Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 45017-45023 [E6-12796]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
values with U.S. dollar–denominated
freight values in the margin calculation
for packing expenses.
Department’s Position:
We agree with SLK that we
erroneously used Indian rupee–
denominated freight values instead of
U.S. dollar–denominated freight values
in its margin calculation for packing
expenses. For these amended final
results, we corrected this ministerial
error and used freight values that were
converted to U.S. dollars before adding
these values to the U.S. dollar–
denominated surrogate values for the
packing inputs in SLK’s margin
calculation program.
Amended Final Results
As a result of the correction of
ministerial errors and amended margin
calculation, the following weighted–
average margin exists for SLK, for the
period of December 2, 2003, through
November 30, 2004.
Original Weighted–average
percentage margin
Producer/Exporter
LDR Industries Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. .........................
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for the amended
final results to the parties within five
days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries based
on the amended final results. For details
on the assessment of antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries, see
Final Results, 71 FR 37051, 37056.
These amended final results are
published in accordance with sections
751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12817 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–475–818)
Notice of Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Ninth
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
pasta (‘‘pasta’’) from Italy for the period
of review (‘‘POR’’) July 1, 2004, through
June 30, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that
during the POR, both Corticella Molini
e Pastifici S.p.A. and its affiliate Pasta
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
1 In its September 20, 2005 letter, counsel for
Italpasta S.p.A. informed the Department that it
merged with its affiliate, Arrighi S.p.A. into a new
company Pasta Berruto S.p.A.. See Letter to the
Department from Italpasta, Re: Pasta from Italy;
Response to Questionnaire (September 20, 2005).
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Amended Weighted–average
percentage margin
14.69
Combattenti S.p.A. (collectively,
‘‘Corticella/Combattenti’’) and Atar,
S.r.L. (‘‘Atar’’) sold subject merchandise
at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). If
these preliminary results are adopted in
the final results of this administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the export price and
normal value (‘‘EP’’).
Further, requests for review of the
antidumping duty order for the
following companies were withdrawn:
Barilla G.e.R. Fratelli, S.p.A.,/Barilla
Alimentare, S.p.A. (‘‘Barilla’’), Moline e
Pastificio Tomasello S.r.L.
(‘‘Tomasello’’), and Pastificio Laporta
S.a.s (‘‘Laporta’’). Because the
withdrawal requests were timely and
there were no other requests for review
of these companies, we are rescinding
the review for these companies. See 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Furthermore, we are preliminarily
rescinding the review with respect to
Italpasta/Pasta Berruto S.p.A.
(‘‘Italpasta’’)1 because Italpasta
submitted a letter stating that it had no
shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR. See 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3). As discussed in the
Partial Rescission section below,
customs data did not contradict
Italpasta’s claim that it did not have
shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR.
Finally, we are rescinding the review
with respect to Pastificio Antonio
Pallante S.r.L./Industrie Alimentari
Molisane, S.r.L./Vitelli Foods, LLC
(‘‘Pallante’’) because, since the initiation
of the current review, the Department
has revoked the order in part, with
respect to Pallante, effective July 1,
2004. See Notice of Final Results of the
Eighth Administrative Review of the
PO 00000
45017
9.24
Antidumping Order on Certain Pasta
From Italy and Determination to Revoke
in Part, 70 FR 71464 (November 29,
2005) (‘‘Pasta Eighth Review Final
Results’’).
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results
and partial rescission. Parties who
submit comments in this segment of the
proceeding should also submit with
them: (1) a statement of the issues and
(2) a brief summary of the comments.
Further, parties submitting written
comments are requested to provide the
Department with an electronic version
of the public version of any such
comments on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
August 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure, Maura Jeffords or
Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–5973, (202) 482–3146 or (202) 482–
0395, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on pasta from
Italy. See Notice of Antidumping Duty
Order and Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61
FR 38547 (July 24, 1996).
On July 1, 2005, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain pasta
from Italy. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). We received
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
45018
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
requests for review from petitioners2
and from individual Italian exporters/
producers of pasta, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(b)(1)&(2). On August
29, 2005, the Department published the
notice of initiation of this antidumping
duty administrative review covering the
period July 1, 2004, through June 30,
2005, listing these seven companies as
respondents: Barilla, Atar, Italpasta,
Tomasello, Laporta, Corticella/
Combattenti, and Pallante. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR
51009 (August 29, 2005) (‘‘Initiation
Notice’’).
On October 13, 2005, Laporta timely
withdrew its request for an
administrative review of certain pasta
from Italy. On November 9, 2005, Barilla
timely withdrew its request for an
administrative review of certain pasta
from Italy. On November 14, 2005,
Tomasello timely withdrew its request
for an administrative review of certain
pasta from Italy. No other party
requested a review of these three
entities.
Between October 2005 and July 2006,
the Department issued its initial
questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaires to each respondent, as
applicable. In the initial questionnaire
to Corticella/Combattenti, the
Department requested that Corticella/
Combattenti submit its cost of
production information because during
the Department’s most recently
completed review, we disregarded sales
made by Corticella/Combattenti at less
than cost of production. See sections
773 (b)(1) and (2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’); Pasta
Eighth Review Final Results, 70 FR
71464 (November 29, 2005). We
received responses to the Department’s
initial and supplemental questionnaires
on October 31, 2005, February 2, March
15, June 27, June 30 and July 18, 2006
from Atar. Corticella/Combattenti
provided responses to the Department’s
initial and supplemental questionnaires
on February 6, February 16, and March
30, 2006. On November 21, 2005,
January 4, and May 1, 2006, the
petitioners filed comments on Atar’s
response. Atar filed rebuttal comments
on December 1, 2005, February 6, and
May 8, 2006. On March 10, 2005, the
Department extended the due date for
the preliminary results of review from
April 3, to May 18, 2006. See Certain
Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of
2 New World Pasta Company; Dakota Growers
Pasta Company; and American Italian Pasta
Company.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 13584 (March 16, 2006).
On May 17, 2006, we fully extended the
due date for the preliminary results of
review from May 18, to July 31, 2006.
See Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension
of Time Limits for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 29615
(May 23, 2006). We issued additional
supplemental questionnaires to Atar
between May 31 and July 7, 2006.
Affiliation and Collapsing
During the seventh administrative
review in this proceeding, the
Department collapsed Corticella/
Combattenti and its affiliated toll
producer, CLC. The Department found,
among other things, that Corticella/
Combattenti and CLC had common
ownership, common control and
management, and significant potential
for manipulation of price and
production; therefore, the Department
collapsed the companies for purposes of
that review. See Notice of Final Results
of the Seventh Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta From Italy and Determination to
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 6832, 6833
(February 9, 2005) (Pasta Seventh
Review Final Results) (citing the
February 2, 2005, memorandum from
the Team to Melissa G. Skinner,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
entitled, ‘‘The relationship of
Coopertive Lomellina Cerealicoltori
S.r.l. (CLC) with Corticella Molini e
Pastifici S.p.A. (Corticella) and its
affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A.
(Combattenti, collectively Corticella/
Combattenti),’’ a proprietary document,
the public version of which is available
in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’),
room B–099 of the main Department
building.) This memo has been placed
on the record of this review. See Memo
to File, dated July 31, 2006. The
Department also found Corticella/
Combattenti and CLC to be a single
entity for the purposes of the eighth
administrative review. See Pasta Eighth
Review Final Results, 70 FR 6832, 6833.
As the facts are the same for this POR
as they were for both the Pasta Seventh
Review Final Results and the Pasta
Eighth Review Final Results, we
continue to find that there is significant
potential for manipulation of price and
production between these affiliated
parties, and therefore, we have treated
Corticella/Combattenti and CLC as a
single entity for this review.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this order are
shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta
in packages of five pounds four ounces
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
or less, whether or not enriched or
fortified or containing milk or other
optional ingredients such as chopped
vegetables, vegetable purees, milk,
gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and
flavorings, and up to two percent egg
white. The pasta covered by this scope
is typically sold in the retail market, in
fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or
polyethylene or polypropylene bags of
varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of this 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,
by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I
International Services, by Ecocert Italia,
by Consorzio per il Controllo dei
Prodotti Biologici, or by Associazione
Italiana per l’Agricoltura Biologica.
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
CRU.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under item
1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (‘‘’’).
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise subject to the order is
dispositive.
Partial Rescission
Between October 13 and November
14, 2005, Laporta, Barilla, and
Tomasello timely withdrew their
requests for administrative review of the
antidumping order. Because their
withdrawal requests were filed within
90 days of publication of the Initiation
Notice, and because there were no other
requests for review of the above–
mentioned companies, we are
rescinding the review with respect to
Laporta, Barilla, and Tomasello in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
On November 29, 2005, the order was
revoked, in part with respect to Pallante.
See Pasta Eighth Review Final Results,
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005).
Consequently, we are rescinding the
administrative review with respect to
Pallante.
On September 20, 2005, Italpasta
submitted a letter stating that it had no
shipments of subject merchandise
during the period of review. We
confirmed this information through
customs data. See Memorandum to the
File from the Team regarding Customs
Query dated May 18, 2006, the public
version of which is on file in the CRU.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily
rescinding the review in part as to
Italpasta because it made no sales or
shipments of subject merchandise
during the review period.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we first attempted to match
contemporaneous sales of products sold
in the United States and comparison
markets that were identical with respect
to the following characteristics: (1) pasta
shape; (2) type of wheat; (3) additives;
and (4) enrichment. When there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the
comparison market to compare with
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with
the most similar product based on the
characteristics listed above, in
descending order of priority. When
there were no appropriate comparison
market sales of comparable
merchandise, we compared the
merchandise sold in the United States to
constructed value (‘‘CV’’), in accordance
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
For purposes of the preliminary
results, where appropriate, we have
calculated the adjustment for
differences in merchandise based on the
difference in the variable cost of
manufacturing (‘‘VCOM’’) between each
U.S. model and the most similar home
market model selected for comparison.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of certain
pasta from Italy were made in the
United States at less than NV, we
compared the EP to the NV, as described
in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of
the Act, we calculated monthly
weighted–average prices for NV for
Corticella/Combattenti and CV for Atar
and compared these to individual U.S.
transactions. See the company–specific
calculation memoranda, available in the
CRU.
Export Price
For both Corticella/Combattenti and
Atar, for the price to the United States,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
we used, as appropriate, EP, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act. We calculated EP when the
merchandise was sold by the producer
or exporter outside of the United States
directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to
importation. We based EP on the packed
cost–insurance-freight (‘‘CIF’’), ex–
factory, free–on-board (‘‘FOB’’), or
delivered prices to the first unaffiliated
customer in, or for exportation to, the
United States. When appropriate, we
made adjustments to these prices to
reflect billing adjustments, discounts,
rebates, and freight revenue.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)
of the Act, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for movement expenses
including inland freight from the plant
to the distribution warehouse, from
plant or warehouse to port of
exportation, brokerage, handling and
loading charges, export duties,
international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. inland freight expenses,
warehousing, and U.S. duties. In
addition, when appropriate, we
increased EP, by an amount equal to the
countervailing duty rate attributed to
export subsidies in the most recently
completed administrative review of the
countervailing duty order applicable to
the POR, in accordance with section
772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Corticella/
Combattenti reported resales to the
United States of subject merchandise
purchased in Italy from unaffiliated
producers. In those situations in which
an unaffiliated producer of the subject
pasta knew at the time of the sale that
the merchandise was destined for the
United States, the relevant basis for the
EP would be the price between that
producer and the respondent. See
Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors of One Megabit or
Above From the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review
and Notice of Determination Not to
Revoke Order, 63 FR 50867, 50876
(September 23, 1998). Because we
determined in prior reviews that
virtually all enriched pasta is sold to the
United States, we preliminarily
determine, as we did in prior reviews,
that the unaffiliated producers knew or
had reason to know at the time of sale
that the ultimate destination of the
merchandise was the United States. See,
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results,
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Revocation
of the Antidumping Duty Order in Part:
Eighth Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45019
Pasta from Italy, 70 FR 42303, 42306
(‘‘Pasta Eighth Review Prelim’’); Notice
of Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not to
Revoke in Part: For the Sixth
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 47020, 47028;
Notice of Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta
from Italy, 63 FR 42368, 42370 (August
7, 1998). Accordingly, consistent with
our methodology in prior reviews, when
a respondent purchased pasta from
other producers and we were able to
identify resales of this merchandise to
the United States, we excluded these
sales of the purchased pasta from the
margin calculation for that respondent.
See, e.g., Pasta Eighth Review Prelim, 70
FR 42303, 42306 (July 22, 2005); Pasta
Eighth Review Final Results, 70 FR
71464 (November 29, 2005).
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C) of the Act, to determine whether
there was a sufficient volume of sales in
the home market to serve as a viable
basis for calculating NV, we compared
each respondent’s volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product
to the volume of its U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise. Where a
respondent had an aggregate volume of
home market sales of the foreign like
product that was greater than five
percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise, we
determined that the home market was
viable. Based on the data Corticella/
Combattenti reported for its home
market sales, we determined that its
home market was a viable basis for
calculating NV. Atar’s home market
sales were less than five percent of its
aggregate sales to the United States;
therefore, Atar’s home market sales are
not viable for calculating NV.
When sales in the home market are
not suitable to serve as the basis for NV,
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act
provides that sales to a third–country
market may be utilized if the prices in
such market are representative; the
aggregate quantity or, if the quantity is
not appropriate, the value of the foreign
like product sold by the producer or
exporter in the third- country market is
five percent or more of the aggregate
quantity of the subject merchandise sold
in or to the United States; and the
Department does not determine that a
particular market situation in the third–
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45020
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
country market prevents a proper
comparison with the U.S. price.
Atar reported Angola as its largest and
only third–country market during the
POR, in terms of volume of sales (and
the aggregate quantity of such sales is
five percent or more of sales to the
United States). While the volume of
Atar’s third–country market sales
exceeded five percent, the Department
preliminarily determines that a
particular market situation exists which
prevents proper comparison between
Atar’s third–country market sales and
its U.S. sales. See Memorandum to
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3: Particular
Market Situation, July 31, 2006 (a public
version is on file in the CRU). Therefore,
consistent with section 773(a)(1)(B)(4) of
the Act, we are calculating NV based on
CV. We calculated NV as noted in the
‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value’’ section of this
notice.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
B. Arm’s–Length Test
Corticella/Combattenti reported sales
of the foreign like product to affiliated
end–users and affiliated resellers.3 The
Department calculates NV based on a
sale to an affiliated party only if it is
satisfied that the price to the affiliated
party is comparable to the price at
which sales are made to parties not
affiliated with the producer or exporter,
i.e., sales at arm’s length. See 19 CFR
351.403(c). To test whether these sales
were made at arm’s length, we
compared the starting prices of sales to
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net
of all movement charges, direct selling
expenses, discounts and packing. In
accordance with the Department’s
current practice, if the prices charged to
an affiliated party were, on average,
between 98 and 102 percent of the
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for
merchandise identical or most similar to
that sold to the affiliated party, we
consider the sales to be at arm’s–length
prices and included such sales in the
calculation of NV. See Stainless Steel
Bar from Germany: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 70651, 70652 (December
7, 2004); Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip
in Coils from Italy, 69 FR 48205, 48208
(August 9, 2004); see also 19 CFR
3 We note that sales from Corticella/Combattenti
to each affiliated customer constitute less than 5
percent of Corticella/Combattenti’s total sales in the
foreign market and we did not require it to report
the sales from its affiliated resellers to the
unaffiliated customers. See 19 CFR 351.403(d).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
351.403(c). Conversely, where all sales
to the affiliated party did not pass the
arm’s–length test, all sales to that
affiliated party were excluded from the
NV calculation. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR
69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 2002).
C. Cost of Production Analysis
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
(COP)
We conducted a COP analysis of
Corticella/Combattenti pursuant to
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine
whether the respondents’ comparison
market sales were made below the COP.
We calculated the COP based on the
sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for selling, general, and
administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses and
packing, in accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on home
market sales and COP information
provided by Corticella/Combattenti in
its questionnaire responses, except
where noted below:
Molini Certosa, a semolina producer
affiliated with Corticella and
Combattenti, sold Corticella/
Combattenti semolina, a major input to
the production of pasta. Section
773(f)(3) of the Act, the ‘‘major input
rule’’, states that ‘‘if, in the case of a
transaction between affiliated persons
involving the production by one of such
persons of a major input to the
merchandise, the administering
authority has reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that an amount
represented as the value of such input
is less than the cost of production of
such input, then the administering
authority may determine the value of
the major input on the basis of the
information available regarding such
cost of production, if such cost is greater
than the amount that would be
determined for such input under
paragraph (2).’’ Section 773(f)(2), the
‘‘transactions disregarded rule,’’ states
that transactions between affiliated
persons ‘‘may be disregarded if, in the
case of any element of value required to
be considered, the amount representing
that element does not fairly reflect the
amount usually reflected in sales of
merchandise under consideration in the
market under consideration.’’ We
evaluated the transfer prices between
Molini Certosa and Corticella and
Combattenti accordingly. The
Department normally determines the
market price of a particular input by
looking at the average price of any
transactions made between the
respondent and unaffiliated suppliers.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
See Section D at question II. A. 8. c. in
the Department’s September 7, 2005,
questionnaire. Such transactions were
available in this case, and we
determined the market price of the
semolina input by determining the
weighted–average price of all such
transactions between Corticella/
Combattenti and their unaffiliated
suppliers, as applicable, in this POR.
In its February 16, 2006, response to
the section D supplemental
questionnaire, Corticella claimed that
transactions between Combattenti and a
certain unaffiliated supplier are not
reflective of a market price, and
therefore the Department should not use
prices between Combattenti and this
supplier in determining the market
price for the purposes of applying the
major input rule. Corticella also
claimed, in its March 30, 2006, response
to the section D supplemental
questionnaire, that transactions between
Combattenti and this unaffiliated
company are functionally a ‘‘tolling’’
arrangement, even though Combattenti
takes ownership of the semolina.
Corticella claims that Combattenti
recovers the semolina price through a
conversion fee charged to the customer/
supplier.
We disagree with Corticella that we
should exclude the purchases of
semolina from the supplier in question.
First, the supplier is not affiliated with
Combattenti. Second, even Corticella
concedes that the supplier is not a
toller. See also 19 CFR 351.401(h).
Indeed, Combattenti acquires ownership
and controls the relevant sale through
its contractual agreement; therefore,
Combattenti is the producer of pasta,
not a subcontractor or toller. See Notice
of Final Results of New Shipper Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Pasta from Italy, 69 FR 18869
(April 9, 2004). Furthermore, Corticella
failed to provide any evidence that these
purchases were not at arm’s length or
anything other than market transactions.
Therefore, we have included them in
our calculation of market price used to
test Corticella’s affiliated purchases of
semolina.
Because the market price was higher
than the transfer prices between Molini
Certosa and both Corticella and
Combattenti and higher than Molina
Certosa’s COP, consistent with section
773(f)(3) of the Act, we increased the
reported direct material cost to reflect
the market price. For further details
regarding these adjustments, see the
Department’s ‘‘Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for Preliminary Results Corticella’’ (COP Memorandum) (July
31, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, for Corticella/Combattenti we
compared the weighted–average COP to
the per–unit price of the comparison
market sales of the foreign like product
to determine whether these sales had
been made at prices below the COP
within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and whether such
prices were sufficient to permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. We determined the net
comparison market prices for the sales–
below-cost test by subtracting from the
gross unit price any applicable
movement charges, discounts, rebates,
direct and indirect selling expenses
(also excluded from the COP), and
packing expenses.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and
773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less
than 20 percent of sales of a given
product were at prices less than the
COP, we did not disregard any below–
cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below–cost sales
were not made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ In contrast, where 20
percent or more of a respondent’s sales
of a given product during the POR were
at prices less than the COP, we
determined such sales to have been
made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales
were made within an extended period of
time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they
were made over the course of the POR.
In such cases, because we compared
prices to POR–average costs, we also
determined that such sales were not
made at prices which would permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on
this methodology, for Corticella/
Combattenti, for purposes of this
administrative review, we disregarded
certain below–cost sales and used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the
company–specific calculation
memoranda on file in the CRU, for our
calculation methodology and results.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
For Corticella/Combattenti, we
calculated NV based on ex–works, FOB
or delivered prices to comparison
market customers. When appropriate,
we made adjustments to these prices to
reflect billing adjustments, discounts,
and rebates. We made deductions from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
the starting price, when appropriate, for
handling, loading, inland freight,
international freight, and warehousing.
In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act, we added U.S.
packing costs and deducted comparison
market packing, respectively. In
addition, we made circumstance–of-sale
(‘‘COS’’) adjustments for direct
expenses, including imputed credit
expenses, advertising, warranty
expenses, commissions, and bank
charges, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
We also made adjustments, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for
indirect selling expenses incurred in the
home market or United States where
commissions were granted on sales in
one market but not in the other, the
‘‘commission offset.’’ Specifically,
where commissions are incurred in one
market, but not in the other, we will
limit the amount of such adjustment to
the amount of either the selling
expenses incurred in the one market or
the commissions allowed in the other
market, whichever is less.
When comparing U.S. sales with
comparison market sales of similar, but
not identical, merchandise, we also
made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We
based this adjustment on the difference
in the VCOM for the foreign like
product and subject merchandise, using
POR–average costs.
Sales of pasta purchased by the
respondents from unaffiliated producers
and resold in the comparison market
were treated in the same manner
described above in the ‘‘Export Price’’
section of this notice.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Constructed Value
For Atar, we calculated CV in
accordance with section 773(e) of the
Act, which states that CV shall be based
on the sum of a respondent’s cost of
materials and fabrication for the subject
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A
expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs.
We relied on Atar’s submitted materials
and fabrication costs, G&A expenses and
U.S. packing costs. We adjusted Atar’s
reported total cost of manufacture to
account for an unreconciled difference
between its reported costs and its
financial accounting records. Further,
we calculated selling expenses and
profit, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, as detailed in
the Memorandum to Neal Halper from
LaVonne Clark, Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45021
(July 31, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results
Cost Calculation Memo’’).
Because the Department has
determined for purposes of these
preliminary results that Atar does not
have a viable comparison market, we
could not determine selling expenses
and profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of
the Act. Therefore, we relied on section
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act to determine
these selling expenses and profit.
Specifically, we used the weighted–
average selling expenses and profit rate
derived from the comparison market
data of the respondents in the previous
administrative review. See Pasta Eighth
Review Final Results. See Memo to the
File from LaVonne Clark through Taija
Slaughter, Final Results Calculations
from the Eighth Administrative Review
(July 31, 2006) (placing selling expense
and profit data submitted by
respondents in the Eighth
Administrative Review on the record of
the Ninth Administrative Review). The
statute does not establish a hierarchy for
selecting among the alternative
methodologies provided in section
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act for determining
selling expenses and profit. See
Statement of Administrative Action
Accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep.
No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 840 (1994).
Nonetheless, we examined each
alternative in searching for an
appropriate method.
Alternative (i) of section 773(e)(2)(B)
of the Act specifies that selling expenses
and profit may be calculated based on
‘‘actual amounts incurred by the
specific exporter or producer...on
merchandise in the same general
category’’ as subject merchandise. The
Department could not rely on this
alternative because Atar does not
produce any products other than the
subject merchandise. Alternative (ii) of
section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act provides
that selling expenses and profit may be
calculated based on ‘‘the weighted
average of the actual amounts incurred
and realized by [other] exporters or
producers that are subject to the
investigation or review.’’ We could not
calculate selling expenses and profit
based on this alternative because there
is only one other respondent in this case
and relying on that respondent’s
indirect selling expenses and profit
would reveal the business–proprietary
information. Therefore, we calculated
Atar’s CV selling expenses and profit
based on alternative (iii) of section
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, which is any
other reasonable method.
We calculated Atar’s CV selling
expense and profit ratios using the
comparison market selling expense and
profit ratios calculated for the
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
45022
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review
Final Results in this administrative
proceeding (i.e., Barilla, Corticella/
Combattenti, Industrie Alimentare
Colavita, S.p.A., Pastificio F.lli Pagani
S.p.A., Pallante, and Pastificio Riscossa
F.lli Mastromauro, S.r.L.). We computed
weighted–average ratios and applied the
selling expense ratios to the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication to
determine CV selling expenses, and
applied the profit ratio to the sum of the
cost of materials, fabrication, and
general expenses to calculate an amount
for profit.
Pursuant to alternative (iii), the
Department has the option of using any
other reasonable method, as long as the
result is not greater than the amount
realized by exporters or producers ‘‘in
connection with the sale, for
consumption in the foreign country, of
merchandise that is in the same general
category of products as the subject
merchandise’’ (i.e., the ‘‘profit cap’’). In
the instant case, we are using the
weighted–average profit rate derived
from the comparison market data of the
respondents in the immediately
preceding administrative review.
Accordingly, this weighted–average
profit rate represents an amount
normally realized by exporters or
producers in connection with the sale,
for consumption in the foreign county,
of merchandise that is in the same
general category of products as the
subject merchandise. As such, in
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)
of the Act, the weighted–average profit
rate of the respondents in the Pasta
Eighth Review Final Results establishes
a profit cap. Thus, the reasonable
method used by the Department to
calculate profit does not exceed the
profit cap.
Atar submitted to the Department the
financial statements of four Italian
companies, which Atar claims are
‘‘leading pasta manufacturers,’’ and
calculated profit ratios of those
companies based on the companies’
profits realized during fiscal year 2004.
Although these four companies are
producers of the same general category
of products as the subject merchandise,
the financial statements do not provide
information that would allow the
Department to determine if or the extent
to which the companies’ sales were
made in the comparison market.
Further, to determine the most
appropriate profit rate under alternative
(iii), we weighed several factors. Among
them are: (1) The similarity of the
potential surrogate companies’ business
operations and products to those of
respondent; (2) the extent to which the
financial data of the surrogate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
companies reflect sales in the United
States as well as the home market; (3)
the contemporaneity of the surrogate
data with the POR; and (4) the similarity
of the customer base. The greater the
similarity in business operations,
products, and customer base, the more
likely that there is a greater correlation
between the profit experience of the
companies in question. Because the
Department typically compares U.S.
sales to an NV based on sales in the
home market or third country, the
Department does not normally construct
an NV based on financial data derived
from exclusively or predominantly U.S.
sales. Finally, contemporaneity is a
concern because markets change over
time and the more current the data, the
more reflective it will be of the market
in which the respondent is operating.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure
Magnesium from Israel, 66 FR 49349
(September 27, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 8, and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Not Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Color Television Receivers from
Malaysia, 69 FR 20592 (April 16, 2004),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 26). We
determined that the use of the
weighted–average profit rate of the
respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review
Final Results is a reasonable method.
First, the products sold by the other
respondents in the comparison market
are substantially similar to those sold by
Atar. Second, the CV profit rate for the
respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review
Final Results excludes sales to the
United States. Third, the respondents in
the Pasta Eighth Review Final Results
sold to distributor/wholesalers similar
to Atar’s U.S. customers (i.e., they had
the same type of customer base). We
note that the weighted–average CV
profit rate calculated for the
respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review
Final Results covers a time frame that is
not contemporaneous with the POR.
The Pasta Eighth Review Final Results
period was July 1, 2003 through June 30,
2004, while the instant POR is July 1,
2004, through June 30, 2005. However,
we note that the profit rate experience
from the Pasta Eighth Review Final
Results period reflects the time
immediately prior to the instant review.
In addition, there is no information on
the record to suggest that the profit rate
experience from that period is so
different from the instant period to
render those profit rates distortive.
For price–to-CV comparisons, we
made adjustments to CV for COS
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
differences, in accordance with section
773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
We made COS adjustments by
deducting the weighted–average direct
selling expenses incurred or realized by
the respondents in the Pasta Eighth
Review Final Results, and adding Atar’s
U.S. direct selling expenses. See
Preliminary Results Cost Calculation
Memo.
F. Level of Trade
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to
determine whether comparison market
sales are at a different level of trade
(‘‘LOT’’), we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated (or
arm’s–length) customers. If the
comparison market sales are at a
different LOT and the differences affect
price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences
between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison market sales at the LOT
of the export transaction, we will make
an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In the home market, Corticella
reported three different LOTs
corresponding to two differing channels
of distribution and five selling activities.
Combattenti reported two LOTs and one
channel of distribution and five selling
activities. The Department has
determined that differing channels of
distribution, alone, are not sufficient
evidence for finding separate LOTs in
the home market, when selling
functions performed for each customer
class are sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR
351.412(c)(2). Based on our overall
analysis, we found that the three home
market distribution channels reported
by respondents were not distinct
enough to constitute more than one
LOT. Therefore, we found only one LOT
in the home market.
For a detailed description of our LOT
methodology and a summary of
company–specific LOT findings for
these preliminary results, see
calculation memoranda for Corticella/
Combattenti, on file in the CRU.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary
results, we made currency conversions
in accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Act, based on the official exchange
rates published by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following weighted–average percentage
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
movement expenses (e.g., international
freight) from the gross sales value.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
Manufacturer/exporter
Margin (percent)
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This
Atar ...............................
18.48 clarification will apply to entries of
Corticella/Combattenti ..
3.32 subject merchandise during the period
of review produced by companies
included in these preliminary results of
The Department will disclose
calculations performed within five days review for which the reviewed
companies did not know their
of the date of publication of this notice
merchandise was destined for the
to the parties of this proceeding, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
interested party may request a hearing
entries at the All–Others rate if there is
within 30 days of publication of these
no rate for the intermediate
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
company(ies) involved in the
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
transaction. For a full discussion of this
will be held 44 days after the date of
clarification, see Antidumping and
publication, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
case briefs no later than 30 days after
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
the date of publication of these
preliminary results of review. Rebuttal
Cash Deposit Requirements
briefs, limited to issues raised in case
To calculate the cash deposit rate for
briefs, may be filed no later than five
each producer and/or exporter included
days after the time limit for filing the
case briefs, unless the Department alters in this administrative review, we
divided the total dumping margins for
this time limit. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
each company by the total net value for
Parties who submit arguments are
that company’s sales during the review
requested to submit with the argument
period.
(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a
The following deposit rates will be
brief summary of the argument. Further,
effective upon publication of the final
parties submitting written comments are results of this administrative review for
requested to provide the Department
all shipments of pasta from Italy
with an additional copy of the public
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
version of any such comments on
for consumption on or after the
diskette. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(h), publication date, as provided by section
the Department intends to issue the
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash
final results of this administrative
deposit rates for the companies listed
review, which will include the results of above will be the rates established in the
its analysis of issues raised in any such
final results of this review, except if the
comments, or at a hearing, if requested,
rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
within 120 days of publication of these
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit
preliminary results.
will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed
Assessment Rate
above, the cash deposit rate will
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
continue to be the company–specific
Department calculated an assessment
rate published for the most recent final
rate for each importer of the subject
results in which that manufacturer or
merchandise. Upon issuance of the final exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
results of this administrative review, if
is not a firm covered in this review, a
any importer–specific assessment rates
prior review, or the original less–thancalculated in the final results are above
fair–value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
the Department will issue appraisement rate will be the rate established for the
instructions directly to CBP to assess
most recent final results for the
antidumping duties on appropriate
manufacturer of the merchandise; and
entries by applying the assessment rate
(4) if neither the exporter nor the
to the entered value of the merchandise. manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
For assessment purposes, we calculated any previous review conducted by the
importer–specific assessment rates for
Department, the cash deposit rate will
the subject merchandise by aggregating
be 11.26 percent, the All Others rate
the dumping margins for all U.S. sales
established in the LTFV investigation.
to each importer and dividing the
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order
amount by the total entered value of the and Amended Final Determination of
sales to that importer. Where
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
appropriate, to calculate the entered
Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24,
value, we subtracted international
1996).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
margins exist for the period July 1, 2004,
through June 30, 2005:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45023
These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of
the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and
increase the subsequent assessment of
the antidumping duties by the amount
of antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of this
administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12796 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–808]
Continuation of Antidumping Duty
Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rods From
India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of the
determinations by the Department of
Commerce (the Department) and the
International Trade Commission (ITC)
that revocation of the antidumping duty
order on stainless steel wire rods from
India would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, the Department is publishing
notice of continuation of this
antidumping duty order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Dana
Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–5255 and (202) 482–1391,
respectively.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45017-45023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12796]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-475-818)
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (``pasta'') from Italy
for the period of review (``POR'') July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, both Corticella
Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A.
(collectively, ``Corticella/Combattenti'') and Atar, S.r.L. (``Atar'')
sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV''). If these
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the export price and normal value (``EP'').
Further, requests for review of the antidumping duty order for the
following companies were withdrawn: Barilla G.e.R. Fratelli, S.p.A.,/
Barilla Alimentare, S.p.A. (``Barilla''), Moline e Pastificio Tomasello
S.r.L. (``Tomasello''), and Pastificio Laporta S.a.s (``Laporta'').
Because the withdrawal requests were timely and there were no other
requests for review of these companies, we are rescinding the review
for these companies. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Furthermore, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with
respect to Italpasta/Pasta Berruto S.p.A. (``Italpasta'')\1\ because
Italpasta submitted a letter stating that it had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). As
discussed in the Partial Rescission section below, customs data did not
contradict Italpasta's claim that it did not have shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In its September 20, 2005 letter, counsel for Italpasta
S.p.A. informed the Department that it merged with its affiliate,
Arrighi S.p.A. into a new company Pasta Berruto S.p.A.. See Letter
to the Department from Italpasta, Re: Pasta from Italy; Response to
Questionnaire (September 20, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we are rescinding the review with respect to Pastificio
Antonio Pallante S.r.L./Industrie Alimentari Molisane, S.r.L./Vitelli
Foods, LLC (``Pallante'') because, since the initiation of the current
review, the Department has revoked the order in part, with respect to
Pallante, effective July 1, 2004. See Notice of Final Results of the
Eighth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order on Certain Pasta
From Italy and Determination to Revoke in Part, 70 FR 71464 (November
29, 2005) (``Pasta Eighth Review Final Results'').
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results and partial rescission. Parties who submit comments in this
segment of the proceeding should also submit with them: (1) a statement
of the issues and (2) a brief summary of the comments. Further, parties
submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department
with an electronic version of the public version of any such comments
on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure, Maura Jeffords or
Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-5973, (202) 482-3146 or (202) 482-0395, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996).
On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain pasta from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). We received
[[Page 45018]]
requests for review from petitioners\2\ and from individual Italian
exporters/producers of pasta, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(1)&(2). On August 29, 2005, the Department published the
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review
covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, listing these
seven companies as respondents: Barilla, Atar, Italpasta, Tomasello,
Laporta, Corticella/Combattenti, and Pallante. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005) (``Initiation
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ New World Pasta Company; Dakota Growers Pasta Company; and
American Italian Pasta Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 13, 2005, Laporta timely withdrew its request for an
administrative review of certain pasta from Italy. On November 9, 2005,
Barilla timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of
certain pasta from Italy. On November 14, 2005, Tomasello timely
withdrew its request for an administrative review of certain pasta from
Italy. No other party requested a review of these three entities.
Between October 2005 and July 2006, the Department issued its
initial questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to each
respondent, as applicable. In the initial questionnaire to Corticella/
Combattenti, the Department requested that Corticella/Combattenti
submit its cost of production information because during the
Department's most recently completed review, we disregarded sales made
by Corticella/Combattenti at less than cost of production. See sections
773 (b)(1) and (2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''); Pasta Eighth Review Final Results, 70 FR 71464 (November 29,
2005). We received responses to the Department's initial and
supplemental questionnaires on October 31, 2005, February 2, March 15,
June 27, June 30 and July 18, 2006 from Atar. Corticella/Combattenti
provided responses to the Department's initial and supplemental
questionnaires on February 6, February 16, and March 30, 2006. On
November 21, 2005, January 4, and May 1, 2006, the petitioners filed
comments on Atar's response. Atar filed rebuttal comments on December
1, 2005, February 6, and May 8, 2006. On March 10, 2005, the Department
extended the due date for the preliminary results of review from April
3, to May 18, 2006. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 13584 (March 16, 2006). On May 17, 2006, we fully
extended the due date for the preliminary results of review from May
18, to July 31, 2006. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 29615 (May 23, 2006). We issued additional supplemental
questionnaires to Atar between May 31 and July 7, 2006.
Affiliation and Collapsing
During the seventh administrative review in this proceeding, the
Department collapsed Corticella/Combattenti and its affiliated toll
producer, CLC. The Department found, among other things, that
Corticella/Combattenti and CLC had common ownership, common control and
management, and significant potential for manipulation of price and
production; therefore, the Department collapsed the companies for
purposes of that review. See Notice of Final Results of the Seventh
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta
From Italy and Determination to Revoke in Part, 70 FR 6832, 6833
(February 9, 2005) (Pasta Seventh Review Final Results) (citing the
February 2, 2005, memorandum from the Team to Melissa G. Skinner,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, entitled, ``The relationship of
Coopertive Lomellina Cerealicoltori S.r.l. (CLC) with Corticella Molini
e Pastifici S.p.A. (Corticella) and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti
S.p.A. (Combattenti, collectively Corticella/Combattenti),'' a
proprietary document, the public version of which is available in the
Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room B-099 of the main Department
building.) This memo has been placed on the record of this review. See
Memo to File, dated July 31, 2006. The Department also found
Corticella/Combattenti and CLC to be a single entity for the purposes
of the eighth administrative review. See Pasta Eighth Review Final
Results, 70 FR 6832, 6833. As the facts are the same for this POR as
they were for both the Pasta Seventh Review Final Results and the Pasta
Eighth Review Final Results, we continue to find that there is
significant potential for manipulation of price and production between
these affiliated parties, and therefore, we have treated Corticella/
Combattenti and CLC as a single entity for this review.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry
pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not
enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients
such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis,
vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The
pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in
fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags
of varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of this 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, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by
Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
or by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica.
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 CRU.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable
under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission
Between October 13 and November 14, 2005, Laporta, Barilla, and
Tomasello timely withdrew their requests for administrative review of
the antidumping order. Because their withdrawal requests were filed
within 90 days of publication of the Initiation Notice, and because
there were no other requests for review of the above-mentioned
companies, we are rescinding the review with respect to Laporta,
Barilla, and Tomasello in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
On November 29, 2005, the order was revoked, in part with respect
to Pallante. See Pasta Eighth Review Final Results,
[[Page 45019]]
70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005). Consequently, we are rescinding the
administrative review with respect to Pallante.
On September 20, 2005, Italpasta submitted a letter stating that it
had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review. We
confirmed this information through customs data. See Memorandum to the
File from the Team regarding Customs Query dated May 18, 2006, the
public version of which is on file in the CRU. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the review in part
as to Italpasta because it made no sales or shipments of subject
merchandise during the review period.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted
to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States
and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the
following characteristics: (1) pasta shape; (2) type of wheat; (3)
additives; and (4) enrichment. When there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the comparison market to compare with U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales with the most similar product based on the
characteristics listed above, in descending order of priority. When
there were no appropriate comparison market sales of comparable
merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to
constructed value (``CV''), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the
Act.
For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have
calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the
difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (``VCOM'') between
each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for
comparison.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in
the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
monthly weighted-average prices for NV for Corticella/Combattenti and
CV for Atar and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. See the
company-specific calculation memoranda, available in the CRU.
Export Price
For both Corticella/Combattenti and Atar, for the price to the
United States, we used, as appropriate, EP, in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by
the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation.
We based EP on the packed cost-insurance-freight (``CIF''), ex-factory,
free-on-board (``FOB''), or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated
customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. When
appropriate, we made adjustments to these prices to reflect billing
adjustments, discounts, rebates, and freight revenue.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight from the plant to the distribution warehouse, from plant or
warehouse to port of exportation, brokerage, handling and loading
charges, export duties, international freight, marine insurance, U.S.
inland freight expenses, warehousing, and U.S. duties. In addition,
when appropriate, we increased EP, by an amount equal to the
countervailing duty rate attributed to export subsidies in the most
recently completed administrative review of the countervailing duty
order applicable to the POR, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of
the Act. Corticella/Combattenti reported resales to the United States
of subject merchandise purchased in Italy from unaffiliated producers.
In those situations in which an unaffiliated producer of the subject
pasta knew at the time of the sale that the merchandise was destined
for the United States, the relevant basis for the EP would be the price
between that producer and the respondent. See Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above From the Republic of
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review and Notice of Determination Not to
Revoke Order, 63 FR 50867, 50876 (September 23, 1998). Because we
determined in prior reviews that virtually all enriched pasta is sold
to the United States, we preliminarily determine, as we did in prior
reviews, that the unaffiliated producers knew or had reason to know at
the time of sale that the ultimate destination of the merchandise was
the United States. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of
the Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Eighth Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 70 FR 42303, 42306
(``Pasta Eighth Review Prelim''); Notice of Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent
Not to Revoke in Part: For the Sixth Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 47020, 47028;
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy, 63 FR 42368,
42370 (August 7, 1998). Accordingly, consistent with our methodology in
prior reviews, when a respondent purchased pasta from other producers
and we were able to identify resales of this merchandise to the United
States, we excluded these sales of the purchased pasta from the margin
calculation for that respondent. See, e.g., Pasta Eighth Review Prelim,
70 FR 42303, 42306 (July 22, 2005); Pasta Eighth Review Final Results,
70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005).
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, to determine
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each
respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to
the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Where a
respondent had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home
market was viable. Based on the data Corticella/Combattenti reported
for its home market sales, we determined that its home market was a
viable basis for calculating NV. Atar's home market sales were less
than five percent of its aggregate sales to the United States;
therefore, Atar's home market sales are not viable for calculating NV.
When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the
basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that sales
to a third-country market may be utilized if the prices in such market
are representative; the aggregate quantity or, if the quantity is not
appropriate, the value of the foreign like product sold by the producer
or exporter in the third- country market is five percent or more of the
aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United
States; and the Department does not determine that a particular market
situation in the third-
[[Page 45020]]
country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price.
Atar reported Angola as its largest and only third-country market
during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity
of such sales is five percent or more of sales to the United States).
While the volume of Atar's third-country market sales exceeded five
percent, the Department preliminarily determines that a particular
market situation exists which prevents proper comparison between Atar's
third-country market sales and its U.S. sales. See Memorandum to
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3: Particular Market Situation, July 31, 2006 (a public version
is on file in the CRU). Therefore, consistent with section
773(a)(1)(B)(4) of the Act, we are calculating NV based on CV. We
calculated NV as noted in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value'' section of this notice.
B. Arm's-Length Test
Corticella/Combattenti reported sales of the foreign like product
to affiliated end-users and affiliated resellers.\3\ The Department
calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is
satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the
price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the
producer or exporter, i.e., sales at arm's length. See 19 CFR
351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we
compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses,
discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's current
practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on
average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that
sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-
length prices and included such sales in the calculation of NV. See
Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 70651, 70652 (December 7, 2004);
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, 69 FR 48205, 48208
(August 9, 2004); see also 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where all
sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all
sales to that affiliated party were excluded from the NV calculation.
See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary
Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We note that sales from Corticella/Combattenti to each
affiliated customer constitute less than 5 percent of Corticella/
Combattenti's total sales in the foreign market and we did not
require it to report the sales from its affiliated resellers to the
unaffiliated customers. See 19 CFR 351.403(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Cost of Production Analysis
1. Calculation of Cost of Production (COP)
We conducted a COP analysis of Corticella/Combattenti pursuant to
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the respondents'
comparison market sales were made below the COP. We calculated the COP
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and packing, in accordance with
section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on home market sales and COP
information provided by Corticella/Combattenti in its questionnaire
responses, except where noted below:
Molini Certosa, a semolina producer affiliated with Corticella and
Combattenti, sold Corticella/Combattenti semolina, a major input to the
production of pasta. Section 773(f)(3) of the Act, the ``major input
rule'', states that ``if, in the case of a transaction between
affiliated persons involving the production by one of such persons of a
major input to the merchandise, the administering authority has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that an amount represented as
the value of such input is less than the cost of production of such
input, then the administering authority may determine the value of the
major input on the basis of the information available regarding such
cost of production, if such cost is greater than the amount that would
be determined for such input under paragraph (2).'' Section 773(f)(2),
the ``transactions disregarded rule,'' states that transactions between
affiliated persons ``may be disregarded if, in the case of any element
of value required to be considered, the amount representing that
element does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales
of merchandise under consideration in the market under consideration.''
We evaluated the transfer prices between Molini Certosa and Corticella
and Combattenti accordingly. The Department normally determines the
market price of a particular input by looking at the average price of
any transactions made between the respondent and unaffiliated
suppliers. See Section D at question II. A. 8. c. in the Department's
September 7, 2005, questionnaire. Such transactions were available in
this case, and we determined the market price of the semolina input by
determining the weighted-average price of all such transactions between
Corticella/Combattenti and their unaffiliated suppliers, as applicable,
in this POR.
In its February 16, 2006, response to the section D supplemental
questionnaire, Corticella claimed that transactions between Combattenti
and a certain unaffiliated supplier are not reflective of a market
price, and therefore the Department should not use prices between
Combattenti and this supplier in determining the market price for the
purposes of applying the major input rule. Corticella also claimed, in
its March 30, 2006, response to the section D supplemental
questionnaire, that transactions between Combattenti and this
unaffiliated company are functionally a ``tolling'' arrangement, even
though Combattenti takes ownership of the semolina. Corticella claims
that Combattenti recovers the semolina price through a conversion fee
charged to the customer/supplier.
We disagree with Corticella that we should exclude the purchases of
semolina from the supplier in question. First, the supplier is not
affiliated with Combattenti. Second, even Corticella concedes that the
supplier is not a toller. See also 19 CFR 351.401(h). Indeed,
Combattenti acquires ownership and controls the relevant sale through
its contractual agreement; therefore, Combattenti is the producer of
pasta, not a subcontractor or toller. See Notice of Final Results of
New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from
Italy, 69 FR 18869 (April 9, 2004). Furthermore, Corticella failed to
provide any evidence that these purchases were not at arm's length or
anything other than market transactions. Therefore, we have included
them in our calculation of market price used to test Corticella's
affiliated purchases of semolina.
Because the market price was higher than the transfer prices
between Molini Certosa and both Corticella and Combattenti and higher
than Molina Certosa's COP, consistent with section 773(f)(3) of the
Act, we increased the reported direct material cost to reflect the
market price. For further details regarding these adjustments, see the
Department's ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for Preliminary Results - Corticella'' (COP Memorandum)
(July 31, 2006).
[[Page 45021]]
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(1) of the Act, for Corticella/
Combattenti we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price
of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product to determine
whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an
extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such
prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market
prices for the sales-below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit
price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and
indirect selling expenses (also excluded from the COP), and packing
expenses.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act,
where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made
in ``substantial quantities.'' In contrast, where 20 percent or more of
a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The
sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course
of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average
costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this
methodology, for Corticella/Combattenti, for purposes of this
administrative review, we disregarded certain below-cost sales and used
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the company-specific calculation
memoranda on file in the CRU, for our calculation methodology and
results.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
For Corticella/Combattenti, we calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB
or delivered prices to comparison market customers. When appropriate,
we made adjustments to these prices to reflect billing adjustments,
discounts, and rebates. We made deductions from the starting price,
when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, international
freight, and warehousing. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison
market packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance-of-sale
(``COS'') adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit
expenses, advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, and bank
charges, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for
indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or United States
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the
other, the ``commission offset.'' Specifically, where commissions are
incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount
of such adjustment to the amount of either the selling expenses
incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other
market, whichever is less.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the VCOM for the foreign like product
and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs.
Sales of pasta purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated
producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same
manner described above in the ``Export Price'' section of this notice.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
For Atar, we calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the
Act, which states that CV shall be based on the sum of a respondent's
cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus
amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We relied on
Atar's submitted materials and fabrication costs, G&A expenses and U.S.
packing costs. We adjusted Atar's reported total cost of manufacture to
account for an unreconciled difference between its reported costs and
its financial accounting records. Further, we calculated selling
expenses and profit, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of
the Act, as detailed in the Memorandum to Neal Halper from LaVonne
Clark, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments
for the Preliminary Results (July 31, 2006) (``Preliminary Results Cost
Calculation Memo'').
Because the Department has determined for purposes of these
preliminary results that Atar does not have a viable comparison market,
we could not determine selling expenses and profit under section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we relied on section 773(e)(2)(B)
of the Act to determine these selling expenses and profit.
Specifically, we used the weighted-average selling expenses and profit
rate derived from the comparison market data of the respondents in the
previous administrative review. See Pasta Eighth Review Final Results.
See Memo to the File from LaVonne Clark through Taija Slaughter, Final
Results Calculations from the Eighth Administrative Review (July 31,
2006) (placing selling expense and profit data submitted by respondents
in the Eighth Administrative Review on the record of the Ninth
Administrative Review). The statute does not establish a hierarchy for
selecting among the alternative methodologies provided in section
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act for determining selling expenses and profit.
See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep.
No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 840 (1994). Nonetheless, we examined each
alternative in searching for an appropriate method.
Alternative (i) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act specifies that
selling expenses and profit may be calculated based on ``actual amounts
incurred by the specific exporter or producer...on merchandise in the
same general category'' as subject merchandise. The Department could
not rely on this alternative because Atar does not produce any products
other than the subject merchandise. Alternative (ii) of section
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act provides that selling expenses and profit may
be calculated based on ``the weighted average of the actual amounts
incurred and realized by [other] exporters or producers that are
subject to the investigation or review.'' We could not calculate
selling expenses and profit based on this alternative because there is
only one other respondent in this case and relying on that respondent's
indirect selling expenses and profit would reveal the business-
proprietary information. Therefore, we calculated Atar's CV selling
expenses and profit based on alternative (iii) of section 773(e)(2)(B)
of the Act, which is any other reasonable method.
We calculated Atar's CV selling expense and profit ratios using the
comparison market selling expense and profit ratios calculated for the
[[Page 45022]]
respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review Final Results in this
administrative proceeding (i.e., Barilla, Corticella/Combattenti,
Industrie Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A., Pastificio F.lli Pagani S.p.A.,
Pallante, and Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro, S.r.L.). We
computed weighted-average ratios and applied the selling expense ratios
to the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication to determine CV
selling expenses, and applied the profit ratio to the sum of the cost
of materials, fabrication, and general expenses to calculate an amount
for profit.
Pursuant to alternative (iii), the Department has the option of
using any other reasonable method, as long as the result is not greater
than the amount realized by exporters or producers ``in connection with
the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that
is in the same general category of products as the subject
merchandise'' (i.e., the ``profit cap''). In the instant case, we are
using the weighted-average profit rate derived from the comparison
market data of the respondents in the immediately preceding
administrative review. Accordingly, this weighted-average profit rate
represents an amount normally realized by exporters or producers in
connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign county, of
merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the
subject merchandise. As such, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, the weighted-average profit rate of the
respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review Final Results establishes a
profit cap. Thus, the reasonable method used by the Department to
calculate profit does not exceed the profit cap.
Atar submitted to the Department the financial statements of four
Italian companies, which Atar claims are ``leading pasta
manufacturers,'' and calculated profit ratios of those companies based
on the companies' profits realized during fiscal year 2004. Although
these four companies are producers of the same general category of
products as the subject merchandise, the financial statements do not
provide information that would allow the Department to determine if or
the extent to which the companies' sales were made in the comparison
market.
Further, to determine the most appropriate profit rate under
alternative (iii), we weighed several factors. Among them are: (1) The
similarity of the potential surrogate companies' business operations
and products to those of respondent; (2) the extent to which the
financial data of the surrogate companies reflect sales in the United
States as well as the home market; (3) the contemporaneity of the
surrogate data with the POR; and (4) the similarity of the customer
base. The greater the similarity in business operations, products, and
customer base, the more likely that there is a greater correlation
between the profit experience of the companies in question. Because the
Department typically compares U.S. sales to an NV based on sales in the
home market or third country, the Department does not normally
construct an NV based on financial data derived from exclusively or
predominantly U.S. sales. Finally, contemporaneity is a concern because
markets change over time and the more current the data, the more
reflective it will be of the market in which the respondent is
operating. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Pure Magnesium from Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8, and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Color Television Receivers from Malaysia, 69 FR 20592 (April
16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
26). We determined that the use of the weighted-average profit rate of
the respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review Final Results is a
reasonable method. First, the products sold by the other respondents in
the comparison market are substantially similar to those sold by Atar.
Second, the CV profit rate for the respondents in the Pasta Eighth
Review Final Results excludes sales to the United States. Third, the
respondents in the Pasta Eighth Review Final Results sold to
distributor/wholesalers similar to Atar's U.S. customers (i.e., they
had the same type of customer base). We note that the weighted-average
CV profit rate calculated for the respondents in the Pasta Eighth
Review Final Results covers a time frame that is not contemporaneous
with the POR. The Pasta Eighth Review Final Results period was July 1,
2003 through June 30, 2004, while the instant POR is July 1, 2004,
through June 30, 2005. However, we note that the profit rate experience
from the Pasta Eighth Review Final Results period reflects the time
immediately prior to the instant review. In addition, there is no
information on the record to suggest that the profit rate experience
from that period is so different from the instant period to render
those profit rates distortive.
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS
differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting the weighted-average
direct selling expenses incurred or realized by the respondents in the
Pasta Eighth Review Final Results, and adding Atar's U.S. direct
selling expenses. See Preliminary Results Cost Calculation Memo.
F. Level of Trade
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market
sales are at a different level of trade (``LOT''), we examine stages in
the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-
length) customers. If the comparison market sales are at a different
LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV
is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export
transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A)
of the Act.
In the home market, Corticella reported three different LOTs
corresponding to two differing channels of distribution and five
selling activities. Combattenti reported two LOTs and one channel of
distribution and five selling activities. The Department has determined
that differing channels of distribution, alone, are not sufficient
evidence for finding separate LOTs in the home market, when selling
functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar.
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Based on our overall analysis, we found that
the three home market distribution channels reported by respondents
were not distinct enough to constitute more than one LOT. Therefore, we
found only one LOT in the home market.
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see
calculation memoranda for Corticella/Combattenti, on file in the CRU.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average percentage
[[Page 45023]]
margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atar................................................ 18.48
Corticella/Combattenti.............................. 3.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for
filing the case briefs, unless the Department alters this time limit.
See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments
are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the
public version of any such comments on diskette. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(h), the Department intends to issue the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested,
within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon
issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping
duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the
entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to
each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the
sales to that importer. Where appropriate, to calculate the entered
value, we subtracted international movement expenses (e.g.,
international freight) from the gross sales value.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies
included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed
companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the All-Others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that
company's sales during the review period.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above
will be the rates established in the final results of this review,
except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis,
the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review,
or the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 11.26 percent, the All Others rate established in
the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996).
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-12796 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S