Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review, 6352-6354 [2010-2802]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6352
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–905]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is extending the time
limit for the preliminary results of the
administrative review of certain
polyester staple fiber from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). This review
covers the period June 1, 2008, through
May 31, 2009.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
February 9, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry
Huang or Bobby Wong, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4047 or (202) 482–
0409, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On July 29, 2009, the Department
published a notice of initiation of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
polyester staple fiber from the PRC. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Deferral of Administrative
Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 2009).
The preliminary results of this review
are currently due no later than March 2,
2010.
Statutory Time Limits
Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: February 3, 2010.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–2800 Filed 2–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Background
In antidumping duty administrative
reviews, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), requires the Department to make
a preliminary determination within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of an order for which a review
is requested and a final determination
within 120 days after the date on which
the preliminary results are published.
However, if it is not practicable to
complete the review within these time
periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
allows the Department to extend the
time limit for the preliminary
determination to a maximum of 365
days after the last day of the anniversary
month.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Review
We determine that it is not practicable
to complete the preliminary results of
this administrative review within the
original time limit because the
Department requires additional time to
analyze questionnaire responses, issue
supplemental questionnaires, and
evaluate surrogate value submissions for
purposes of the preliminary results.
Therefore, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results of this
administrative review by 101 days. The
preliminary results will now be due no
later than June 11, 2010. The final
results continue to be due 120 days after
the publication of the preliminary
results.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
14:39 Feb 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
[A–475–818]
Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final
Results of the Twelfth Administrative
Review
As a result of our analysis of the
comments received, the final results
differ from the preliminary results for
PAM and Garofalo. The final weighted–
average dumping margins for these
companies are listed below in the ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victoria Cho (Garofalo) and Christopher
Hargett (PAM), 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)
482–5075 and (202) 482–4161,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2009, the Department
published the preliminary results of the
twelfth administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain pasta
from Italy. See Certain Pasta from Italy:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Twelfth
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 39285 (August 6, 2009)
(Preliminary Results).
Petitioners,2 PAM, Garofalo, Riscossa
and Rummo submitted case briefs on
November 20, 2009. Petitioners, Pam
and Garofalo submitted rebuttal briefs
on December 4, 2009. On August 6,
2009, PAM requested a hearing. A
public hearing was held on December
14, 2009.
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the twelfth administrative
review for the antidumping duty order
on certain pasta from Italy. The review
covers ten manufacturers/exporters:
Domenico Paone fu Erasmo S.p.A.
(Erasmo), Industria Alimentare Colavita,
S.p.A. (Indalco), P.A.M. S.p.A. (PAM),
Pasta Lensi (Lensi), Pastificio Fratelli
Pagani S.p.A. (Pagani), Pastificio Labor
S.r.L. (Labor), Pastificio Lucio Garofalo
(Garofalo), Pastificio Riscossa F.Illi
Mastromauro S.r.L. (Riscossa), Rummo
S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (Rummo), and
Rustichella d’Abruzzo S.p.A.
(Rustichella). The period of review
(POR) is July 1, 2007, through June 30,
2008. PAM and Garofalo were selected
as mandatory respondents.1
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 QC&I International Services, by
Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il
1 See Memorandum to James Terpstra, from the
Team regarding Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review, dated September 25, 2008.
2 Petitioners are New World Pasta Company,
Dakota Growers Pasta Company, and American
Italian Pasta Company.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Notices
Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by
Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura
Biologica, by Codex S.r.L., by
Bioagricert S.r.L., or by Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale.
Effective July 1, 2008, gluten free pasta
is also excluded from this order. See
Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review and Revocation,
in Part, 74 FR 41120 (August 14, 2009).
The merchandise subject to this order is
currently classifiable under items
1902.19.20 and 1901.90.9095 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.
Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Model Match Clarification
In the preliminary results we
explained the basis for our clarification.
‘‘In the eleventh review of pasta from
Italy the Department stated that it
would solicit comments from
interested parties with respect to
the appropriate standards and
criteria to be applied in
differentiating among wheat codes,
and make any necessary changes
and/or clarifications to the model
match criteria for pasta to apply to
all future respondents. See Certain
Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final
Results of the Eleventh
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 73 FR 75400
(December 11, 2008).
On January 9, 2009, we contacted
interested parties and solicited
comments on the following four
factors: 1) industry standards, 2)
measuring material cost differences,
3) defining commercial
significance, and 4) physical
characteristics. Parties submitted
comments on February 23, 2009,
and rebuttal comments on March
10, 2009.3
Because of a lack of consistency in the
Department’s treatment of separate
wheat codes in model match
decisions in previous
determinations, we solicited
comments in order to articulate a
clearer statement of our policy. Our
goal was to develop objective
criteria that would apply in each
review of this antidumping duty
order. Petitioners and respondents
in this review submitted factual
information and comments. Based
3 In addition, we sent a letter on June 4, 2009,
soliciting additional information from PAM and
Garafolo. PAM and Garafolo submitted responses
on July 7, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:39 Feb 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
on our analysis of these comments,
and our review of prior
determinations, we propose to
clarify and modify our treatment of
the wheat code physical
characteristic. See memorandum
from James Terpstra, Program
Manager, to John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,
entitled Preliminary Model Match
Clarification on Pasta Wheat Code
Classifications,’ dated July 31, 2009.
We propose replacing the existing
single Wheat Code field with the
following three fields: wheat
species, form, and protein content.
We note that the threshold set forth in
Protein Content corresponds to the
minimum protein content of 12.5
percent established by the Italian
Commodity Exchanges. We are
requesting that interested parties
provide comments on the proposed
model match changes included
there in. We will evaluate
comments on the proposed
methodology. Any new model
match criteria developed will be
applicable in the 2008–2009 and
subsequent administrative reviews
of pasta from Italy.’’ See the
Preliminary Results at 39286.
Subsequently we conducted
verification and received case and
rebuttal comments by the parties. We
have addressed the arguments raised by
the parties in the Issues & Decision
Memorandum accompanying this
notice. We have concluded that no
changes from the approach proposed in
the preliminary results are warranted.
Accordingly, in future reviews we
intend to replace the existing wheat
code field with three new fields.
Old Field
Field 3.2: Type of Wheat
1 = 100 percent durum semolina
2 = 100 percent whole wheat
3 – n = specify categories as required
New Fields
Field 3.2: Wheat Species
1 = Durum wheat
2 = Emmer wheat
3 = Other (specify wheat species)
Field 3.3 Milling Form
1 = Made from 97–100 percent
semolina
2 = Made from whole wheat
3 = Blend of semolina and other (e.g.,
flour, with less than 97 percent
semolina)
Field 3.4 Protein Content
1 = 12.5 percent or higher protein in
finished pasta
2 = 10.00–12.49 percent protein in the
finished pasta
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6353
administrative review are addressed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
dated concurrent with this notice and
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties have
raised, and to which we have responded
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice
as an Appendix. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/,
and is on file in the Central Records
Unit, main Commerce Building, room
1117. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
weighted–average margin exists for the
period July 1, 2007, through June 30,
2008:
Manufacturer/exporter
PAM ..............................
Garofalo ........................
Margin (percent)
8.54
16.26
For those companies not selected as
mandatory respondents, we determine
that the following simple average
percentage margin4 (based on the two
reviewed companies) exists for the
period July 1, 2006, through June 30,
2007:
Manufacturer/exporter
Erasmo .........................
Indalco ..........................
Lensi .............................
Pagani ...........................
Labor .............................
Riscossa .......................
Rummo .........................
Rustichella ....................
Margin (percent)
12.40
12.40
12.40
12.40
12.40
12.40
12.40
12.40
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department
calculates an assessment rate for each
importer of the subject merchandise for
each respondent. 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
4 Because there are only two respondents for
which a company-specific margin was calculated in
this review, the Department has calculated a simple
average margin to ensure that the total import
quantity and value for each company is not
inadvertently revealed.
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
6354
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Notices
Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
to CBP to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty
assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to that importer or customer
and dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales to that
importer (or customer). Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rate is greater than de minimis,
and the respondent has reported reliable
entered values, we apply the assessment
rate to the entered value of the
importer’s/customer’s entries during the
review period. Where an importer (or
customer)- specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis and we do not
have reliable entered values, we
calculate a per–unit assessment rate by
aggregating the dumping duties due for
all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by
the total quantity sold to that importer
(or customer).
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by the respondent for which
it did not know its 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
The following antidumping duty
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 of these final results, as provided
for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) for
Erasmo, Indalco, PAM, Lensi, Pagani,
Labor, Garofalo, Riscossa, Rummo, and
Rustichella, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established in the final results
of this review; (2) if the exporter is not
a firm covered in this review, but was
covered in a previous review or the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:39 Feb 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
original less–than-fair–value (LTFV)
investigation, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate established for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review,
or the LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the subject merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered by this
review, a prior review, or the LTFV
investigation, the cash deposit rate will
be 15.45 percent, the all–others rate
established in the implementation of the
findings of the WTO Panel in US –
Zeroing (EC). See Implementation of the
Findings of the WTO Panel in US –
Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations
Under Section 129 of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act and Revocations
and Partial Revocations of Certain
Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261
(May 4, 2007). These cash deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping and/or countervailing
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 and/or
countervailing duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of doubled
antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: February 2, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
List of Comments in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
General
Comment 1: Wheat Code Methodology
Comment 2: Application of Review–
Specific All Other Rate
Garofalo
Comment 3: Garofalo’s Submitted
Wheat Code
Comment 4: Garofalo’s Arms–Length
Test
Comment 5: Cost Reporting Period
PAM
Comment 6: Collapsing of PAM’s Wheat
Code for Model Match
Comment 7: Inclusion of Transport
Recovery in the U.S. Sales Calculation
Comment 8: Treatment of AGEA
Performance Bond
Comment 9: General Expenses
Comment 10: Insurance Claim as an
Offset to G&A Expense
Comment 11: Over–reported Costs
[FR Doc. 2010–2802 Filed 2–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 0907081109–0060–04]
RIN 0648–ZC10
NOAA Great Lakes Habitat Restoration
Program Project Grants under the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative;
Correction
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of funding availability;
Date correction.
SUMMARY: This notice corrects an error
contained in the notice published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 2010.
That notice announced the NOAA Great
Lakes Habitat Restoration Program
Project Grants competition and
contained an incorrect date for postmark
of hard copy applications.
DATES: Hard copy applications must be
postmarked, or provided to a delivery
service and documented with a receipt,
by 11:59 p.m. EST on February 16, 2010.
Hard copy applications postmarked or
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6352-6354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2802]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-818]
Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the Twelfth
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the twelfth administrative review
for the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The review
covers ten manufacturers/exporters: Domenico Paone fu Erasmo S.p.A.
(Erasmo), Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A. (Indalco), P.A.M.
S.p.A. (PAM), Pasta Lensi (Lensi), Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.
(Pagani), Pastificio Labor S.r.L. (Labor), Pastificio Lucio Garofalo
(Garofalo), Pastificio Riscossa F.Illi Mastromauro S.r.L. (Riscossa),
Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (Rummo), and Rustichella d'Abruzzo
S.p.A. (Rustichella). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007,
through June 30, 2008. PAM and Garofalo were selected as mandatory
respondents.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to James Terpstra, from the Team regarding
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated September 25,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, the final
results differ from the preliminary results for PAM and Garofalo. The
final weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are listed
below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho (Garofalo) and
Christopher Hargett (PAM), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 and (202) 482-4161, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2009, the Department published the preliminary results
of the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain pasta from Italy. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Twelfth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 39285 (August 6, 2009) (Preliminary Results).
Petitioners,\2\ PAM, Garofalo, Riscossa and Rummo submitted case
briefs on November 20, 2009. Petitioners, Pam and Garofalo submitted
rebuttal briefs on December 4, 2009. On August 6, 2009, PAM requested a
hearing. A public hearing was held on December 14, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Petitioners are New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers
Pasta Company, and American Italian Pasta Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by
Consorzio per il
[[Page 6353]]
Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by Associazione Italiana per
l'Agricoltura Biologica, by Codex S.r.L., by Bioagricert S.r.L., or by
Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale. Effective July 1,
2008, gluten free pasta is also excluded from this order. See Certain
Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part, 74 FR 41120 (August 14,
2009). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable
under items 1902.19.20 and 1901.90.9095 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.
Model Match Clarification
In the preliminary results we explained the basis for our
clarification.
``In the eleventh review of pasta from Italy the Department stated
that it would solicit comments from interested parties with respect to
the appropriate standards and criteria to be applied in differentiating
among wheat codes, and make any necessary changes and/or clarifications
to the model match criteria for pasta to apply to all future
respondents. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of
the Eleventh Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 73
FR 75400 (December 11, 2008).
On January 9, 2009, we contacted interested parties and solicited
comments on the following four factors: 1) industry standards, 2)
measuring material cost differences, 3) defining commercial
significance, and 4) physical characteristics. Parties submitted
comments on February 23, 2009, and rebuttal comments on March 10,
2009.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In addition, we sent a letter on June 4, 2009, soliciting
additional information from PAM and Garafolo. PAM and Garafolo
submitted responses on July 7, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of a lack of consistency in the Department's treatment of
separate wheat codes in model match decisions in previous
determinations, we solicited comments in order to articulate a clearer
statement of our policy. Our goal was to develop objective criteria
that would apply in each review of this antidumping duty order.
Petitioners and respondents in this review submitted factual
information and comments. Based on our analysis of these comments, and
our review of prior determinations, we propose to clarify and modify
our treatment of the wheat code physical characteristic. See memorandum
from James Terpstra, Program Manager, to John M. Andersen, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled Preliminary Model Match
Clarification on Pasta Wheat Code Classifications,' dated July 31,
2009. We propose replacing the existing single Wheat Code field with
the following three fields: wheat species, form, and protein content.
We note that the threshold set forth in Protein Content corresponds
to the minimum protein content of 12.5 percent established by the
Italian Commodity Exchanges. We are requesting that interested parties
provide comments on the proposed model match changes included there in.
We will evaluate comments on the proposed methodology. Any new model
match criteria developed will be applicable in the 2008-2009 and
subsequent administrative reviews of pasta from Italy.'' See the
Preliminary Results at 39286.
Subsequently we conducted verification and received case and
rebuttal comments by the parties. We have addressed the arguments
raised by the parties in the Issues & Decision Memorandum accompanying
this notice. We have concluded that no changes from the approach
proposed in the preliminary results are warranted. Accordingly, in
future reviews we intend to replace the existing wheat code field with
three new fields.
Old Field
Field 3.2: Type of Wheat
1 = 100 percent durum semolina
2 = 100 percent whole wheat
3 - n = specify categories as required
New Fields
Field 3.2: Wheat Species
1 = Durum wheat
2 = Emmer wheat
3 = Other (specify wheat species)
Field 3.3 Milling Form
1 = Made from 97-100 percent semolina
2 = Made from whole wheat
3 = Blend of semolina and other (e.g., flour, with less than 97
percent semolina)
Field 3.4 Protein Content
1 = 12.5 percent or higher protein in finished pasta
2 = 10.00-12.49 percent protein in the finished pasta
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, dated concurrent with this notice and which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised,
and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/, and is on file in the Central
Records Unit, main Commerce Building, room 1117. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for
the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAM................................................. 8.54
Garofalo............................................ 16.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those companies not selected as mandatory respondents, we
determine that the following simple average percentage margin\4\ (based
on the two reviewed companies) exists for the period July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Because there are only two respondents for which a company-
specific margin was calculated in this review, the Department has
calculated a simple average margin to ensure that the total import
quantity and value for each company is not inadvertently revealed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erasmo.............................................. 12.40
Indalco............................................. 12.40
Lensi............................................... 12.40
Pagani.............................................. 12.40
Labor............................................... 12.40
Riscossa............................................ 12.40
Rummo............................................... 12.40
Rustichella......................................... 12.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each
respondent. 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
[[Page 6354]]
to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing
this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer
(or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate
is greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an
importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its
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
The following antidumping duty 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 of these final results, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act): (1) for Erasmo, Indalco, PAM, Lensi, Pagani, Labor,
Garofalo, Riscossa, Rummo, and Rustichella, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a
previous review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer
of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 15.45 percent, the
all-others rate established in the implementation of the findings of
the WTO Panel in US - Zeroing (EC). See Implementation of the Findings
of the WTO Panel in US - Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under
Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and
Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261
(May 4, 2007). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 2, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
General
Comment 1: Wheat Code Methodology
Comment 2: Application of Review-Specific All Other Rate
Garofalo
Comment 3: Garofalo's Submitted Wheat Code
Comment 4: Garofalo's Arms-Length Test
Comment 5: Cost Reporting Period
PAM
Comment 6: Collapsing of PAM's Wheat Code for Model Match
Comment 7: Inclusion of Transport Recovery in the U.S. Sales
Calculation
Comment 8: Treatment of AGEA Performance Bond
Comment 9: General Expenses
Comment 10: Insurance Claim as an Offset to G&A Expense
Comment 11: Over-reported Costs
[FR Doc. 2010-2802 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
