Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Tenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:, 44082-44086 [E7-15340]

Download as PDF 44082 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices address is 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Carolyn Allen, Administrative Assistant, (312) 353– 8311, TDD/TTY (312) 353–8362, or by e-mail: callen@usccr.gov. Hearing impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission’s Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. It was not possible to publish this notice 15 days in advance of the meeting date because of internal processing delays. Dated at Washington, DC, August 2, 2007. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E7–15354 Filed 8–6–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335–01–P meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, Civil Rights Analyst, Central Regional Office, at (913) 551–1400 or by e-mail frobinson@usccr.gov. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of the advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission’s Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. It was not possible to publish this notice 15 days in advance of the meeting date because of internal processing delays. Dated at Washington, DC, August 2, 2007. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E7–15355 Filed 8–6–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335–01–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–475–818) COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 3 p.m. at the Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz Law Office, 4268 1–55 North, Jackson, Mississippi 39211. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct program planning for future activities. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Central Regional Office by July 13, 2007. The address is 400 State Avenue, Suite 908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Tenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 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, 2005, through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (‘‘Rummo’’) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). We also preliminarily determine that Atar, S.r.L. (‘‘Atar’’) is not the producer of subject merchandise and are preliminarily rescinding the review of Atar. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:56 Aug 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price (‘‘EP’’) and NV for entries of subject merchandise produced by Rummo and to the All Others rate for entries of subject merchandise claimed to be produced by Atar. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and partial rescission. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maura Jeffords or Christopher Hargett, 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) 482–3146 or (202) 482– 4161, 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 3, 2006, 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, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). We received requests for review from petitioners1 and from individual Italian exporters/ producers of pasta, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2). On August 30, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, listing these four companies as respondents: Atar, Rummo, Industria Alimentare Colavita S.p.A. (‘‘Indalco’’) and Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (collectively, ‘‘Corticella/Combattenti’’). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On August 31, 2006, Indalco timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of certain pasta from Italy. On November 28, 2006, 1 New World Pasta Company; Dakota Growers Pasta Company; and American Italian Pasta Company. E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices Corticella/Combattenti also timely withdrew its request. The Department rescinded the review of these respondents on July 12, 2007.2 Between August 2006 and May 2007, the Department issued its initial questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to each respondent, as applicable. We received responses to the Department’s initial and supplemental questionnaires on November 13, 2006, April 4, 2007, April 12, 2007, May 1, 2007, and May 11, 2007, from Atar. Rummo provided responses to the Department’s initial and supplemental questionnaires on October 10, 2006, October 24, 2006, February 16, 2007, February 27, 2007, May 10, 2007, and July 13, 2007. On February 16, 2007, May 18, 2007, and July 9, 2007, the petitioners filed comments on Atar’s responses. On December 15, 2006, March 23, 2007, and June 21, 2007, petitioners filed comments on Rummo’s responses. On March 23, 2007, the Department fully extended the due date for the preliminary results of review from April 2, 2007, to July 31, 2007. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 13745 (March 23, 2007). jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Preliminary Intent to Rescind the Review of Atar In Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011, February 14, 2007 (‘‘Final Results 9th Review’’), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (‘‘ID Memo 9th Review’’), the Department expressed its ‘‘serious concerns’’ regarding Atar’s status as a producer by way of tolling arrangements. See ID Memo 9th Review at Comment 1. In the supplemental questionnaires sent to Atar in this current review, the Department asked follow–up questions pertinent to the issue of whether Atar was a producer of subject merchandise during the POR consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(h). However, Atar provided no additional information to address the Department’s concerns and to demonstrate that it was the producer of subject merchandise. As discussed in the memorandum from Melissa G. Skinner to Stephen J. Claeys, RE: Status of Atar, S.r.L.(≥Atar’’) as Manufacturer of Subject Merchandise, dated July 31, 2007, the totality of the circumstances surrounding Atar’s relationships with its suppliers of 2 See Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tenth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 38060, July 12, 2007. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:56 Aug 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 tolling services and customers lead to the preliminary determination that under 19 CFR 351.401(h) Atar is not the producer. Since Atar requested the review as ‘‘a producer’’ and Atar does not qualify for producer status, it does not qualify for this administrative review. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily rescinds the review. Because Atar incorrectly claimed to be the manufacturer, and no other manufacturer has been identified, under these circumstances, we will instruct customs to liquidate entries that are claimed to be produced by Atar at the All Others rate. 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, by Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura Biologica, or 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’’). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44083 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 or constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted–average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. See the Department’s ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Rummo S.p.A.’’ (‘‘Rummo’s calculation memo’’) (August 30, 2007), available in the CRU. Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed cost– insurance-freight (‘‘CIF’’), ex–factory, free–on-board (‘‘FOB’’), or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect discounts and rebates. E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1 44084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign brokerage, handling and loading charges, export duties, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, warehousing, and U.S. duties. In addition, when appropriate, we increased EP or CEP as applicable, by an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed administrative review, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (advertising, cost of credit, warranties, banking, slotting fees, and commissions paid to unaffiliated sales agents). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by its affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. See Rummo’s calculation memo. Normal Value (‘‘SG&A’’) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the Rummo’s’ information as submitted. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted– average COP to the per–unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below–cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. See Rummo’s calculation memo. 1. Calculation of COP 3. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below–cost sales of that product because we determined that the below– cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR–average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for Rummo, we disregarded below–cost sales of a given product of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Rummo’s calculation memo. Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of Rummo pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether Rummo’s comparison market sales were made at prices below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on ex–works, FOB or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, warehousing, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. We added interest revenue. In accordance A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because Rummo had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for Rummo. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES B. Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’)Analysis VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:56 Aug 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, bank charges, and billing adjustments, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments for Rummo, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or the 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 allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 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 respondent from unaffiliated producers and resold in the comparison market were disregarded, and sales of comingled and tolled pasta were re– coded as ‘‘Rummo.’’ E. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’s– length) customers. If the comparison– market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison–market sales at the E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 1997). In the home market, Rummo reported that it sold through two channels of distribution. Rummo reported that the two channels of distribution in the home market constitute one LOT. In the U.S. market, Rummo reported that its sales were made through three channels of distribution, to two LOTs. In the U.S. market, we find that the selling activity differed between the two LOTs such that they can not be considered the same level of trade. The Department has determined that Rummo’s home market sales are made at a different, and more advanced, stage of marketing than the LOTs of the U.S. sales. Nonetheless, we are unable to make an LOT adjustment because there is no other data on the record that would allow the Department to establish whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the home market. Therefore, We are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Rummo. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company–specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see Rummo’s calculation memo. 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. 44085 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 Rummo, we divided its total dumping margin by the total net value of its 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 rate for Rummo will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (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 Assessment Rate is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less–thanPursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the fair–value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but Department calculated an assessment the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the results of this administrative review, if manufacturer of the merchandise; and any importer–specific assessment rates (4) if neither the exporter nor the calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), manufacturer is a firm covered in this or the Department will issue appraisement any previous review conducted by the instructions directly to CBP to assess Department, the cash deposit rate will antidumping duties on appropriate be 15.45 percent, the All Others rate entries by applying the assessment rate Currency Conversion established in the LTFV investigation. to the entered value of the merchandise. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order For purposes of these preliminary For assessment purposes, we calculated and Amended Final Determination of results, we made currency conversions importer–specific assessment rates for Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain in accordance with section 773A(a) of the subject merchandise by aggregating Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, the Act, based on the official exchange the dumping margins for all U.S. sales 1996). These cash deposit requirements, rates published by the Federal Reserve to each importer and dividing the when imposed, shall remain in effect Bank. See Rummo’s calculation memo. amount by the total entered value of the until publication of the final results of Preliminary Results of Review sales to that importer. Where the next administrative review. appropriate, to calculate the entered As a result of our review, we Notification to Importers value, we subtracted international preliminarily determine that the This notice serves as a preliminary movement expenses (e.g., international following weighted–average percentage reminder to importers of their margin exists for the period July 1, 2005, freight) from the gross sales value. responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) The Department clarified its through June 30, 2006: to file a certificate regarding the ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on reimbursement of antidumping duties May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) prior to liquidation of the relevant clarification will apply to entries of entries during this review period. Rummo ......................... 1.54 subject merchandise during the POR Failure to comply with this requirement produced by companies included in The Department will disclose the could result in the Secretary’s these preliminary results of review for calculations performed for these presumption that reimbursement of which the reviewed companies did not preliminary results within five days of antidumping duties occurred and know their merchandise was destined the date of publication of this notice to for the United States. In such instances, increase the subsequent assessment of VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:56 Aug 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1 44086 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices 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, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–15340 Filed 8–6–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–533–824) Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests for review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET Film) from India for the period of review (POR) July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The review covers one respondent, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ). The Department preliminarily determines that MTZ did not sell subject merchandise to the United States at less than normal value during the POR. 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 liquidate entries during the POR without regard to antidumping duties. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review.’’ EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun Jack Zhao or Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1396 or (202) 482– 5255, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES AGENCY: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India on July 1, 2002. See Notice VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:56 Aug 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 67 FR 44175 (July 1, 2002) (Antidumping Duty Order). On July 3, 2006 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). The Department received timely requests for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India from Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and MTZ, manufacturers and exporters of MTZ film in India, by the July 31, 2006 deadline. On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India for these two companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) (Initiation Notice). On August 25, 2006, Jindal withdrew its request for an administrative review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), because we received the withdrawal of Jindal’s request for review within the requisite 90 days of publication of the Initiation Notice, we rescinded the administrative review of Jindal. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Notice of Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,72 FR 1216 (January 10, 2007). On August 2, 2006, the Department issued its questionnaire to MTZ.1 MTZ submitted its section A response on August 23, 2006, and submitted its sections B and C response on October 13, 2006. The Department issued a Section A supplemental questionnaire on September 6, 2006 and MTZ responded on October 11, 2006. On 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company’s corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales or if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of merchandise under investigation. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 January 19, 2007 and January 26, 2007, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to which MTZ responded on February 20, 2007. The Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire on May 16, 2007 with two deadlines; MTZ submitted its response to Section I of this questionnaire on June 4, 2007, and to Section II of this questionnaire on June 6, 2007. On March 23, 2007, the Department, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review by 120 days from April 2, 2007 to July 31, 2007. See Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 13745 (March 23, 2007). Verification The Department conducted a sales verification of MTZ at the sales office in Mumbai from June 25, 2007 through June 29, 2007. Minor corrections were presented at verification on June 25, 2007 and filed with the Department in accordance with our filing requirements on June 26, 2007. On July 13, 2007, these corrections were filed in electronic format. See Verification of the Sales Response of MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip (PET Film) from India (MTZ Verification Report), dated July 26, 2007, on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main Department building. Period of Review This review covers the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance–enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Since the order was published, there has been one scope determination, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by International Packaging Films, Inc., the Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order. Imports of PET Film are classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44082-44086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15340]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-475-818)


Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Tenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:

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, 2005, through June 30, 2006.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Rummo S.p.A. Molino 
e Pastificio (``Rummo'') sold subject merchandise at less than normal 
value (``NV''). We also preliminarily determine that Atar, S.r.L. 
(``Atar'') is not the producer of subject merchandise and are 
preliminarily rescinding the review of Atar. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price 
(``EP'') and NV for entries of subject merchandise produced by Rummo 
and to the All Others rate for entries of subject merchandise claimed 
to be produced by Atar.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results and partial rescission.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maura Jeffords or Christopher Hargett, 
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-
3146 or (202) 482-4161, 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 3, 2006, 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, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). We received requests 
for review from petitioners\1\ and from individual Italian exporters/
producers of pasta, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2). On 
August 30, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 
2005, through June 30, 2006, listing these four companies as 
respondents: Atar, Rummo, Industria Alimentare Colavita S.p.A. 
(``Indalco'') and Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. and its 
affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (collectively, ``Corticella/
Combattenti''). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 
(August 30, 2006) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On August 31, 2006, Indalco timely withdrew its request for an 
administrative review of certain pasta from Italy. On November 28, 
2006,

[[Page 44083]]

Corticella/Combattenti also timely withdrew its request. The Department 
rescinded the review of these respondents on July 12, 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Tenth Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 38060, 
July 12, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between August 2006 and May 2007, the Department issued its initial 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to each respondent, as 
applicable. We received responses to the Department's initial and 
supplemental questionnaires on November 13, 2006, April 4, 2007, April 
12, 2007, May 1, 2007, and May 11, 2007, from Atar. Rummo provided 
responses to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires 
on October 10, 2006, October 24, 2006, February 16, 2007, February 27, 
2007, May 10, 2007, and July 13, 2007. On February 16, 2007, May 18, 
2007, and July 9, 2007, the petitioners filed comments on Atar's 
responses. On December 15, 2006, March 23, 2007, and June 21, 2007, 
petitioners filed comments on Rummo's responses. On March 23, 2007, the 
Department fully extended the due date for the preliminary results of 
review from April 2, 2007, to July 31, 2007. See Certain Pasta from 
Italy: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 13745 (March 23, 2007).

Preliminary Intent to Rescind the Review of Atar

    In Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011, 
February 14, 2007 (``Final Results 9th Review''), and accompanying 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum (``ID Memo 9th Review''), the 
Department expressed its ``serious concerns'' regarding Atar's status 
as a producer by way of tolling arrangements. See ID Memo 9th Review at 
Comment 1. In the supplemental questionnaires sent to Atar in this 
current review, the Department asked follow-up questions pertinent to 
the issue of whether Atar was a producer of subject merchandise during 
the POR consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(h). However, Atar provided no 
additional information to address the Department's concerns and to 
demonstrate that it was the producer of subject merchandise. As 
discussed in the memorandum from Melissa G. Skinner to Stephen J. 
Claeys, RE: Status of Atar, S.r.L.(Atar'') as Manufacturer 
of Subject Merchandise, dated July 31, 2007, the totality of the 
circumstances surrounding Atar's relationships with its suppliers of 
tolling services and customers lead to the preliminary determination 
that under 19 CFR 351.401(h) Atar is not the producer. Since Atar 
requested the review as ``a producer'' and Atar does not qualify for 
producer status, it does not qualify for this administrative review. 
Accordingly, the Department preliminarily rescinds the review. Because 
Atar incorrectly claimed to be the manufacturer, and no other 
manufacturer has been identified, under these circumstances, we will 
instruct customs to liquidate entries that are claimed to be produced 
by Atar at the All Others rate.

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, 
by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or 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'').
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable 
under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

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 or constructed 
export price (``CEP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price 
and Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated 
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual 
U.S. transactions. See the Department's ``Calculation Memorandum for 
Rummo S.p.A.'' (``Rummo's calculation memo'') (August 30, 2007), 
available in the CRU.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We 
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter 
outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was 
not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated 
CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated 
with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, 
made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed cost-
insurance-freight (``CIF''), ex-factory, free-on-board (``FOB''), or 
delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for 
exportation to, the United States. When appropriate, we reduced these 
prices to reflect discounts and rebates.

[[Page 44084]]

    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland 
freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign 
brokerage, handling and loading charges, export duties, international 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, warehousing, 
and U.S. duties. In addition, when appropriate, we increased EP or CEP 
as applicable, by an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate 
attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed 
administrative review, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the 
Act.
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (advertising, cost of credit, 
warranties, banking, slotting fees, and commissions paid to 
unaffiliated sales agents). In addition, we deducted indirect selling 
expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These 
expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by its 
affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for 
profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. See 
Rummo's calculation memo.
    Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because Rummo had an 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable 
for Rummo.

B. Cost of Production (``COP'')Analysis

1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 
Rummo pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 
Rummo's comparison market sales were made at prices below the COP. We 
calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the Rummo's' 
information as submitted.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had 
been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also 
subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. See Rummo's calculation 
memo.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an 
extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, 
because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined 
that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for Rummo, we disregarded 
below-cost sales of a given product of 20 percent or more and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Rummo's calculation memo.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to 
comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting 
price, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, 
warehousing, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. We added 
interest revenue. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market 
packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, 
advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, bank charges, and billing 
adjustments, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    We also made adjustments for Rummo, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market 
or the 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 allowance to the amount of either the 
selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed 
in the other market, whichever is less.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 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 respondent from unaffiliated 
producers and resold in the comparison market were disregarded, and 
sales of comingled and tolled pasta were re-coded as ``Rummo.''

E. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
(``LOT'') as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When 
there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to 
comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the 
NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and 
profit.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market 
sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the 
comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences 
affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison-market sales at the

[[Page 44085]]

LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in 
LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 
(November 19, 1997).
    In the home market, Rummo reported that it sold through two 
channels of distribution. Rummo reported that the two channels of 
distribution in the home market constitute one LOT. In the U.S. market, 
Rummo reported that its sales were made through three channels of 
distribution, to two LOTs. In the U.S. market, we find that the selling 
activity differed between the two LOTs such that they can not be 
considered the same level of trade. The Department has determined that 
Rummo's home market sales are made at a different, and more advanced, 
stage of marketing than the LOTs of the U.S. sales. Nonetheless, we are 
unable to make an LOT adjustment because there is no other data on the 
record that would allow the Department to establish whether there is a 
pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs 
in the home market. Therefore, We are preliminarily granting a CEP 
offset for Rummo. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and 
a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary 
results, see Rummo's calculation memo.

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. See 
Rummo's calculation memo.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period July 
1, 2005, through June 30, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rummo...............................................                1.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose the calculations performed for these 
preliminary results 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 POR 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 Rummo, we divided its total 
dumping margin by the total net value of its 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 rate for Rummo will be the rate 
established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is 
less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will 
be required; (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 15.45 
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

[[Page 44086]]

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, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-15340 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S