Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Tenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:, 44082-44086 [E7-15340]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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, https://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,
https://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
