Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Twelfth (2007) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 4734-4736 [E9-1718]
Download as PDF
4734
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 27, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES6
Certain Orange Juice From Brazil, 72 FR
12183 (Mar. 9, 2006).
On April 29, 2008, at the request of
Tropicana Products, Inc. (Tropicana), a
domestic producer of orange juice, the
Department initiated a changed
circumstances review of the order to
consider partially revoking the order
with respect to ULPOJ, pursuant to
section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.216(b) and 351.222(g)(1)(i). See
Certain Orange Juice From Brazil:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 73 FR 23182
(Apr. 29, 2008). On October 10, 2008,
the Department published the
preliminary results of this changed
circumstances review. See Preliminary
Results, 73 FR 60241. In the Preliminary
Results, we found that there was
sufficient interest on the part of the
domestic OJ industry to justify
maintaining the order with respect to
ULPOJ.
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of review. In
November 2008, we received case and
rebuttal briefs from Tropicana and the
petitioners in this case (i.e., Florida
Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Inc.
(doing business as Citrus Belle), and
Citrus World, Inc.).1 Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we
have not changed the final results from
those presented in the Preliminary
Results.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes
certain orange juice for transport and/or
further manufacturing, produced in two
different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice
in a highly concentrated form,
sometimes referred to as frozen
concentrated orange juice for
manufacture (FCOJM); and (2)
pasteurized single-strength orange juice
which has not been concentrated,
referred to as not-from-concentrate
(NFC). At the time of the filing of the
petition, there was an existing
antidumping duty order on frozen
concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from
Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order;
Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from
Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987).
Therefore, the scope of this order with
regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM
produced and/or exported by those
companies which were excluded or
revoked from the pre-existing
antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil
as of December 27, 2004. Those
1 These
entities are opposing revocation of the
order in part in this changed circumstances review;
however, another petitioner, Southern Gardens
Citrus Processing Corporation, has not joined these
entities in opposing Tropicana’s request.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:55 Jan 26, 2009
Jkt 217001
companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada;
Coinbra-Frutesp S.A.; Sucocitrico
Cutrale, S.A.; Fischer S.A. Comercio,
Industria and Agricutura; and
Montecitrus Trading S.A.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are reconstituted orange juice and
frozen concentrated orange juice for
retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange
juice is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, by adding
water, oils and essences to the orange
juice concentrate. FCOJR is
concentrated orange juice, typically at
42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in
retail-sized containers ready for sale to
consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer
product, is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk
manufacturer’s product.
The subject merchandise is currently
classifiable under subheadings
2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and
2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
These HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and for customs
purposes only and are not dispositive.
Rather, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Scope of Changed Circumstances
Review
The product subject to this changed
circumstances review is ULPOJ, which
is concentrated orange juice with a pulp
content of two percent or less by
weight/volume on an 11.8 degree brix
equivalent base. This product is a form
of FCOJM and is commonly used in the
manufacture of soft drink concentrates.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this changed
circumstances review, and to which we
have responded, are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (Decision Memo), which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, room 1117, of
the main Department Building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
frn/. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memo are
identical in content.
Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review
More than 15 percent of the domestic
industry has expressed opposition to
excluding ULPOJ from the antidumping
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
duty order on OJ from Brazil. As a
result, we determine that producers
accounting for substantially all of the
production of the domestic like product
have not expressed a lack of interest in
maintaining the order with respect to
ULPOJ. Thus, we find that changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant
revocation in part of the antidumping
duty order on OJ from Brazil do not
exist. The current requirements for the
cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties on the subject merchandise will
remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (APOs) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.216.
Dated: January 16, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issue in the Decision
Memorandum
Issue: Whether the Department
Should Include Growers in its Industry
Support Determination.
[FR Doc. E9–1586 Filed 1–26–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–475–819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of
Partial Rescission of Twelfth (2007)
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew McAllister or Brandon
Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office
1, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–1174 and (202) 482–0182,
respectively.
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 27, 2009 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES6
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a countervailing duty order
on certain pasta from Italy. See Notice
of Countervailing Duty Order and
Amended Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) From Italy, 61
FR 38543 (July 24, 1996). On July 28,
2008, we received a request for review
from F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San
Martino S.p.A. (‘‘De Cecco’’) of the
countervailing duty order on certain
pasta from Italy covering the period
January 1, 2007, through December 31,
2007. On July 31, 2008, we received a
request for review from De Matteis
Agroalimentare S.p.A. (‘‘De Matteis’’).
On July 31, 2008, we received a request
for review from New World Pasta
Company, American Italian Pasta
Company, and Dakota Growers Pasta
Company (‘‘petitioners’’) for De Matteis.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice
of initiation of the review on August 26,
2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008).
On December 22, 2008, De Cecco
withdrew its request for review. No
other party requested a review for De
Cecco.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are
shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta
in packages of five pounds four ounces
or less, whether or not enriched or
fortified or containing milk or other
optional ingredients such as chopped
vegetables, vegetable purees, milk,
gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and
flavorings, and up to two percent egg
white. The pasta covered by this scope
is typically sold in the retail market, in
fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or
polyethylene or polypropylene bags of
varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are refrigerated, frozen, or canned
pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta,
with the exception of non-egg dry pasta
containing up to two percent egg white.
Also excluded are imports of organic
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by the
Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione,
Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International
Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il
Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura
Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition,
based on publicly available information,
the Department has determined that, as
of August 4, 2004, imports of organic
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 26, 2009
Jkt 217001
4735
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from
this order. See Memorandum from Eric
B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner,
dated August 4, 2004, which is on file
in the Department’s Central Records
Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room 1117 of the main
Department building. In addition, based
on publicly available information, the
Department has determined that, as of
March 13, 2003, imports of organic
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by
Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e
Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded
from this order. See Memorandum from
Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach,
dated February 28, 2006, entitled
‘‘Recognition of Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA)
as a Public Authority for Certifying
Organic Pasta from Italy’’ which is on
file in the Department’s CRU. The
merchandise subject to review is
currently classifiable under items
1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
subject to the order is dispositive.
ounces is within the scope of the
antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. See Memorandum from John
Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated
May 24, 1999, which is on file in the
CRU.
(4) On April 27, 2000, the Department
self-initiated an anti-circumvention
inquiry to determine whether Pastificio
Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.’s importation of
pasta in bulk and subsequent
repackaging in the United States into
packages of five pounds or less
constitutes circumvention with respect
to the antidumping and countervailing
duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant
to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19
CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from
Italy: Notice of Initiation of AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On
September 19, 2003, we published an
affirmative finding of the anticircumvention inquiry. See AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy:
Affirmative Final Determinations of
Circumvention of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR
54888 (September 19, 2003).
Scope Rulings
The Department has issued the
following scope rulings to date:
(1) On August 25, 1997, the
Department issued a scope ruling that
multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen
display bottles of decorative glass that
are sealed with cork or paraffin and
bound with raffia, is excluded from the
scope of the antidumping and
countervailing duty orders. See
Memorandum from Edward Easton to
Richard Moreland, dated August 25,
1997, which is on file in the CRU.
(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department
issued a scope ruling finding that
multipacks consisting of six one-pound
packages of pasta that are shrinkwrapped into a single package are
within the scope of the antidumping
and countervailing duty orders. See
Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to
Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998,
which is on file in the CRU.
(3) On October 26, 1998, the
Department self-initiated a scope
inquiry to determine whether a package
weighing over five pounds as a result of
allowable industry tolerances is within
the scope of the antidumping and
countervailing duty orders. On May 24,
1999, we issued a final scope ruling
finding that, effective October 26, 1998,
pasta in packages weighing or labeled
up to (and including) five pounds four
Rescission of Review
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the
Department’s regulations provides that
the Department will rescind an
administrative review, in part, if the
party that requested the review
withdraws its request for review within
90 days of the date of publication of the
notice of initiation of the requested
review, or withdraws its request at a
later date if the Department determines
that it is reasonable to extend the time
limit for withdrawing the request. De
Cecco withdrew its request for review
on December 22, 2008, which is after
the 90-day deadline. Nonetheless, the
Department accepts the withdrawal
request because it has not yet expended
significant resources on the review of De
Cecco. Therefore, the Department is
rescinding this administrative review
with respect to De Cecco. We are
continuing to conduct an administrative
review with respect to De Matteis.
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 15 days
after publication of this rescission
notice. The Department will instruct
CBP to assess countervailing duties on
all entries from De Cecco between
January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007,
at the rates in effect at the time of entry.
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to an administrative
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
4736
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 27, 2009 / Notices
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: January 21, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–1718 Filed 1–26–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–904]
Certain Activated Carbon From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Changed Circumstances Review, and
Intent To Revoke Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES6
DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2009.
SUMMARY: On December 15, 2008, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) received a request for a
changed circumstances review and a
request to revoke in part the
antidumping duty order on certain
activated carbon from the People’s
Republic of China with respect to
certain parts of fish tank filters which
contain no more than 500 grams of
activated carbon, or a combination of
activated carbon and zeolite, and are
fitted to work with specific filters.
Petitioners submitted a letter to the
Department expressing lack of interest
in antidumping duty relief from the
imports of certain parts of fish tank
filters as described below. Therefore, we
are notifying the public of our intent to
revoke, in part, the antidumping duty
order as it relates to import of certain
fish tank filters as described below. The
Department invites interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Bertrand, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 26, 2009
Jkt 217001
Avenue, NW., Washington DC. 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3207.
Background
On April 27, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’)
published the antidumping duty order
on certain activated carbon from the
People’s Republic of China. See Notice
of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April
27, 2007). On December 15, 2008, the
Department received a request on behalf
of Rolf C. Hagen (USA), Corp. (‘‘Hagen’’)
for a changed circumstances review and
a request to revoke in part the
antidumping duty order on certain
activated carbon from the People’s
Republic of China with respect to
certain parts of fish tank filters which
contain no more than 500 grams of
activated carbon, or a combination of
activated carbon and zeolite, and fitted
to work with specific filters. On
December 17, 2008, Petitioners 1, Calgon
Carbon Corporation and Norit
Americans Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’), submitted a response on
the record and stated that they agree
with Hagen’s request and agree with the
specific proposed exclusion language
from Hagen’s December 15, 2008,
submission, as described below.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain activated carbon. Certain
activated carbon is a powdered,
granular, or pelletized carbon product
obtained by ‘‘activating’’ with heat and
steam various materials containing
carbon, including but not limited to coal
(including bituminous, lignite, and
anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive
stones, and peat. The thermal and steam
treatments remove organic materials and
create an internal pore structure in the
carbon material. The producer can also
use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of
steam in this process. The vast majority
of the internal porosity developed
during the high temperature steam (or
CO2 gas) activated process is a direct
result of oxidation of a portion of the
solid carbon atoms in the raw material,
converting them into a gaseous form of
carbon.
The scope of this order covers all
forms of activated carbon that are
activated by steam or CO2, regardless of
the raw material, grade, mixture,
additives, further washing or postactivation chemical treatment (chemical
or water washing, chemical
1 See Memorandum to the File: Petitioners’
Representation of Domestic Industry (January 6,
2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impregnation or other treatment), or
product form. Unless specifically
excluded, the scope of this order covers
all physical forms of certain activated
carbon, including powdered activated
carbon (‘‘PAC’’), granular activated
carbon (‘‘GAC’’), and pelletized
activated carbon.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are chemically activated carbons. The
carbon-based raw material used in the
chemical activation process is treated
with a strong chemical agent, including
but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc
chloride sulfuric acid or potassium
hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in
the raw material, and results in the
formation of water that is removed from
the raw material by moderate heat
treatment. The activated carbon created
by chemical activation has internal
porosity developed primarily due to the
action of the chemical dehydration
agent. Chemically activated carbons are
typically used to activate raw materials
with a lignocellulosic component such
as cellulose, including wood, sawdust,
paper mill waste and peat.
To the extent that an imported
activated carbon product is a blend of
steam and chemically activated carbons,
products containing 50 percent or more
steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are
within this scope, and those containing
more than 50 percent chemically
activated carbons are outside this scope.
This exclusion language regarding
blended material applies only to
mixtures of steam and chemically
activated carbons.
Also excluded from the scope are
reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons
are previously used activated carbons
that have had adsorbed materials
removed from their pore structure after
use through the application of heat,
steam and/or chemicals.
Also excluded from the scope is
activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon
cloth is a woven textile fabric made of
or containing activated carbon fibers. It
is used in masks and filters and clothing
of various types where a woven format
is required.
Any activated carbon meeting the
physical description of subject
merchandise provided above that is not
expressly excluded from the scope is
included within this scope. The
products subject to the order are
currently classifiable under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading
3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4734-4736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1718]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Twelfth
(2007) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon
Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1174 and (202) 482-0182,
respectively.
[[Page 4735]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy. See
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta (``Pasta'') From
Italy, 61 FR 38543 (July 24, 1996). On July 28, 2008, we received a
request for review from F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino
S.p.A. (``De Cecco'') of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta
from Italy covering the period January 1, 2007, through December 31,
2007. On July 31, 2008, we received a request for review from De
Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (``De Matteis''). On July 31, 2008, we
received a request for review from New World Pasta Company, American
Italian Pasta Company, and Dakota Growers Pasta Company
(``petitioners'') for De Matteis.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice
of initiation of the review on August 26, 2008. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 50308
(August 26, 2008). On December 22, 2008, De Cecco withdrew its request
for review. No other party requested a review for De Cecco.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry
pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not
enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients
such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis,
vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The
pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in
fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags
of varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or
canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of
non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded
are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the
appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di
Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services,
Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In
addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has
determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from
Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. See Memorandum
from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004,
which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in
Room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, based on
publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as
of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are
accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded from this
order. See Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated
February 28, 2006, entitled ``Recognition of Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) as a Public Authority for
Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy'' which is on file in the
Department's CRU. The merchandise subject to review is currently
classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise subject to the order is
dispositive.
Scope Rulings
The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
(1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that
multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative
glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is
excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated
August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU.
(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding
that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are
shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Letter from Susan H.
Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is on file in
the CRU.
(3) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope
inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a
result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued
a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in
packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four
ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated
May 24, 1999, which is on file in the CRU.
(4) On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-
circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani
S.p.A.'s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the
United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes
circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See Certain
Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of
the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5,
2000). On September 19, 2003, we published an affirmative finding of
the anti-circumvention inquiry. See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy:
Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003).
Rescission of Review
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that
the Department will rescind an administrative review, in part, if the
party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within
90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the
requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the
Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit
for withdrawing the request. De Cecco withdrew its request for review
on December 22, 2008, which is after the 90-day deadline. Nonetheless,
the Department accepts the withdrawal request because it has not yet
expended significant resources on the review of De Cecco. Therefore,
the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to
De Cecco. We are continuing to conduct an administrative review with
respect to De Matteis.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 15 days after publication of
this rescission notice. The Department will instruct CBP to assess
countervailing duties on all entries from De Cecco between January 1,
2007, and December 31, 2007, at the rates in effect at the time of
entry.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an
administrative
[[Page 4736]]
protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: January 21, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-1718 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P