italy
(``GOI''), Pallante, Corticella/Combattenti, Pasta Lensi, Tomasello,
Laporta, and Atar. We received all responses to our questionnaire in
October 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires to
[[Page 17441]]
the respondents in November 2005, and we received responses to our
supplemental questionnaires in November and December 2005.
On September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew its request for review. On
September 29, 2005, Tomasello withdrew its request for review. On
October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its request for review. As
discussed in the ``Partial Rescission'' section, below, we have
rescinded this administrative review for Laporta, Tomasello, and
Pallante.
Period of Review
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January
1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the 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 the order 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, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services,
Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In
addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has
determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from
Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. See memorandum
from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004,
which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in
Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, based on
publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as
of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are
accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded from this
order. See memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated
February 28, 2006, entitled ``Recognition of Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) as a Public Authority for
Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy'' which is on file in the
Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in Room B-099 of the main
Department building.
The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under
items 1901.90.9095 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.
Scope Rulings
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, which is 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 to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is available
in the CRU.
(3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application
requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention
investigation of Barilla S.r.l. (``Barilla''), an Italian producer and
exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on
December 8, 1997. See Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy, 62 FR 65673
(December 15, 1997). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its
final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'')
effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''), circumvention of the
antidumping order on pasta from Italy was occurring by reason of
exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla which subsequently
were repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or
less for sale in the United States. 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 Pastificio Fratelli Pagani
S.p.A.'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 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
an affirmative finding of 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).
Partial Revocation
On August 1, 2005, Pasta Lensi requested revocation of the
countervailing duty order as it pertains to its sales. Under section
751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, in whole or in
part'' a countervailing duty order upon completion of a review.
Although 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 set forth under 19 CFR 351.222. Under
19 CFR 351.222(c)(3)(i), in determining whether to revoke a
countervailing duty order in part, the Secretary will consider: (1)
Whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have
not applied for or received any net
[[Page 17442]]
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at
least five consecutive years; (2) whether, for any exporter or producer
that the Secretary previously has determined to have received any net
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise, the exporter or
producer agrees in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the
order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer,
subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable
subsidy on the subject merchandise; and (3) whether the continued
application of the countervailing duty order is otherwise necessary to
offset subsidization.
A request for revocation of an order in part must address these
four elements, per 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). The company requesting
the revocation must do so in writing and submit the following
statements with the request: (1) The company's certification that it
has not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the
subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years;
(2) the company's certification that it will not apply for or receive
any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise from any
program the Secretary has found countervailable; (3) the company's
certification that during each of the consecutive years, the company
sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial
quantities; and (4) the company's agreement in writing to their
immediate reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes that
the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, has received
any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise.
We preliminarily find that the request from Pasta Lensi meets all
of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. Pasta Lensi's revocation request
includes the necessary certifications in accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(e)(2)(iii). With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR
351.222(e)(2)(iii)(A), our preliminary results show that Pasta Lensi
did not receive countervailable subsidies during the POR and,
therefore, the net subsidy rate for Pasta Lensi is zero. See
``Preliminary Results of Review'' section, below. In addition, Pasta
Lensi had zero net subsidy rates in the four previous administrative
reviews in which it was involved. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final
Results of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
37084 (June 28, 2005), covering the period January 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2003; Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the
Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 70657
(December 7, 2004), covering the period January 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2002; Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Sixth
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 48599 (August 14,
2003), covering the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001;
and Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Fifth Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 52452 (August 12, 2002), covering the
period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
Based on our examination of the data submitted by Pasta Lensi, we
preliminarily find that Pasta Lensi qualifies for revocation of the
order pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3) and 351.222(e)(2)(iii). We also
preliminarily find that the order with respect to merchandise produced
and exported by Pasta Lensi should be revoked. If these preliminary
findings are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke the order,
in part, with respect to pasta from Italy produced and exported by
Pasta Lensi. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate
the suspension of liquidation for pasta produced and exported by Pasta
Lensi that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after January 1, 2005, and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to refund any cash deposits for such entries.
Partial Rescission
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that
the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within
90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the
requested review. On September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew its request
for review. On September 29, 2005, Tomasello withdrew its request for
review. On October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its request for review.
All parties submitted their withdrawal requests within the 90-day
deadline. No other party requested a review of Pallante's, Laporta's,
or Tomasello's sales.
Therefore, because these withdrawal requests were timely filed, and
because no other interested party requested that they be reviewed, we
rescinded this review with respect to Pallante, Tomasello, and Laporta
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Certain Pasta from Italy:
Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 59723 (October 13, 2005); Certain Pasta from Italy:
Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 61788 (October 26, 2005); and Certain Pasta from Italy:
Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 69515 (November 16, 2005).
We have instructed CBP to liquidate any entries from Pallante,
Laporta, and Tomasello during the POR and to assess countervailing
duties at the rate that was applied at the time of entry.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies are
allocated over a period corresponding to the AUL of the renewable
physical assets used to produce the subject merchandise. The
Department's regulations create a rebuttable presumption that the AUL
will be taken from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life
Asset Depreciation Range System (``IRS Tables''). See 19 CFR
351.524(d)(2). For pasta, the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL of 12 years.
None of the responding companies or interested parties objected to this
allocation period. Therefore, we have used the 12-year allocation
period for all respondents.
Attribution of Subsidies
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6), the Department will attribute
subsidies received by certain companies to the combined sales of those
companies. Based on our review of the responses, we preliminarily find
that ``cross-ownership'' exists with respect to certain companies, as
described below, and we have attributed subsidies accordingly:
Pasta Lensi: Pasta Lensi is an Italian producer and exporter of
pasta. As further discussed in the April 3, 2006, proprietary
memorandum entitled ``Pasta Lensi S.r.l.--Attribution Issues,'' which
is on file in the Department's CRU, Pasta Lensi has reported that IAPC
Leasing S.r.l., another company owned by the parent company of Pasta
Lensi, did not receive any benefits under the programs being examined.
Therefore, there are no benefits to this company that require
attribution. Moreover, IAPC Leasing S.r.l. does not produce subject
merchandise. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies received to Pasta
Lensi's sales only.
Corticella/Combattenti: Corticella/Combattenti is an Italian
producer and exporter of pasta. As further discussed in the April 3,
2006, memorandum entitled ``Attribution Issues: Corticella Molini e
Pastifici S.p.a. and Pasta Combattenti S.p.a.,'' which is on file in
the Department's CRU, Corticella/
[[Page 17443]]
Combattent has reported that affiliates Certosa, CLC, and the parent
company Euricom, did not receive any benefits under the programs being
examined. Therefore, there are no benefits to these companies that
require attribution. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies received to
the combined sales of Corticella and Combattenti.
Atar: Atar has reported that it has no affiliates or cross-
ownership. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies received to Atar's
sales only.
Discount Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we used the national
average cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans as a discount rate for
allocating non-recurring benefits over time because no company for
which we need such discount rates took out any loans in the years in
which the government agreed to provide the subsidies in question.
Consistent with past practice in this proceeding, for years prior to
1995, we used the Bank of Italy reference rate adjusted upward to
reflect the mark-up an Italian commercial bank would charge a corporate
customer. See, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results and
Partial Recision of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 17971 (April 8, 2005) (decision unchanged in the final
results, Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Eighth
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37084 (June 28,
2005)). For benefits received in 1995 and later, we used the Italian
Bankers' Association interest rate, increased by the average spread
charged by banks on loans to commercial customers plus an amount for
bank charges. See Memorandum the File, ``Calculations for the
Preliminary Results for Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. and Pasta
Combattenti S.p.a.'' (April 3, 2006) (``Corticella/Combattenti
Calculation Memorandum'')
Analysis of Programs
I. Program Preliminarily Determined to be Countervailable
A. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90
Under Law 304/90, the GOI provided grants to promote the sale of
Italian food and agricultural products in foreign markets. The grants
were given for pilot projects aimed at developing links and integrating
marketing efforts between Italian food producers and foreign
distributors. The emphasis was on assisting small and medium-sized
enterprises.
Corticella received a grant under this program in 1993 to assist it
in establishing a sales office and network in the United States. No
other respondent covered by this review received benefits under this
program during the POR.
In the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain
Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30288 (June 14, 1996) (``Pasta
Investigation''), the Department determined that these export marketing
grants confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section
771(5) of the Act. They are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI
bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See Sections
771(5)(D)(i) and (E) of the Act. Also, these grants were found to be
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because
their receipt was contingent upon export performance. In this review,
neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided new
information that would warrant reconsideration of our determination
that these grants confer a countervailable subsidy.
Also in the Pasta Investigation, the Department treated these
export marketing grants as non-recurring. No new information has been
placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from
this treatment.
Because the amount of the grant that was approved by the GOI
exceeded 0.5 percent of Corticella's exports to the United States in
the year of approval, we used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR
351.524(d) to allocate the benefit over the AUL. We divided the benefit
attributable to the POR by the value of the companies' total exports to
the United States in the POR.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable
subsidy from these Law 304/90 export marketing grants to be 0.12
percent ad valorem for Corticella/Combattenti. See the Corticella/
Combattenti Calculation Memorandum.
B. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi (Article 44 of Law
448/01)
Italian law allows companies, particularly those located in the
Mezzogiorno region (southern Italy), to use a variety of exemptions
from and reductions (sgravi) of payroll contributions that employers
make to the Italian social security system for health care benefits,
pensions, etc. The sgravi benefits are regulated by a complex set of
laws and regulations, and are sometimes linked to conditions such as
creating more jobs. We have found in past segments of this proceeding
that the benefits under some of these laws (e.g., Laws 183/76 and 449/
97) are available only to companies located in the Mezzogiorno and
other disadvantaged regions. Other laws (e.g., Laws 407/90 and 863/84)
provide benefits to companies all over Italy, but the level of benefits
is higher for companies in the south than for companies in other parts
of the country.
The law identified as having provided countervailable sgravi
benefits during the POR is the following: Article 44 of Law 448/01.
In the instant review, no party in this proceeding challenged our
past determinations in the Pasta Investigation and subsequent reviews
that sgravi benefits were countervailable for companies located within
the Mezzogiorno region. Additionally, no new information or evidence of
changed circumstances was received that would warrant reconsideration
of these past determinations.
Article 44 of Law 448/01 is provided to encourage employment in the
Mezzogiorno region by reducing the amount of the portion of social
security contributions paid by the employer on behalf of the employee.
Effectively, the government undertakes to pay a portion of the social
security amount on behalf of the employer. This benefit is provided for
three years after the hire of a new employee in the Mezzogiorno region.
To receive the benefit, companies must increase their number of
employees from that in existence as of December 31, 2001. This program
was terminated on January 1, 2003. Atar is located in the Mezzogiorno
region and made use of this program.
We find that this program confers a countervailable subsidy because
the GOI has foregone tax revenues that are otherwise due pursuant to
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, which provided a benefit to Atar in
the amount of the revenue forgone, pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the
Act. This program is specific within the meaning of section
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the program is limited to the
Mezzogiorno region of Italy. On this basis, we preliminarily determine
the countervailable subsidy from Article 44 of Law 448/01 to be 0.20
percent ad valorem for Atar. See Memorandum the File, ``Calculations
for the Preliminary Results for Atar S.r.l.'' (April 3, 2006).
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable
A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi (Law 407/90, Law
223/91, Law 337/90, and Article 120 of Law 388/00)
Other various laws identified as having also provided sgravi
benefits
[[Page 17444]]
during the POR are the following: Law 407/90 (Pasta Lensi), Law 223/91
(Pasta Lensi and Combattenti), Law 337/90 (Corticella), and Article 120
of Law 388/00 (Pasta Lensi, Corticella, Combattenti, and Atar).
In the instant review, no party in this proceeding challenged our
past determinations in the Pasta Investigation and subsequent reviews
that sgravi benefits were not countervailable for companies located
outside of the Mezzogiorno region because the program was generally
available throughout Italy at a lower rate and therefore, not specific
within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. Moreover, under such
circumstances, there is no benefit under 19 CFR 351.503(d)(1).
Additionally, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances
was received that would warrant reconsideration of our past
determinations. Therefore, because Pasta Lensi and Corticella/
Combattenti are not located in the Mezzogiorno region, we preliminarily
find that these companies did not receive countervailable subsidies
under Law 407/90, Law 223/91, and Law 337/90 during the POR.
Unlike these other sgravi programs, Article 120 of Law 388/00
(fiscalizzazione program) is a nationwide sgravi program that provides
an equivalent level of deductions throughout Italy and is not specific
to the Mezzogiorno region or to the pasta industry pursuant to section
771(5A) of the Act. Article 120 of Law 388/00 provides a deduction of
certain social security payments related to health care or insurance.
The government takes over a minimal amount of the payments for social
contributions which are owed to the Instituto Nazionale Previdenza
Sociale (``INPS''). Therefore, we preliminarily find that Article 120
of Law 388/00 is not a countervailable subsidy because the subsidy is
not specific. Accordingly, we determine that Atar, Pasta Lensi, and
Corticella/Combattenti did not receive countervailable subsidies under
this program during the POR.
B. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Fairs and Exhibition Grants
The Brescia Chamber of Commerce provided grants to small and
medium-sized enterprises, artisan and agricultural enterprises, and
pools and cooperatives in the province of Brescia for their direct
participation in fairs and exhibitions abroad during calendar year
2004.
Pasta Lensi was the only respondent in this proceeding that
reported receiving grants from the Brescia Chamber of Commerce.
Specifically, Pasta Lensi reported receiving a grant in 2004 for a fair
in Germany. However, because there is no indication that the Brescia
Chamber of Commerce constitutes a ``public entity'' under section
771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act, or that the Brescia Chamber of Commerce was
entrusted or directed by the GOI to provide the grant, we preliminarily
determine that this grant does not confer a countervailable subsidy.
C. Tremonti Law 383/01 (Formerly Law 357/94 and 489/94)
Tremonti Law 383/01 allowed for a deduction from taxable income of
50 percent of the difference between investments in new plant and
equipment and the average investment rate for the preceding five years.
Pasta Lensi has stated that one of its affiliates, IAPC Leasing,
claimed a deduction for tax benefits under this law on its 2003 tax
return but that no benefits were received in the POR because IAPC
Leasing was in a tax loss position. Regardless of whether there was a
benefit during the POR, we find that there is no evidence on the record
that indicates that any subsidies under this program are specific
pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act. Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that this program did not confer a countervailable subsidy.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that
the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise under review
did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the
POR:
A. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92
B. Industrial Development Loans Under Law 64/86
C. European Regional Development Fund Grants
D. Law 236/93 Training Grants
E. Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions (Sabatini Law) (Formerly Lump-Sum
Interest Payment Under the Sabatini Law for Companies in Southern
Italy)
F. Development Grants Under Law 30 of 1984
G. Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione Iniziative Economiche (Revolving Fund
for Economic Initiatives) Loans
H. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 64/86
I. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments
J. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Training Grants
K. Ministerial Decree 87/02
L. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation
M. Export Restitution Payments
N. Export Credits Under Law 227/77
O. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77
P. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77
Q. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77
R. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81
S. Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181
T. Industrial Development Grants under Law 183/76
U. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94
V. Duty-Free Import Rights
W. European Social Fund Grants
X. Law 113/86 Training Grants
Y. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
Z. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans
(Formerly Debt Consolidation Law 341/95)
AA. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds
BB. Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the
Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (PRISMA)
IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Have Been Terminated
We examined the following programs at verification and
preliminarily determine they have been terminated prior to the POR and
that there will be no remaining subsidy benefits from these programs
after this POR.
A. Regional Tax Exemptions Under IRAP
B. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 and 675/55
C. Corporate Income Tax (IRPEG) Exemptions
D. Remission of Taxes on Export Credit Insurance Under Article 33 of
Law 227/77
E. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90
F. Tremonti Law 383/01
Verification
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(iii),
we verified information submitted by the GOI for Pasta Lensi, Atar,
Corticella, and Combattenti in Rome, Italy on February 13-15, 2006. See
``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of
Italy in the 9th Administrative Review,'' dated March 31, 2006. We
verified information submitted by Pasta Lensi in Verolanuova, Italy on
February 17 and 20, 2006. See ``Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Pasta Lensi S.r.l. in the 9th Administrative Review,''
dated March 31, 2006.
[[Page 17445]]
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for Atar and Corticella/Combattenti. Pasta
Lensi had no countervailable subsidies. For the period January 1, 2004,
through December 31, 2004, we preliminarily find the net subsidy rates
for the producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the
chart shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasta Lensi S.r.l......................... 0.00 percent.
Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a./Pasta 0.12 percent (de minimis).
Combattenti S.p.a.
Atar S.r.l................................ 0.20 percent (de minimis).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, because the countervailing duty rates for all of
the above-noted companies are less than 0.5 percent and, consequently
are either zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
entries during the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004,
without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1). The Department will issue appropriate instructions
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of
this review.
For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e
R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded
from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess
countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2004, and
December 31, 2004, at the rates in effect at the time of entry.
The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash
deposits of estimated countervailing duties. For the companies noted
above (except Pasta Lensi) the cash deposit rate is zero because each
company's rate is de minimis. If the revocation in part becomes final
for Pasta Lensi, suspension of liquidation will cease and,
consequently, no duties will be collected.
For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and
Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order), we
will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing
duties at the most recent company-specific or ``all others'' rate
applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed
companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is
requested.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public
announcement of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit
written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of
filing the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f).
Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date
for submission of rebuttal briefs.
The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this
administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3) of the Act.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-5031 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
