Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the 2009 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 7129-7131 [2012-3180]
Download as PDF
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Notices
fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate
such imported LEU (i) remain in the
possession and control of the U.S.
fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their
designed transporter(s) while in U.S.
customs territory, and (ii) are reexported within eighteen (18) months of
entry of the LEU for consumption by the
end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the
United States.’’ The 18-month period for
this entry expires May 1, 2012.
AREVA’s December 5, 2011, request
explains that following the March 11,
2011, earthquake and tsunami that
struck Japan, AREVA’s Japanese end-use
customer was required by the Japanese
government to shut down its nuclear
power facility pending necessary
remediation of the situation. In light of
the disaster that struck Japan after entry
of this merchandise into the United
States, AREVA’s end-user is not able to
take delivery of the LEU within the
18-month period, as required by the
certifications that AREVA and the enduser filed at the time of entry.
AREVA provided documentation
supporting this claim, including: (1) A
letter from the Japanese Minister of
Economy, Trade and Industry, dated
May 6, 2011, regarding the shutdown by
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc. of the
operation of one of its nuclear power
plants until safety measures are
completed and confirmed by the
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency;
(2) a letter from Chubu Electric Power
Co., Inc., dated May 9, 2011, confirming
that the board had decided to shut down
the power plant requested; (3) a notice
from Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel
discussing a timeline of the nuclear
power plant shutdown and forecasts for
its reopening; (4) entry summary and
related entry documents for entry
number W96–3576942–O; and, (5)
importer and end-user certifications to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) (referenced in the certifications as
‘‘U.S. Customs Service’’).5
We find that the evidence provided by
AREVA is sufficient to establish that the
circumstances of its request are
extraordinary, and beyond the control of
AREVA and the Japanese end-user.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that it is appropriate, for this entry only,
to amend the scope of the order and to
extend the deadline for the reexportation of this sole LEU entry from
18 months to 36 months. Should these
preliminary results remain unchanged
in the final results, we will extend the
deadline for re-exportation of this entry
to no later than November 1, 2013.
AREVA and the end-user will be
5 See Letter from AREVA, ‘‘Low Enriched
Uranium from France,’’ dated December 13, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:29 Feb 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
7129
required to provide new certifications to
CBP prior to the original deadline for reexportation of this entry, i.e., May 1,
2012.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Public Comment
Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results
of the 2009 Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 15 days of publication of
this notice. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held no later than 27 days after
the date of publication of this notice, or
the first workday thereafter. Persons
interested in attending the hearing, if
one is requested, should contact the
Department for the date and time of the
hearing. Case briefs from interested
parties may be submitted not later than
15 days after the date of publication of
this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed no later than five days after the
submission of case briefs. All written
comments shall be submitted in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.
Parties are reminded that as of August
5, 2011, with certain, limited
exceptions, all submissions for all
proceedings must be filed electronically
using Import Administration’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(IA ACCESS).6 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the
deadline.
The Department intends to issue the
final results of this CCR no later than
April 10, 2012. This date may be
extended in accordance with 19 CFR
351.216(e). The final results will
include the Department’s analysis of
issues raised in any written comments.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and
777(i)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216.
Dated: February 3, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–3166 Filed 2–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
6 For additional information on IA ACCESS,
please visit https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
International Trade Administration
[C–475–819]
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 8, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published in the
Federal Register its preliminary results
of administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on certain
pasta from Italy for the period January
1, 2009, through December 31, 2009.
Following the issuance of the
preliminary results, Molino e Pastificio
Tomasello S.p.A. (‘‘Tomasello’’)
corrected its reported benefit amount for
a subsidy program. We invited
interested parties to comment on the
preliminary results. Our analysis of
Tomasello’s correction led to a change
in the net subsidy rate. The final net
rates for Tomasello; Pastificio Antonio
Pallante S.r.L. (‘‘Pallante’’); F.lli De
Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino
S.p.A. (‘‘De Cecco’’) and Pastificio
Fabianelli S.p.A. (‘‘Fabianelli’’) are
listed below in the section entitled
‘‘Final Results of Review.’’
DATES: Effective Date: February 10,
2012.
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
The following events have occurred
since the publication of the preliminary
results of this review. See Certain Pasta
From Italy: Preliminary Results of the
14th (2009) Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 48130
(August 8, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’). We sent a supplemental
questionnaire to Tomasello on August
12, 2011, and the Department received
a response from Tomasello on
September 8, 2011.
On September 29, 2011, we received
a case brief from Tomasello. We did not
receive rebuttal briefs.
Period of Review
The period of review for which we are
measuring subsidies is January 1, 2009,
through December 31, 2009.
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7130
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Notices
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are
shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta
in packages of five pounds four ounces
or less, whether or not enriched or
fortified or containing milk or other
optional ingredients such as chopped
vegetables, vegetable purees, milk,
gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and
flavorings, and up to two percent egg
white. The pasta covered by the scope
of the order is typically sold in the retail
market, in fiberboard or cardboard
cartons, or polyethylene or
polypropylene bags of varying
dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are refrigerated, frozen, or canned
pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta,
with the exception of non-egg dry pasta
containing up to two percent egg white.
Also excluded are imports of organic
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by the
Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione,
Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International
Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il
Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura
Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition,
based on publicly available information,
the Department has determined that, as
of August 4, 2004, imports of organic
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from
the order. See Memorandum from Eric
B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner,
dated August 4, 2004, which is on file
in the Department’s Central Records
Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room 7046 of the main
Department building. In addition, based
on publicly available information, the
Department has determined that, as of
March 13, 2003, imports of organic
pasta from Italy that are accompanied by
the appropriate certificate issued by
Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e
Ambientale are also excluded from the
order. See Memorandum from Audrey
Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated
February 28, 2006, entitled
‘‘Recognition of Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA)
as a Public Authority for Certifying
Organic Pasta from Italy’’ which is on
file in the Department’s CRU. Pursuant
to the Department’s May 12, 2011
changed circumstances review, effective
January 1, 2009, gluten-free pasta is also
excluded from the scope of the
countervailing duty order. See Certain
Pasta From Italy: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Changed
Circumstances Review and Revocation,
In Part, 76 FR 27634 (May 12, 2011).
The merchandise subject to review is
currently classifiable under items
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:29 Feb 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
information and comments received, we
have revised the calculations with
respect to the benefit amount calculated
for Measure 3.14 for Tomasello. Further,
we have determined that Measure 3.14,
which was found regionally specific in
the Preliminary Results, is instead
specific on the basis of adverse facts
available due to the Italian government’s
failure to provide de facto specificity
information for this program. We have
also determined that Tomasello did not
receive any benefits under Regional Law
15/1993 during the POR, and have
modified our net subsidy rate
accordingly. These changes are
discussed in detail in the Decision
Memorandum.
interested party or any other person: (A)
Withholds information that has been
requested; (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b)
of the Act further provides that the
Department may use an adverse
inference in applying the facts
otherwise available when a party has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a
request for information.
In the Preliminary Results, we found
grants under Measure 3.14 to be specific
within the meaning of section
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act upon
preliminarily determining that
Government of Italy limits benefits
under this program to companies in
certain regions. See Preliminary Results,
76 FR at 48135–36. Upon reevaluation
of Measure 3.14 for these final results,
we find that the Government of Italy
failed to respond to our request for
usage information regarding this
program. We requested this information
twice, in supplemental questionnaires
dated May 12, 2011, and June 17, 2011.
As explained above, in cases where
there is not enough information on the
record for us to determine whether a
program is specific (see section 776(a)(1)
of the Act), and in cases where an
interested party fails to provide
information that has been requested by
the Department by the deadline for the
submission of that information (see
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act), we use
facts otherwise available. Furthermore,
an adverse inference is warranted under
section 776(b) of the Act where a party
fails to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a
request for information from the
Department. Because the Government of
Italy failed to respond to our request for
usage information regarding Measure
3.14, we find application of adverse
facts available to be warranted.
Therefore, we determine as adverse facts
available that the assistance received by
Tomasello under Measure 3.14 is
specific. For a full discussion of this
issue, see Decision Memorandum at
‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ and Comment 2.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
Adverse Inferences
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
provide that the Department shall apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if necessary
information is not on the record or an
Final Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual
subsidy rates for the mandatory
respondents, De Cecco, Fabianelli,
Pallante, and Tomasello. For the period
January 1, 2009, through December 31,
1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
subject to the order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
We have addressed all issues raised in
Tomasello’s case brief in the February 6,
2012 ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results in
the 14th Administrative Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy’’ from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration
(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached
to this notice as an appendix is a list of
the issues raised by Tomasello, to which
we have responded in the Decision
Memorandum. The Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is
available in the CRU. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Internet at https://www.trade.gov/
ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum
and the electronic versions of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Notices
2009, we find that the ad valorem net
subsidy rates for the producers/
exporters under review are as follows:
Producer/Exporter
F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara
San Martino S.p.A.
Pastificio Fabianelli S.p.A .....
Molino e Pastificio Tomasello
S.p.A.
Pastificio Antonio Pallante,
S.r.L.
Net subsidy
rate
0.39% (de
minimis).
0.00%.
5.11%.
1.00%.
Assessment Rates
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) fifteen
days after the date of publication of
these final results. Because the net
subsidy rates for De Cecco and
Fabianelli are less than 0.5 percent and,
thus, de minimis, the Department will
instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of
certain pasta by De Cecco and Fabianelli
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption, from January 1, 2009,
through December 31, 2009, without
regard to countervailing duties, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c). For
Pallante and Tomasello, the Department
will instruct CBP to assess
countervailing duties at the net subsidy
rate listed above.
For all other companies that were not
reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli
S.p.A., and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana
S.r.l., which are excluded from the
order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l., which was
revoked from the order), the Department
has directed CBP to assess
countervailing duties on all entries
between January 1, 2009, and December
31, 2009, at the rates in effect at the time
of entry.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Instructions
Since the countervailable subsidy rate
for De Cecco and Fabianelli is de
minimis or zero, the Department will
instruct CBP to continue to suspend
liquidation of entries, but to collect no
cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties for De Cecco and
Fabianelli on all shipments of the
subject merchandise that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
administrative review. For Tomasello
and Pallante, the Department intends to
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties in the
amounts shown above.
For all non-reviewed firms (except
Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo
Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are
excluded from the order, and Pasta
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:29 Feb 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the
order), we will instruct CBP to collect
cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties at the most recent
company-specific or all-others rate
applicable to the company. These rates
shall apply to all non-reviewed
companies until a review of a company
assigned these rates is requested. These
cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 6, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
Comment 1: Whether the Department
impeded the proceeding
Comment 2: Whether the Department failed
to differentiate between national
government programs and regional
government programs
Comment 3: Whether the Department should
have countervailed the entire benefit from
Law 46/1982, Article 14 (Fondo
Innovazione Tecnologica)
Comment 4: Whether the Department should
have found Article 280 of Law 296/2006
and Article 23 of Legislative Decree 38/
2000 to be specific
[FR Doc. 2012–3180 Filed 2–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Addendum to Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
Committee Public Meeting
International Trade
Administration, DOC.
ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory
Committee Meeting.
AGENCY:
This notice is to advise the
schedule and proposed agenda of a
meeting of the Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7131
Committee (ETTAC) will be changed to
include additional topics.
DATES: The teleconference meeting is
scheduled for Friday, February 24, 2012,
at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST). Please register by 5:00 p.m. EST
on Friday, February 17, 2012 to listen in
on the teleconference meeting.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place
via teleconference. For logistical
reasons, all participants are required to
register in advance by the date specified
above. Please contact Mr. Todd DeLelle
at the contact information below to
register and obtain call-in information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Todd DeLelle, Office of Energy &
Environmental Industries, International
Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230. Phone: 202–482–4877; Fax:
202–482–5665; email:
todd.delelle@trade.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting will take place from 2:00 p.m.
to 3:00 p.m. This meeting is open to the
public. Written comments concerning
ETTAC affairs are welcome any time
before or after the meeting. Minutes will
be available within 30 days of this
meeting.
Topics to be considered: The agenda
for the February 24, 2012 ETTAC
includes: 2:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m.:
Presentation of, and deliberation on, a
list of harmonized tariff schedule codes
the ETTAC considers relevant to the
U.S. environmental industry and
recommendations regarding U.S.
government approaches to
environmental export promotion.
Background: The ETTAC is mandated
by Section 2313(c) of the Export
Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended,
15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the
Environmental Trade Working Group
(ETWG) of the Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee, through the
Secretary of Commerce, on the
development and administration of
programs to expand U.S. exports of
environmental technologies, goods,
services, and products. The ETTAC was
originally chartered in May of 1994. It
was most recently re-chartered until
October 2012.
The teleconference will be accessible
to people with disabilities. Please
specify any requests for reasonable
accommodation when registering to
participate in the teleconference. Last
minute requests will be accepted, but
may be impossible to fill.
No time will be available for oral
comments from members of the public
during this meeting. As noted above,
any member of the public may submit
pertinent written comments concerning
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7129-7131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3180]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the 2009
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 8, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta
from Italy for the period January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009.
Following the issuance of the preliminary results, Molino e Pastificio
Tomasello S.p.A. (``Tomasello'') corrected its reported benefit amount
for a subsidy program. We invited interested parties to comment on the
preliminary results. Our analysis of Tomasello's correction led to a
change in the net subsidy rate. The final net rates for Tomasello;
Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.L. (``Pallante''); F.lli De Cecco di
Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A. (``De Cecco'') and Pastificio
Fabianelli S.p.A. (``Fabianelli'') are listed below in the section
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 2012.
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:
Background
The following events have occurred since the publication of the
preliminary results of this review. See Certain Pasta From Italy:
Preliminary Results of the 14th (2009) Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 48130 (August 8, 2011) (``Preliminary
Results''). We sent a supplemental questionnaire to Tomasello on August
12, 2011, and the Department received a response from Tomasello on
September 8, 2011.
On September 29, 2011, we received a case brief from Tomasello. We
did not receive rebuttal briefs.
Period of Review
The period of review for which we are measuring subsidies is
January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009.
[[Page 7130]]
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry
pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not
enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients
such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis,
vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The
pasta covered by the scope of the order is typically sold in the retail
market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or
polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or
canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of
non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded
are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the
appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di
Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services,
Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In
addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has
determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from
Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from the order. See Memorandum
from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004,
which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in
Room 7046 of the main Department building. In addition, based on
publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as
of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are
accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la
Certificazione Etica e Ambientale are also excluded from the order. See
Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28,
2006, entitled ``Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e
Ambientale (ICEA) as a Public Authority for Certifying Organic Pasta
from Italy'' which is on file in the Department's CRU. Pursuant to the
Department's May 12, 2011 changed circumstances review, effective
January 1, 2009, gluten-free pasta is also excluded from the scope of
the countervailing duty order. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review and
Revocation, In Part, 76 FR 27634 (May 12, 2011).
The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under
items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description
of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
We have addressed all issues raised in Tomasello's case brief in
the February 6, 2012 ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results in the 14th Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy'' from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
(``Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues raised
by Tomasello, to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum.
The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file
electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA
ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the CRU. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on
the Internet at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision
Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the information and comments received, we
have revised the calculations with respect to the benefit amount
calculated for Measure 3.14 for Tomasello. Further, we have determined
that Measure 3.14, which was found regionally specific in the
Preliminary Results, is instead specific on the basis of adverse facts
available due to the Italian government's failure to provide de facto
specificity information for this program. We have also determined that
Tomasello did not receive any benefits under Regional Law 15/1993
during the POR, and have modified our net subsidy rate accordingly.
These changes are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''), provide that the Department shall apply ``facts
otherwise available'' if necessary information is not on the record or
an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information that
has been requested; (B) fails to provide information within the
deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the
Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the
Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department
may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available
when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information.
In the Preliminary Results, we found grants under Measure 3.14 to
be specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act
upon preliminarily determining that Government of Italy limits benefits
under this program to companies in certain regions. See Preliminary
Results, 76 FR at 48135-36. Upon reevaluation of Measure 3.14 for these
final results, we find that the Government of Italy failed to respond
to our request for usage information regarding this program. We
requested this information twice, in supplemental questionnaires dated
May 12, 2011, and June 17, 2011. As explained above, in cases where
there is not enough information on the record for us to determine
whether a program is specific (see section 776(a)(1) of the Act), and
in cases where an interested party fails to provide information that
has been requested by the Department by the deadline for the submission
of that information (see section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act), we use facts
otherwise available. Furthermore, an adverse inference is warranted
under section 776(b) of the Act where a party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information from the Department. Because the Government of Italy failed
to respond to our request for usage information regarding Measure 3.14,
we find application of adverse facts available to be warranted.
Therefore, we determine as adverse facts available that the assistance
received by Tomasello under Measure 3.14 is specific. For a full
discussion of this issue, see Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of
Programs'' and Comment 2.
Final Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual
subsidy rates for the mandatory respondents, De Cecco, Fabianelli,
Pallante, and Tomasello. For the period January 1, 2009, through
December 31,
[[Page 7131]]
2009, we find that the ad valorem net subsidy rates for the producers/
exporters under review are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Net subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino 0.39% (de minimis).
S.p.A.
Pastificio Fabianelli S.p.A............... 0.00%.
Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.p.A....... 5.11%.
Pastificio Antonio Pallante, S.r.L........ 1.00%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') fifteen days after the date of
publication of these final results. Because the net subsidy rates for
De Cecco and Fabianelli are less than 0.5 percent and, thus, de
minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of
certain pasta by De Cecco and Fabianelli entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption, from January 1, 2009, through December 31,
2009, without regard to countervailing duties, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.106(c). For Pallante and Tomasello, the Department will
instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties at the net subsidy rate
listed above.
For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e
R. F.lli S.p.A., and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded
from the order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l., which was revoked from the
order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties
on all entries between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, at the
rates in effect at the time of entry.
Cash Deposit Instructions
Since the countervailable subsidy rate for De Cecco and Fabianelli
is de minimis or zero, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to
suspend liquidation of entries, but to collect no cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties for De Cecco and Fabianelli on all
shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of
the final results of this administrative review. For Tomasello and
Pallante, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash
deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above.
For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and
Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order, and
Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the order), we will instruct
CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the
most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the
company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a
review of a company assigned these rates is requested. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 6, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Comment 1: Whether the Department impeded the proceeding
Comment 2: Whether the Department failed to differentiate between
national government programs and regional government programs
Comment 3: Whether the Department should have countervailed the
entire benefit from Law 46/1982, Article 14 (Fondo Innovazione
Tecnologica)
Comment 4: Whether the Department should have found Article 280 of
Law 296/2006 and Article 23 of Legislative Decree 38/2000 to be
specific
[FR Doc. 2012-3180 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P