Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 48125-48130 [2011-20067]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices
In this review, there are no
circumstances present to indicate that
the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA. The margin we have selected is
the margin we determined for Terphane
in the LTFV investigation and
represents the highest margin alleged in
the petition. This is also the margin we
assigned to Terphane in the
immediately preceding administrative
review. Moreover, because Terphane
refused to respond to the Department’s
questionnaire, there is no information
on the record of this review that
demonstrates that 44.36 percent is not
an appropriate AFA rate for Terphane.
Thus, the Department considers this
dumping margin relevant for the use of
AFA for this administrative review.
As the AFA rate is both reliable and
relevant, we find it has probative value.
Therefore, with the information at our
disposal for the corroboration of this
AFA rate, we find the rate of 44.36
percent is corroborated to the extent
practicable in accordance with section
776(c) of the Act. We preliminarily find
that use of the rate of 44.36 percent as
AFA is sufficiently high to ensure that
Terphane does not benefit from failing
to cooperate in our review by choosing
not to respond to the Department’s
antidumping questionnaire and
otherwise participate in the
Department’s administrative review.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following antidumping duty margin
exists for the period November 1, 2009,
through October 31, 2010:
Producer/Exporter
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Terphane, Inc. ......................
Margin
(percent)
44.36
Disclosure and Public Comment
Interested parties may submit case
briefs no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed no later than five days after the
time limit for filing the case briefs. See
19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who
submit case or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue.
Parties are also encouraged to provide a
summary of the arguments not to exceed
five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2). Furthermore, the
Department requests that parties
provide the public versions of their case
and rebuttal briefs in electronic format
(e.g., Microsoft Word, .pdf, etc.).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing or to participate if one is
requested must submit a written request
to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should
contain the following information: (1)
The party’s name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 37
days after the date of publication, or the
first business day thereafter, unless the
Department alters the date pursuant to
19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).
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, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. We preliminarily
intend to instruct CBP to apply a
dumping margin of 44.36 percent ad
valorem to PET film from Brazil that
was produced and/or exported by
Terphane and entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption
during the POR. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results
of administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
Terphane will be the rate established in
the final results of this review; (2) for
other previously reviewed or
investigated companies, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this 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 merchandise; (4) if neither the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48125
exporter nor the manufacturer has its
own rate, the cash deposit rate will be
28.72 percent, the all-others rate
established in the Final Determination.
These cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) 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 the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of
administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 29, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–20072 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–475–818]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of
Preliminary Results of 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, 2009, through
June 30, 2010. This review covers two
producers/exporters of subject
merchandise: Molino e Pastificio
Tomasello S.p.A. (‘‘Tomasello’’) and
Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A.
(‘‘Garofalo’’). We preliminarily
determine that during the POR,
Tomasello and Garofalo sold subject
merchandise at less than normal value
(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. Interested
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
48126
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy
Zhang or George McMahon 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) 482–1168 or (202) 482–
1167, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on pasta from
Italy.1 On July 1, 2010, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain pasta
from Italy.2 Pursuant to requests from
interested parties,3 the Department
published in the Federal Register the
notice of initiation of this antidumping
duty administrative review with respect
to the following companies for the
period July 1, 2009, through June 30,
2010: Agritalia S.r.L. (‘‘Agritalia’’),
Domenico Paone fu Erasmo S.p.A.
(‘‘Erasmo’’), Industria Alimentare
Colavita, S.p.A. (‘‘Indalco’’), Labor S.r.L.
(‘‘Labor’’), Molino e Pastificio
Tomasello, S.p.A. (‘‘Tomasello’’), PAM
S.p.A. and its affiliate, Liguori Pastificio
dal 1820 SpA (‘‘PAM’’), P.A.P. SNC Di
Pazienza G.B. & C. (‘‘P.A.P.’’), Premiato
Pastificio Afeltra S.r.L. (‘‘Afeltra’’), Pasta
Zara SpA (‘‘Zara’’), Pastificio Di Martino
Gaetano & F.lli SpA (‘‘Di Martino’’),
Pastificio Fabianelli S.p.A.
(‘‘Fabianelli’’), Pastificio Felicetti SrL
(‘‘Felicetti’’), Pastificio Lucio Garofalo
S.p.A. (‘‘Garofalo’’), Pastificio Riscossa
F.lli Mastromauro S.p.A. (‘‘Riscossa’’),
Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio
(‘‘Rummo’’), and Rustichella d’Abruzzo
S.p.A (‘‘Rustichella’’).4
On September 13, 2010, the
Department announced its intention to
select mandatory respondents based on
CBP data.5 On October 10, 2010, the
1 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).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 38074
(July 1, 2010).
3 The petitioners include New World Pasta
Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company and
American Italian Pasta Company (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’).
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Deferral of Initiation of Administrative Review, 75
FR 53274, (August 31, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
5 See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett to
Melissa Skinner titled ‘‘Customs and Border
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
Department selected Garofalo and
Tomasello as mandatory respondents.6
On November 12, 2010, Afeltra,
Agritalia, Di Martino, Felicetti, Labor,
PAM, Erasmo, P.A.P., Riscossa,
Rustichella, and Zara (collectively
‘‘certain non-mandatory respondents’’)
requested that the Department extend
the deadline to withdraw from the
instant review for 45 days. The
Department declined this request to
modify the 90-day deadline for parties
to withdraw their requests for review.
See the Department’s letter to David L.
Simon, counsel for the certain nonmandatory respondents, dated
November 24, 2010. On November 29,
2010, Di Martino, Felicetti, and Zara
withdrew its request for a review.
As a result of withdrawals of request
for review, we rescinded this review, in
part, with respect to Di Martino,
Felicetti, and Zara.7 The instant review
continues with respect to Agritalia,
Erasmo, Indalco, Labor, Tomasello,
PAM, P.A.P., Afeltra, Fabianelli,
Garofalo, Riscossa, Rummo, and
Rustichella. Id. As referenced above,
Garofalo and Tomasello were selected as
mandatory respondents.
Between October 2010 and July 2011,
the Department issued its initial
questionnaire 8 and supplemental
questionnaires to each respondent, as
applicable. The Department issued
Section D to Garofalo and Tomasello
because we disregarded sales by these
companies that were below the COP in
the most recently completed
administrative review of each respective
company. We received responses to the
Department’s initial questionnaire on
December 10, 2010 and December 20,
2010, from Garofalo. We received
responses to the Department’s initial
questionnaire on December 10, 2010
from Tomasello. We issued section A, B,
C, and D supplemental questionnaires,
to which Garofalo and Tomasello
responded during December 2010,
February, March, April, May and July
2011.
On February 28, 2011, the Department
fully extended the due date for the
Protection Data for Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review,’’ dated September 13, 2010.
6 See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett to
Melissa Skinner titled ‘‘Selection of Respondents
for Individual Review,’’ dated October 10, 2010.
7 See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 23973 (April 29, 2011) (‘‘Partial
Rescission Notice’’).
8 The antidumping duty questionnaire issued to
respondents includes Section A (i.e., the section
covering general information about the company) of
the antidumping duty questionnaire, Section B (i.e.,
the section covering comparison market sales),
Section C (i.e., the section covering U.S. sales), and
Section D (i.e., the section covering the cost of
production (‘‘COP’’) and constructed value (‘‘CV’’)).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
preliminary results of review from April
2, 2011, to August 1, 2011.9
The Department conducted the sales
verification of Tomasello from June 6,
2011, through June 10, 2011, in
Casteldaccia, Italy. The Department
conducted the cost verification of
Tomasello from June 13, 2011, through
June 17, 2011, in Casteldaccia, Italy. We
verified the information upon which we
relied in making our preliminary
determination.
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
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.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), we first attempted to match
contemporaneous sales of products sold
9 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of Fourteenth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
10879 (February 28, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices
in the United States and comparison
markets that were identical with respect
to the following characteristics: (1) Pasta
shape; (2) wheat species; (3) milling
form; (4) protein content; (5) additives;
and (6) 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
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 export price (‘‘EP’’) of
each sale to the NV, as described in the
‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i)
and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for Tomasello
and Garofalo, we compared the EPs of
individual transactions, as applicable, to
the weighted-average NV of the foreign
like product in the appropriate
corresponding calendar month where
there were sales made in the ordinary
course of trade, as discussed in the
‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section
below.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we
used export price, as defined in section
772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) defines
EP as the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold before the date
of importation by the producer or
exporter of subject merchandise outside
of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States. We calculated an EP
for Tomasello’s and Garofalo’s U.S. sales
because they were made directly to the
first unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States prior to importation and
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was
not otherwise warranted based on the
facts on the record.
For EP sales, we made deductions
from the starting price (gross unit price),
where appropriate, for movement
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2) of the Act. Movement
expenses included foreign inland freight
(from plant or warehouse, and from
plant to port of exportation), foreign
warehousing expenses, foreign
brokerage, international freight, U.S.
brokerage and handling and charges,
and U.S. customs duties. With respect to
Tomasello, we capped the
transportation recovery amounts by the
amount of U.S. freight expenses,
incurred on the subject merchandise, in
accordance with our practice. See
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘2005–2007 OJ from
Brazil’’) at Comment 7.
In addition, when appropriate, we
increased EP by an amount equal to the
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) rate
attributed to export subsidies in the
most recently completed CVD
administrative review, in accordance
with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs
that NV be based on the price of the
foreign like product sold in the home
market, provided that the merchandise
is sold in sufficient quantities (or value,
if quantity is inappropriate) and that
there is no particular market situation
that prevents a proper comparison with
the export price or constructed export
price. The statute contemplates that
quantities (or value) normally be
considered insufficient if they are less
than five percent of the aggregate
quantity (or value) of sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States. To
determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV, we compared each
respondent’s volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. Pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because Garofalo
and Tomasello each 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 both Garofalo and
Tomasello.
Ordinary Course of Trade
On January 14, 2011, petitioners
submitted comments alleging that a
‘‘particular market situation’’ existed
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48127
with respect to sales made in Italy by
Garofalo. In petitioners’ April 13, 2011,
comments, petitioners stated that they
withdraw their January 14 allegation of
a particular market situation, under the
stipulation that the Department conduct
an analysis for the alleged aberrational
home market sales under the ordinary
course of trade provision of the statute.
See petitioners’ April 13, 2011,
comments at 2–3, footnote 1. We have
examined Garofalo’s sales within the
context of the ordinary course of trade
provision; therefore, we are not
addressing the ‘‘particular market
situation’’ allegation that petitioners
withdrew.
Petitioners argue that Garofalo’s sales
of pasta in Italy with a protein content
of less than 12.5 percent should be
excluded from the calculation of normal
value because petitioners allege that
they are sales that are outside the
ordinary course of trade. Petitioners
claim that these sales have unusual
product specifications, aberrational
prices and unusual terms of sale. Id. at
2. We have considered the comments
submitted by petitioners and Garofalo.
Based on our analysis of Garofalo’s
home market sales data and the
comments submitted on the record, we
find Garofalo’s home market sales to be
within the ordinary course of trade.
Because the discussion of this issue
contains business proprietary
information (‘‘BPI’’), see memorandum
from the Team through Melissa Skinner,
Director, Office 3, to Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, titled, ‘‘Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of the Fourteenth
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy (2009–2010)’’ for
additional details.
B. Arm’s-Length Sales
Garofalo reported that all of its sales
to the Italian market are to unaffiliated
customers; however, it made a few sales
to employees and shareholders and
coded such sales as affiliated sales. See
Garofalo’s Section B Questionnaire
Response, dated December 20, 2010, at
page B–11. In accordance with the
Department’s practice, we have
excluded such sales from consideration.
See Garofalo’s Prelim Sales Analysis
Memorandum, dated August 1, 2011.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below-cost
sales in the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding, we had
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that home market sales of the foreign
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
48128
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices
like product by the respondents were
made at prices below the COP during
the POR, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, we
required Garafalo and Tomasello to
submit a response to Section D of the
Department’s questionnaire. The
Department disregarded sales below the
COP in the last completed review in
which Garofalo and Tomasello
participated.10
1. Calculation of COP
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP by model based on the sum
of materials, fabrication, general and
administrative (‘‘G&A’’), and interest
expenses. We relied on the COP data
submitted by both Garofalo and
Tomasello except the following
adjustments. We increased Garofalo’s
cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) to
account for the unreconciled difference
between the COM from its normal books
and records and the reported COM. For
more details, see Memorandum from
James Balog to Neal M. Halper, Director
of Office of Accounting, titled ‘‘Cost of
Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results—Pastificio Lucio
Garofalo S.p.A,’’ dated August 1, 2011.
Also, we have increased Tomasello’s
reported direct materials and conversion
costs to incorporate a revised yield loss
ratio resulting from a revised total
production quantity for finished pasta
products. For additional details, see
Memorandum from Stephanie Arthur to
Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of
Accounting, titled ‘‘Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results—Molino e Pastificio Tomasello,
S.p.A.,’’ dated August 1, 2011.
Based on the review of record
evidence, Garofalo and Tomasello did
not appear to experience significant
changes in COM during the POR.
Therefore, we followed our normal
methodology of calculating an annual
weighted-average cost.
10 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of
Amended Final Results of the Thirteenth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
6601, February 7, 2011 (‘‘Pasta Thirteen’’); see also
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Intent Not to Revoke in Part: For the Sixth
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 47020,
47029, August 7, 2003, and Notice of Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 6255,
February 10, 2004.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
We compared the weighted-average
COPs for the respondents to their home
market sales prices of the foreign like
product, as required under section
773(b) of the Act, to determine whether
these sales had been made at prices
below the COP within an extended
period of time (i.e., normally a period of
one year) in substantial quantities and
whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. On a modelspecific basis, we compared the COP to
the home market prices, less any
applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, and direct and
indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of COP Test
We disregard below-cost sales where:
(1) 20 percent or more of the
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the POR were made at prices
below the COP in accordance with
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act;
and (2) based on comparisons of price
to weighted-average COPs for the POR,
we determine that the below-cost sales
of the product were at prices that would
not permit recovery of all costs within
a reasonable time period, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We
found that Tomasello and Garofalo
made sales below cost and we
disregarded such sales where
appropriate. See Tomasello and
Garofalo Prelim Cost Memorandum.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on ex-works,
free on board (‘‘FOB’’) or delivered
prices to comparison market customers.
We made deductions from the starting
price, when appropriate, for discounts
and rebates. We deducted home market
packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs, in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also
deducted home market movement
expenses pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we
made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) pursuant
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
Specifically, we made adjustments to
normal value for comparison to
Tomasello’s and Garofalo’s EP
transactions by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred for home market
sales (i.e., credit expenses) and adding
U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit
expenses) and U.S. commissions. See
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and
19 CFR 351.410(c). We also made
adjustments for Garofalo and Tomasello,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e),
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
weighted-average costs.
Sales of pasta purchased by Garofalo
from unaffiliated producers and resold
in the comparison market were
disregarded. See Garofalo Sales Analysis
Memo.
E. Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine
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 are no
sales at the same LOT, we compare 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(c)(2), to
determine whether comparison market
sales were at a different LOT, we
examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and
the unaffiliated (or arm’s-length
affiliated) customers. The Department
identifies the LOT based on: The
starting price or constructed value (for
normal value); the starting price (for EP
sales); and the starting price, as adjusted
under section 772(d) of the Act (for CEP
sales). 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 comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export
transaction, we will make a 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
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices
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).
Tomasello indicated there was a
single level of trade for all sales in both
markets, and petitioner has not claimed
that multiple levels of trade existed for
Tomasello. Tomasello provided
information regarding channels of
distribution and selling activities
performed for different categories of
customers. See Tomasello’s December
10, 2010, Section A response, at Exhibit
4. Tomasello’s chart of specific selling
functions indicates the selling functions
performed for sales in both markets are
virtually identical, with no significant
variation across the broader categories
of sales process/marketing support,
freight and delivery, inventory and
warehousing, and quality assurance/
warranty services. For more details, see
Tomasello Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum. We have preliminarily
determined there is one single level of
trade for all sales in both the home
market and the U.S. market and,
therefore, that no basis exists for a level
of trade adjustment.
Garofalo reported that it sells to one
LOT in the home market. In the home
market, Garofalo reported that it sold
through three channels of distribution to
four customer categories. Garofalo
provided information regarding its
selling functions and channels of
distribution by customer category. See
Garofalo’s Supplemental Questionnaire
response, dated June 28, 2011, at Exhibit
SS–1.
In the U.S. market, Garofalo reported
that it sold through two channels of
distribution to one customer category,
and therefore, at one LOT. Garofalo
claims that it sold to a different level of
trade in the United States than it does
in Italy and reported a separate code for
its LOT in its U.S. sales database. Based
on our analysis of the selling activities
for Garofalo, we find that Garofalo’s
selling functions performed for sales in
both markets are comparable and do not
show a significant pattern of variation
across the sales categories. Furthermore,
we find that there is overlap in these
activities for channels of distribution
and customer categories. Garofalo
performs similar selling activities for the
reported customer categories and
channels of distribution. Although there
are differences in intensity of these
activities for some of the claimed
customer categories, this, in and of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
itself, does not show a substantial
difference in selling activities that
would form the basis for finding a
different LOT. See, e.g., Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 52070
(September 12, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4. Due to the
proprietary nature of this issue, please
refer to Garofalo’s Sales Analysis Memo
for further discussion.
We have preliminarily determined
there is one single level of trade for all
sales in both the home market and the
U.S. market and, therefore, that no basis
exists for a level of trade adjustment.
48129
within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
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
Currency Conversion
calculated in the final results are above
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent),
For purposes of these preliminary
the Department will issue appraisement
results, we made currency conversions
instructions directly to CBP to assess
in accordance with section 773A(a) of
antidumping duties on appropriate
the Act, based on the official exchange
entries by applying the assessment rate
rates published by the Federal Reserve
to the entered value of the merchandise.
Bank. See Garofalo’s Sales Analysis
For assessment purposes, we calculated
Memo; see also Tomasello Sales
importer-specific assessment rates for
Analysis Memo.
the subject merchandise by aggregating
Preliminary Results of Review
the dumping margins for all U.S. sales
to each importer and dividing the
As a result of our review, we
amount by the total entered value of the
preliminarily determine that the
sales to that importer. Where
following weighted-average percentage
margins exist for the period July 1, 2009, appropriate, to calculate the entered
value, we subtracted international
through June 30, 2010:
movement expenses (e.g., international
Margin
freight) from the gross sales value.
Manufacturer/exporter
11
(percent)
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
Garofalo ....................................
3.20
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This
Tomasello .................................
4.18
clarification will apply to entries of
Review-Specific Average
subject merchandise during the POR
Rate 12 Applicable to the Folproduced by companies included in
lowing Companies: Agritalia,
these preliminary results of review for
Erasmo, Indalco, Labor,
PAM, P.A.P., Afeltra,
which the reviewed companies did not
Fabianelli, Riscossa,
know their merchandise was destined
Rummo, and Rustichella .......
3.57 for the United States. In such instances,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate
The Department intends to disclose
unreviewed entries at the all-others rate
the calculations performed for these
if there is no rate for the intermediate
preliminary results within five days of
company(ies) involved in the
the date of publication of this notice to
transaction. For a full discussion of this
the parties of this proceeding, in
clarification, see Antidumping and
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
interested party may request a hearing
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
11
The antidumping duty margin for Tomasello
incorporates an adjustment for the countervailing
duty offset to account for the export subsidy portion
of the countervailing duties applied to this
company, which Tomasello reported in the field
CVDU.
12 This rate is a weighted-average percentage
margin (calculated based on the publicly ranged
U.S. Values of the two reviewed companies with an
affirmative dumping margin) for the period July 1,
2009, through June 30, 2010. See Memorandum to
the File, titled, ‘‘Pasta from Italy: Margin for
Respondents Not Selected for Individual
Examination,’’ from Joy Zhang and George
McMahon, Case Analysts, through James Terpstra,
Program Manager, dated August 1, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for
Tomasello and Garofalo, 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
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
48130
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for companies subject to
this review 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 for a review 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 Implementation of the
Findings of the WTO Panel in US—
Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determination
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, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and
increase the subsequent assessment of
the antidumping duties by the amount
of antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of
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: August 1, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
International Trade Administration
Southern Illinois University, et al.;
Notice of Decision on Applications for
Duty-Free Entry of Scientific
Instruments
[C–475–819]
This is a decision pursuant to Section
6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Materials Importation Act of
1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by
Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR
part 301). Related records can be viewed
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room
3720, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th and Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. Reasons: We know of no
instruments of equivalent or comparable
scientific value to the foreign
instruments described below, for the
intended purposes, that were being
manufactured in the United States at the
time of their order.
Docket Number: 11–032. Applicant:
Southern Illinois University, Integrated
Microscopy and Graphic Expertise
(IMAGE) Center, 750 Communications
Drive—Mailcode 4402, Carbondale, IL
62901. Instrument: Quanta 450 scanning
electron microscope. Manufacturer: FEI
Company, Czech Republic. Intended
Use: See application notice at 76 FR
39070, July 5, 2011.
Docket Number: 11–037. Applicant:
Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles
Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118.
Instrument: Field-emission transmission
electron microscope. Manufacturer: FEI
Company, the Netherlands. Intended
Use: See application notice at 76 FR
39070, July 5, 2011.
Docket Number: 11–038. Applicant:
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, 3335 Q
Avenue, Richland, WA 99354.
Instrument: Scanning transmission
electron microscope. Manufacturer: FEI
Company, the Netherlands. Intended
Use: See application notice at 76 FR
39070, July 5, 2011.
Dated: July 28, 2011.
Supriya Kumar,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement
Office, Office of Policy, Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–19932 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
[FR Doc. 2011–20067 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary
Results of the 14th (2009)
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on certain
pasta from Italy for the period January
1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. We
preliminarily find that Molino e
Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A.
(‘‘Tomasello’’) and Pastificio Antonio
Pallante S.r.L. (‘‘Pallante’’) received
countervailable subsidies and that F.lli
De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino
S.p.A. (‘‘De Cecco’’) received de
minimis countervailable subsidies. We
also find that Pastificio Fabianelli S.p.A.
(‘‘Fabianelli’’) received countervailable
subsidies that were expensed prior to
2009 and did not confer any benefit to
Fabianelli during the period of review
(‘‘POR’’). See the ‘‘Preliminary Results
of Review’’ section of this notice below.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
See the ‘‘Disclosure and Public
Comment’’ section of this notice below.
DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mahnaz Khan or Christopher Siepmann,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0914 and (202)
482–7958, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department
published a countervailing duty order
on certain pasta (‘‘pasta’’ or ‘‘subject
merchandise’’) from Italy. See Notice of
Countervailing Duty Order and
Amended Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544
(July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2010, the
Department published a notice of
‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review’’ of this countervailing duty
order for the POR corresponding to
calendar year 2009. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75
FR 38074 (July 1, 2010). On July 29,
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48125-48130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20067]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-818]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results of
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, 2009, through June 30, 2010.
This review covers two producers/exporters of subject merchandise:
Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A. (``Tomasello'') and Pastificio
Lucio Garofalo S.p.A. (``Garofalo''). We preliminarily determine that
during the POR, Tomasello and Garofalo sold subject merchandise at less
than normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in
the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Interested
[[Page 48126]]
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang or George McMahon 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-
1168 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy.\1\ On July 1, 2010, the
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta
from Italy.\2\ Pursuant to requests from interested parties,\3\ the
Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation
of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to the
following companies for the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010:
Agritalia S.r.L. (``Agritalia''), Domenico Paone fu Erasmo S.p.A.
(``Erasmo''), Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A. (``Indalco''),
Labor S.r.L. (``Labor''), Molino e Pastificio Tomasello, S.p.A.
(``Tomasello''), PAM S.p.A. and its affiliate, Liguori Pastificio dal
1820 SpA (``PAM''), P.A.P. SNC Di Pazienza G.B. & C. (``P.A.P.''),
Premiato Pastificio Afeltra S.r.L. (``Afeltra''), Pasta Zara SpA
(``Zara''), Pastificio Di Martino Gaetano & F.lli SpA (``Di Martino''),
Pastificio Fabianelli S.p.A. (``Fabianelli''), Pastificio Felicetti SrL
(``Felicetti''), Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A. (``Garofalo''),
Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.p.A. (``Riscossa''), Rummo
S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (``Rummo''), and Rustichella d'Abruzzo S.p.A
(``Rustichella'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 38074 (July 1, 2010).
\3\ The petitioners include New World Pasta Company, Dakota
Growers Pasta Company and American Italian Pasta Company
(collectively, ``Petitioners'').
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of Administrative
Review, 75 FR 53274, (August 31, 2010) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 13, 2010, the Department announced its intention to
select mandatory respondents based on CBP data.\5\ On October 10, 2010,
the Department selected Garofalo and Tomasello as mandatory
respondents.\6\ On November 12, 2010, Afeltra, Agritalia, Di Martino,
Felicetti, Labor, PAM, Erasmo, P.A.P., Riscossa, Rustichella, and Zara
(collectively ``certain non-mandatory respondents'') requested that the
Department extend the deadline to withdraw from the instant review for
45 days. The Department declined this request to modify the 90-day
deadline for parties to withdraw their requests for review. See the
Department's letter to David L. Simon, counsel for the certain non-
mandatory respondents, dated November 24, 2010. On November 29, 2010,
Di Martino, Felicetti, and Zara withdrew its request for a review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett to Melissa Skinner
titled ``Customs and Border Protection Data for Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated September 13, 2010.
\6\ See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett to Melissa Skinner
titled ``Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated
October 10, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of withdrawals of request for review, we rescinded this
review, in part, with respect to Di Martino, Felicetti, and Zara.\7\
The instant review continues with respect to Agritalia, Erasmo,
Indalco, Labor, Tomasello, PAM, P.A.P., Afeltra, Fabianelli, Garofalo,
Riscossa, Rummo, and Rustichella. Id. As referenced above, Garofalo and
Tomasello were selected as mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 23973 (April 29,
2011) (``Partial Rescission Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between October 2010 and July 2011, the Department issued its
initial questionnaire \8\ and supplemental questionnaires to each
respondent, as applicable. The Department issued Section D to Garofalo
and Tomasello because we disregarded sales by these companies that were
below the COP in the most recently completed administrative review of
each respective company. We received responses to the Department's
initial questionnaire on December 10, 2010 and December 20, 2010, from
Garofalo. We received responses to the Department's initial
questionnaire on December 10, 2010 from Tomasello. We issued section A,
B, C, and D supplemental questionnaires, to which Garofalo and
Tomasello responded during December 2010, February, March, April, May
and July 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The antidumping duty questionnaire issued to respondents
includes Section A (i.e., the section covering general information
about the company) of the antidumping duty questionnaire, Section B
(i.e., the section covering comparison market sales), Section C
(i.e., the section covering U.S. sales), and Section D (i.e., the
section covering the cost of production (``COP'') and constructed
value (``CV'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2011, the Department fully extended the due date
for the preliminary results of review from April 2, 2011, to August 1,
2011.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Extension of Time Limits for
the Preliminary Results of Fourteenth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 10879 (February 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department conducted the sales verification of Tomasello from
June 6, 2011, through June 10, 2011, in Casteldaccia, Italy. The
Department conducted the cost verification of Tomasello from June 13,
2011, through June 17, 2011, in Casteldaccia, Italy. We verified the
information upon which we relied in making our preliminary
determination.
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 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.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), we first attempted to match contemporaneous
sales of products sold
[[Page 48127]]
in the United States and comparison markets that were identical with
respect to the following characteristics: (1) Pasta shape; (2) wheat
species; (3) milling form; (4) protein content; (5) additives; and (6)
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 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 export price
(``EP'') of each sale to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price''
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for
Tomasello and Garofalo, we compared the EPs of individual transactions,
as applicable, to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product
in the appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales
made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of
Production Analysis'' section below.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used export price, as
defined in section 772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) defines EP as the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of
importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside
of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States.
We calculated an EP for Tomasello's and Garofalo's U.S. sales because
they were made directly to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States prior to importation and constructed export price
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record.
For EP sales, we made deductions from the starting price (gross
unit price), where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. Movement expenses included foreign
inland freight (from plant or warehouse, and from plant to port of
exportation), foreign warehousing expenses, foreign brokerage,
international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling and charges, and
U.S. customs duties. With respect to Tomasello, we capped the
transportation recovery amounts by the amount of U.S. freight expenses,
incurred on the subject merchandise, in accordance with our practice.
See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584
(August 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
(``2005-2007 OJ from Brazil'') at Comment 7.
In addition, when appropriate, we increased EP by an amount equal
to the countervailing duty (``CVD'') rate attributed to export
subsidies in the most recently completed CVD administrative review, in
accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price
of the foreign like product sold in the home market, provided that the
merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is
inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that
prevents a proper comparison with the export price or constructed
export price. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value)
normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent
of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States. To determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable
basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of
the Act, because Garofalo and Tomasello each 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 both
Garofalo and Tomasello.
Ordinary Course of Trade
On January 14, 2011, petitioners submitted comments alleging that a
``particular market situation'' existed with respect to sales made in
Italy by Garofalo. In petitioners' April 13, 2011, comments,
petitioners stated that they withdraw their January 14 allegation of a
particular market situation, under the stipulation that the Department
conduct an analysis for the alleged aberrational home market sales
under the ordinary course of trade provision of the statute. See
petitioners' April 13, 2011, comments at 2-3, footnote 1. We have
examined Garofalo's sales within the context of the ordinary course of
trade provision; therefore, we are not addressing the ``particular
market situation'' allegation that petitioners withdrew.
Petitioners argue that Garofalo's sales of pasta in Italy with a
protein content of less than 12.5 percent should be excluded from the
calculation of normal value because petitioners allege that they are
sales that are outside the ordinary course of trade. Petitioners claim
that these sales have unusual product specifications, aberrational
prices and unusual terms of sale. Id. at 2. We have considered the
comments submitted by petitioners and Garofalo. Based on our analysis
of Garofalo's home market sales data and the comments submitted on the
record, we find Garofalo's home market sales to be within the ordinary
course of trade. Because the discussion of this issue contains business
proprietary information (``BPI''), see memorandum from the Team through
Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
titled, ``Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the
Fourteenth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Pasta from Italy (2009-2010)'' for additional details.
B. Arm's-Length Sales
Garofalo reported that all of its sales to the Italian market are
to unaffiliated customers; however, it made a few sales to employees
and shareholders and coded such sales as affiliated sales. See
Garofalo's Section B Questionnaire Response, dated December 20, 2010,
at page B-11. In accordance with the Department's practice, we have
excluded such sales from consideration. See Garofalo's Prelim Sales
Analysis Memorandum, dated August 1, 2011.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign
[[Page 48128]]
like product by the respondents were made at prices below the COP
during the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Therefore, we required Garafalo and Tomasello to submit a response to
Section D of the Department's questionnaire. The Department disregarded
sales below the COP in the last completed review in which Garofalo and
Tomasello participated.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Amended Final
Results of the Thirteenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76
FR 6601, February 7, 2011 (``Pasta Thirteen''); see also Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part: For the
Sixth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 47020, 47029, August 7, 2003, and Notice of
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta
from Italy and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 6255,
February 10, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP by model based on the sum of materials,
fabrication, general and administrative (``G&A''), and interest
expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by both Garofalo and
Tomasello except the following adjustments. We increased Garofalo's
cost of manufacturing (``COM'') to account for the unreconciled
difference between the COM from its normal books and records and the
reported COM. For more details, see Memorandum from James Balog to Neal
M. Halper, Director of Office of Accounting, titled ``Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results--Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A,'' dated August 1,
2011. Also, we have increased Tomasello's reported direct materials and
conversion costs to incorporate a revised yield loss ratio resulting
from a revised total production quantity for finished pasta products.
For additional details, see Memorandum from Stephanie Arthur to Neal M.
Halper, Director of Office of Accounting, titled ``Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results--Molino e Pastificio Tomasello, S.p.A.,'' dated August 1, 2011.
Based on the review of record evidence, Garofalo and Tomasello did
not appear to experience significant changes in COM during the POR.
Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating an annual
weighted-average cost.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondents to their
home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e.,
normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether
such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of COP Test
We disregard below-cost sales where: (1) 20 percent or more of the
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at
prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)
of the Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average
COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product
were at prices that would not permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Act. We found that Tomasello and Garofalo made sales below cost and we
disregarded such sales where appropriate. See Tomasello and Garofalo
Prelim Cost Memorandum.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on ex-works, free on board (``FOB'') or
delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made deductions
from the starting price, when appropriate, for discounts and rebates.
We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also
deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)
of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (``COS'') pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act. Specifically, we made adjustments to normal value for
comparison to Tomasello's and Garofalo's EP transactions by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit
expenses) and U.S. commissions. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We also made adjustments for Garofalo and
Tomasello, 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 weighted-average costs.
Sales of pasta purchased by Garofalo from unaffiliated producers
and resold in the comparison market were disregarded. See Garofalo
Sales Analysis Memo.
E. Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine 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 are no sales at the same LOT, we compare 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(c)(2), to determine whether comparison
market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length affiliated)
customers. The Department identifies the LOT based on: The starting
price or constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for
EP sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of
the Act (for CEP sales). 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 LOT of
the export transaction, we will make a 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
[[Page 48129]]
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).
Tomasello indicated there was a single level of trade for all sales
in both markets, and petitioner has not claimed that multiple levels of
trade existed for Tomasello. Tomasello provided information regarding
channels of distribution and selling activities performed for different
categories of customers. See Tomasello's December 10, 2010, Section A
response, at Exhibit 4. Tomasello's chart of specific selling functions
indicates the selling functions performed for sales in both markets are
virtually identical, with no significant variation across the broader
categories of sales process/marketing support, freight and delivery,
inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. For
more details, see Tomasello Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. We have
preliminarily determined there is one single level of trade for all
sales in both the home market and the U.S. market and, therefore, that
no basis exists for a level of trade adjustment.
Garofalo reported that it sells to one LOT in the home market. In
the home market, Garofalo reported that it sold through three channels
of distribution to four customer categories. Garofalo provided
information regarding its selling functions and channels of
distribution by customer category. See Garofalo's Supplemental
Questionnaire response, dated June 28, 2011, at Exhibit SS-1.
In the U.S. market, Garofalo reported that it sold through two
channels of distribution to one customer category, and therefore, at
one LOT. Garofalo claims that it sold to a different level of trade in
the United States than it does in Italy and reported a separate code
for its LOT in its U.S. sales database. Based on our analysis of the
selling activities for Garofalo, we find that Garofalo's selling
functions performed for sales in both markets are comparable and do not
show a significant pattern of variation across the sales categories.
Furthermore, we find that there is overlap in these activities for
channels of distribution and customer categories. Garofalo performs
similar selling activities for the reported customer categories and
channels of distribution. Although there are differences in intensity
of these activities for some of the claimed customer categories, this,
in and of itself, does not show a substantial difference in selling
activities that would form the basis for finding a different LOT. See,
e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52070 (September 12,
2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, please refer to Garofalo's
Sales Analysis Memo for further discussion.
We have preliminarily determined there is one single level of trade
for all sales in both the home market and the U.S. market and,
therefore, that no basis exists for a level of trade adjustment.
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
Garofalo's Sales Analysis Memo; see also Tomasello Sales Analysis Memo.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July
1, 2009, through June 30, 2010:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The antidumping duty margin for Tomasello incorporates an
adjustment for the countervailing duty offset to account for the
export subsidy portion of the countervailing duties applied to this
company, which Tomasello reported in the field CVDU.
\12\ This rate is a weighted-average percentage margin
(calculated based on the publicly ranged U.S. Values of the two
reviewed companies with an affirmative dumping margin) for the
period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. See Memorandum to the
File, titled, ``Pasta from Italy: Margin for Respondents Not
Selected for Individual Examination,'' from Joy Zhang and George
McMahon, Case Analysts, through James Terpstra, Program Manager,
dated August 1, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
\11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garofalo................................................... 3.20
Tomasello.................................................. 4.18
Review-Specific Average Rate \12\ Applicable to the 3.57
Following Companies: Agritalia, Erasmo, Indalco, Labor,
PAM, P.A.P., Afeltra, Fabianelli, Riscossa, Rummo, and
Rustichella...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department intends to 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).
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 Tomasello and Garofalo, 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
[[Page 48130]]
publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review 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
for a review 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 Implementation of the Findings of the WTO
Panel in US--Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determination 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, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of 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: August 1, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-20067 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P