Certain Pasta From Turkey: Notice of Preliminary Results of the 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46694-46699 [2012-19157]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46694
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices
Register, unless otherwise extended.
See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the cash deposit rate will be the all
others rate for this proceeding, 5.71
percent. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
Disclosure and Public Comment
We will disclose the calculations used
in our analysis to parties in this review
within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested
party may request a hearing within 30
days of the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.56 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, U.S. Department of
Commerce, filed electronically using IA
ACCESS. 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 within 30 days
after the date of publication of this
notice.57 If a hearing is requested, the
Department will notify interested
parties of the hearing schedule. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results of
this review. The Department typically
requests that interested parties submit
case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we
plan to issue a post-preliminary
supplemental questionnaire and,
therefore, will be extending the case
brief deadline. The Department will
inform interested parties of the updated
briefing schedule when it has been
confirmed. Rebuttal briefs, which must
be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, must be filed not later than five
days after the time limit for filing case
briefs.58 Parties who submit case briefs
or rebuttal briefs in this review are
requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue;
(2) a brief summary of the argument;
and (3) a table of authorities. Executive
summaries should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes.
We intend to issue the final results of
this administrative review, including
the results of our analysis of issues
raised in the written comments, within
120 days of publication of these
preliminary results in the Federal
56 See
19 CFR 351.310.
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed.
58 See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (for a further
discussion of case briefs and rebuttal briefs,
respectively).
57 Requests
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:11 Aug 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
This notice also 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
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled 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 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–19170 Filed 8–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–489–805]
Certain Pasta From Turkey: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the 2010–2011
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain pasta
(pasta) from Turkey for the period of
review (POR) July 1, 2010, through June
30, 2011. The Department initiated the
review covering TAT Makarnacilik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (TAT) and
Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S
(Marsan) and its claimed affiliates Birlik
Pazarlama Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Birlik), Bellini Gida Sanayi A.S.
(Bellini), and Marsa Yag Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Marsa Yag). We
preliminarily determine that during the
POR, TAT did not sell subject
merchandise at less than normal value
(NV). In addition, we preliminarily
determine that Birlik, Bellini, and
Marsan did not sell subject merchandise
at less than NV.
If these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. See ‘‘Preliminary
Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Moore or Victoria Cho, 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) 482–3692 or (202) 482–
5075, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2011, the Department
issued a notice of opportunity to request
an administrative review of this order
for the POR of July 1, 2010, through
June 30, 2011.1 On July 29, 2011, we
received a request to conduct a review
with respect to Marsan and its claimed
affiliates: Birlik, Bellini, and Marsa Yag.
We also received a request from TAT for
the Department to conduct an
administrative review of TAT.
On August 3, 2011, the Department
provided Marsan with an opportunity to
comply with the recently revised
certification requirements with respect
to its request for review.2 On August 10,
2011, Marsan resubmitted its request for
administrative review with the requisite
certification language.
On August 26, 2011, the Department
published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review
covering the period July 1, 2010,
through June 30, 2011.3
On September 14, 2011, the
Department issued initial questionnaires
covering sections A, B, C, and D to
Marsan and sections A, B, and C to TAT
with a due date of October 21, 2011.
Because the Department disregarded
below-cost sales in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding in
which sales were reviewed for Marsan,4
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 38609
(July 1, 2011).
2 See 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (g)(2).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404
(August 26, 2011).
4 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey,
64 FR 69493 (December 13, 1999) (97/98 Review
Final). In June 2009, the Department found that
Marsan was the successor-in-interest to Gidasa
Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AS (Gidasa). See
Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that home market sales of the
foreign like product by Marsan were
made at prices below the cost of
production (COP) during the POR, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), and therefore, included
section D in the questionnaire to
Marsan. After granting extensions to
Marsan, the sections A, B, and C
questionnaire responses were submitted
on November 4, 2011, and the section D
questionnaire response was submitted
on November 18, 2011. On November
22, 2011, petitioners submitted
deficiency comments on sections A
through D of Marsan’s initial
questionnaire response.5 The
Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Marsan between
January 13, 2012, and May 3, 2012.
Responses to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaires were
received from Marsan between January
23, 2012, and July 2, 2012.
After granting extensions to TAT,
TAT’s sections A, B, and C
questionnaire responses were submitted
on November 9, 2011. On Novmeber 28,
2011, February 27, 2012, and May 1,
2012, petitioners submitted deficiency
comments for TAT. On February 23,
2012, petitioners submitted its
comments requesting that the
Department rescind this administrative
review for TAT because TAT lacked a
reviewable entry. Petitioners urged that
the Department request CBP to
investigate any entries of subject
merchandise, negligence in
importations, and/or customs fraud
made by TAT. The Department issued
several supplemental questionnaires to
TAT and we received responses to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaires on December 15, 2011,
January 10, 2012, March 29, 2012, and
June 15, 2012.
On February 24, 2012, the Department
published a notice extending the time
period for issuing the preliminary
results of the administrative review
from April 1, 2012, to July 30, 2012.6
Review, 74 FR 26373 (June 2, 2009). In July 2003,
the Department found that Gidasa was the
successor-in-interest to Maktas Makarnacilik ve
Ticaret AS (Maktas). See Notice of Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews:
Certain Pasta From Turkey, 68 FR 41554 (July 14,
2003). Maktas was the reviewed company in the 97/
98 Review Final.
5 Petitioners are New World Pasta Company,
Dakota Growers Pasta Company, and American
Italian Pasta Company.
6 See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Extension of
Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR
11065 (February 24, 2012).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:11 Aug 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.
Targeted Dumping Allegations
Petitioners contend that it conducted
its own targeted dumping analysis of
Marsan’s U.S. sales using the
Department’s targeted dumping
methodology as applied in Steel Nails
and modified in Wood Flooring.7 Based
on their analysis, petitioners argue the
Department should conduct a targeted
dumping analysis and employ averageto-transaction comparisons without
offsets should the Department find that
the record supports its allegation of
targeted dumping. Marsan did not
comment on the targeted dumping
allegations submitted by the petitioners.
For purposes of these preliminary
results, the Department did not conduct
a targeted dumping analysis. In
calculating the preliminary weightedaverage dumping margin, the
Department applied the calculation
methodology adopted in the Final
Modification for Reviews.8 In particular,
the Department compared monthly,
weighted-average export prices with
monthly, weighted-average normal
values, and granted offsets for negative
comparison results in the calculation of
the weighted-average dumping
margins.9 Application of this
methodology in these preliminary
results affords parties an opportunity to
meaningfully comment on the
Department’s implementation of this
recently adopted methodology in the
context of this administrative review.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this review are
shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta
in packages of five pounds (2.27
kilograms) or less, whether or not
enriched or fortified or containing milk
or other optional ingredients such as
chopped vegetables, vegetable purees,
milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins,
7 See Petitioners’ Allegation of Targeted Dumping
with respect to Marsan, dated June 15, 2012 (citing
Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008)
(Steel Nails), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 8 (Steel Nails);
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 18, 2011)
(Wood Flooring), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
8 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for
Reviews).
9 See id. at 8102.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46695
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 review 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.
The merchandise subject to review is
currently classifiable under item
1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise subject to the order is
dispositive.
Affiliation and Collapsing
As discussed above, in its request for
review, Marsan requested a review of
itself and three companies (Birlik,
Bellini, and Marsa Yag) which it
claimed as affiliates. In the instant
review, the Department preliminarily
finds that Birlik, Bellini and Marsa Yag
are affiliated in accordance with
sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act
based on ownership structure and major
shareholder controlling interest in these
three subsidiaries.10 At the outset of the
POR, Birlik operated the pasta
production facility, but Bellini took over
operation of the pasta production
facility in October 2010.11 Because
Birlik and Bellini operated the pasta
production facility during different
periods and both companies were not
producing subject merchandise at the
same time, the Department
preliminarily determines that it is not
appropriate to treat these companies as
a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f).12
Consistent with our findings in the
prior review,13 the Department finds
that Marsan was not affiliated with
Birlik or Bellini, prior to June 2, 2011.14
However, as discussed in more detail in
the Affiliation/Collapsing Memo, the
Department preliminarily determines
10 See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Office
Director, Office 3 from the Team, titled ‘‘Whether
to Treat Marsan and its Claimed Affiliates as a
Single Entity for Margin Calculation Purposes,’’
dated July 30, 2012 (Affiliation/Collapsing Memo).
11 See Marsan’s November 4, 2011, questionnaire
response at 7.
12 See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
13 See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Notice of Final
Results of the 14th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 68339 (November 4,
2011) (14th Review Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
(I&D Memo) at Comments 1 and 2.
14 See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
46696
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices
that effective June 2, 2011, Marsan and
Bellini became affiliated persons within
the meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the
Act.15
Upon finding Bellini to be affiliated
with Marsan for the last month of the
POR, the Department has also
considered whether to treat Bellini and
Marsan as a single entity for that month
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). Based
upon the level of common ownership
and the intertwining of the production
and distribution operations of these
companies after the acquisition of
Marsan, the Department preliminarily
finds there to be significant potential for
manipulation of price or production of
subject merchandise and has thus
treated Bellini and Marsan as a single
entity for the last month of the POR,
referred to hereafter as Marsan/Bellini.16
Nature of TAT’s Sales
Petitioners have raised various
concerns about the nature of TAT’s sales
of subject merchandise to the United
States, including whether TAT has
reviewable entries and whether its sales
prices are consistent with normal
commercial practices.17 Record
information indicates that TAT has at
least one reviewable entry, allowing the
Department to continue with its review
of TAT.18 With respect to petitioners’
concerns about the nature of TAT’s
sales, the Department does not find
support for those allegations in record
evidence at this time because they are
mainly premised upon petitioners’
contentions that TAT does not have any
reviewable entries subject to
antidumping duty liability,19 which the
Department preliminarily finds not to be
case as addressed above. Petitioners also
question whether TAT’s sales to its U.S.
customers were conducted at arm’s
length.20 Record evidence, however,
establishes that TAT is not affiliated
with its U.S. customers 21 and
petitioners have not identified
information on the record
demonstrating otherwise. However, we
will continue to consider this matter.
Should we determine that petitioners’
concerns have merit we will further
investigate in the context of this
administrative review and, if necessary,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15 See
Marsan’s November 4, 2011, questionnaire
response at 9 and Exhibit 4, and Affiliation/
Collapsing Memo.
16 See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
17 See, e.g., Petitioners’ February 23, 2012,
submission.
18 See, e.g., TAT’s March 29, 2012, submission at
Attachment 1.
19 See Petitioners’ February 23, 2012, submission
at 3–5.
20 See id.
21 See TAT’s November 9, 2011, section A
questionnaire response at 9–13.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:11 Aug 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
conduct an analysis of whether TAT’s
sales are bona fide.
weighted-average NVs to monthly,
weighted-average export prices.24
Product Comparisons
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we
used EP, 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 EP for
each of the respondents’ U.S. sales
because they were made to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States and
constructed export price (CEP) was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record.
In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for
movement expenses including foreign
inland freight from plant/warehouse to
customer. 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.25
For purposes of calculating NV,
section 771(16) of the Act defines
‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise
which is either (1) identical or (2)
similar to the merchandise sold in the
United States. When no identical
products are sold in the home market,
the products which are most similar to
the product sold in the United States are
identified. For the non-identical or most
similar products which are identified
based on the Department’s product
matching criteria, an adjustment is
made to the NV for differences in cost
attributable to differences in the actual
physical differences between the
products sold in the United States and
the home market.22
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we first attempted to match
contemporaneous sales of products sold
in the United States and comparison
markets that were identical with respect
to the following characteristics: (1) Pasta
shape; (2) wheat species; (3) milling
form; (4) protein content; (5) additives;
and (6) enrichment. Where 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.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of certain
pasta from Turkey were made in the
United States at less than NV, we
compared the export price (EP) to the
NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’
and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this
notice. In particular, the Department
compared monthly, weighted-average
export prices with monthly, weightedaverage normal values, and granted
offsets for negative comparison results
in the calculation of the weightedaverage dumping margins.23
Based on our affiliation and
collapsing preliminary determinations,
as discussed above, we separately
calculated weighted-average dumping
margins for: (1) Birlik for the period July
2010 through September 2010; (2)
Bellini for the period October 2010
through May 2011; and (3) Marsan/
Bellini (the collapsed entity of Bellini
and Marsan) for the month of June 2011.
For each of the respondents, we
compared the respective monthly
22 See 19 CFR 351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act.
23 See Final Modification for Reviews.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
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 EP or CEP. 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
24 See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo; see also
Preliminary Results in the 10/11 Administrative
Review on Certain Pasta from Turkey: Calculation
Memorandum for Birlik/Bellini (Preliminary
Calculation Memo Birlik/Bellini). As noted above,
for these these preliminary results, the Department
has applied the weighted-average dumping margin
calculation method adopted in Final Modification
for Reviews. Note that the Department did not
calculate a rate for Marsan Yag because they are
collapsed into the gourp Bellini and Marsan and are
not a producer.
25 Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) from
Turkey, 61 FR 30366 (June 14, 1996).
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices
calculating NV, we used the combined
home market sales volume for Marsan,
Birlik and Bellini, and TAT’s volume of
home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of their U.S. sales
of the subject merchandise.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the
Act, because the respondents 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.26
B. Arm’s-Length Sales
We included in our analysis the
respondents’ home market sales to
affiliated customers only where we
determined that such sales were made at
arm’s-length prices, i.e., at prices
comparable to prices at which identical
merchandise was sold to their
unaffiliated customers. To test whether
the sales to affiliates were made at
arm’s-length prices, we compared the
starting prices of sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers net of all
movement charges, direct selling
expenses, discounts, and packing.
Where the prices to that affiliated party
were, on average, within a range of 98
to 102 percent of the prices of
comparable merchandise sold to
unaffiliated parties, we determined that
the sales made to the affiliated party
were at arm’s-length.27 Conversely,
where we found that the sales to an
affiliated party did not pass the arm’slength test, then all sales to that
affiliated party have been excluded from
the dumping analysis.28
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26 See TAT’s November 9, 2011, section A
response at 3 and also see Marsan’s November 4,
2011, section A response at 4 and Exhibit A–1.
27 See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
28 See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party
Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186,
69187 (November 15, 2002); TAT’s November 9,
2011, section B response at B–3; and also see
Marsan’s November 4, 2011, section B response at
7 and 8.
29 See 97/98 Review Final. Marsan is the
successor-in-interest to Gidasa, who was the
successor-in-interest to Maktas, the company
subject to the 97/98 review cited in this notice.
17:11 Aug 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the
sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses and
packing, in accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act. Except as noted
below, the Department relied on the
COP data submitted by Marsan and
Bellini—the affiliated party we
preliminarily determined to collapse
with Marsan.
We have applied our standard
methodology of using annual costs
based on the reported data. We relied on
the COP data submitted by Marsan on
May 9, 2012, for Bellini, except for the
following adjustments: For Bellini, we
adjusted the per-unit material costs for
one CONNUM sold but not produced
during the POR to account for the cost
of bran consumed. We adjusted Bellini’s
reported total cost of manufacturing
(TCOM) to account for an unreconciled
difference between the total cost of sales
in the audited financial statements and
the extended total cost of manufacturing
captured in the reported cost file.30
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
C. Cost of Production Analysis
As discussed above, because the
Department disregarded below-cost
sales in the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding in which
sales were reviewed for Marsan,29 we
had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that home market sales of the
foreign like product by Marsan were
made at prices below the COP during
the POR, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Department conducted a COP
investigation of sales in the home
market by Marsan. Therefore, we
required Marsan to submit a response to
section D of the Department’s
questionnaire. As discussed above and
in the Affiliation/Collapsing Memo, the
Department has preliminarily
determined to collapse Marsan and
Bellini and, therefore, we have relied on
the cost data from both of these entities.
We compared the weighted-average
COPs for the collapsed Marsan/Bellini
entity 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.31
30 See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director,
Office of Accounting through Taija A. Slaughter,
Lead Accountant from Robert B. Greger, Senior
Accountant, titled ‘‘Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results—Bellini,’’ dated July 30, 2012.
31 See Marsan’s Preliminary Calculation Memo
Birlik/Bellini.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46697
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard
any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more
of the respondent’s home market sales
of a given model were at prices less than
the COP, we disregarded the below-cost
sales because: (1) They were made
within an extended period of time in
‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act; and (2) based on our comparison of
prices to the weighted-average COPs,
they were at prices which would not
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
We found that Marsan/Bellini made
sales below cost and we disregarded
such sales where appropriate.32
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.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we made
deductions from the starting price,
when appropriate, for discounts and
rebates. In accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we
added U.S. packing costs and deducted
comparison market packing,
respectively. We also deducted home
market movement expenses pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In
addition, for comparisons made to EP
sales, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale
(COS) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(b). Specifically, we made
adjustments to NV for comparison to
respondents’ 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).
See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.410(c).33
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 variable cost of manufacturing
32 See Preliminary Calculation Memo Marsan/
Bellini.
33 See Id.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
46698
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices
(VCOM) for the foreign like product and
subject merchandise, using weightedaverage costs.34
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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/or 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 an LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act.
During the POR, TAT reported that all
of its sales were EP sales. TAT produced
and sold pasta to affiliated and
unaffiliated wholesalers/distributors
and retailers in the home market. TAT
sold pasta through two channels of
distribution in the home market. TAT
sold pasta to unaffiliated wholesalers/
distributors in the U.S. market and sold
pasta through one channel of
distribution. TAT claimed that there
were no differences in levels of trade
between sales in the home market and
sales to the United States, and thus TAT
did not provide a selling functions chart
in its Section A Response.35 Therefore,
we preliminarily determine that no level
of trade adjustment is warranted.
Birlik and Bellini produced and sold
the subject merchandise to both
affiliated and unaffiliated companies in
the home and U.S. markets during the
POR. Marsan, an unaffiliated company
purchased pasta from Birlik and Bellini
and sold the purchased pasta to
34 See Marsan’s November 4, 2011, section B
response at 44.
35 See TAT’s November 9, 2011, section B
questionnaire response at 26.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:11 Aug 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
unaffiliated customers in the home
market and U.S. market. Birlik, Bellini,
and Marsan claimed that there were no
differences in levels of trade between
sales in the home market and sales to
the United States.36 Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that no level of
trade adjustment is warranted,
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the official
exchange rates published by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
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, 2010,
through June 30, 2011:
Manufacturer/exporter
Birlik ............................................
Bellini ..........................................
Bellini/Marsan .............................
TAT .............................................
Margin
(percent)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), we intend to disclose the
calculations used in our analysis to
parties to this proceeding within five
days of the publication date of this
notice.
Comments and Hearing
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii),
interested parties may submit case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed no later than 5 days after the time
limit for filing the case briefs in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). As
specified by 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2),
parties who submit arguments are
requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue,
(2) a brief summary of the argument,
and (3) a table of authorities. Written
arguments should be submitted via the
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA
ACCESS).37
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
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
36 See Marsan’s November 4, 20111, section B
questionnaire response at 29.
37 See generally 19 CFR 351.303.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Import Administration, filed
electronically using IA ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by
the Department by 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party’s
name, address and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of issues to be discussed. Issues
raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the respective case briefs
and rebuttal briefs.
The Department intends to publish a
notice of the final results of this
administrative review, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any written comments
or hearing, within 120 days from
publication of this notice, in accordance
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,
unless the time limit is extended.
Assessment
The Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries, pursuant to
section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department
calculated importer-specific duty
assessment rates on the basis of the ratio
of the total antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of the examined
sales for that importer.38 Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to assess duties on all
entries of subject merchandise by that
importer.39 Where the importer-specific
rate is zero or de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping
duties.40 The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of the
final results of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Assessment of
Antidumping Duties. This clarification
will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review 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.41 In such instances, we
38 See
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
id.
40 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
41 As in the 14th Review Final Results, we
preliminarily determine that, for the first eleven
months of the POR when Marsan was not affiliated
with Birlik or Bellini, Marsan was not the first party
in the transaction chain to have knowledge that the
merchandise was destined for the United States.
See Marsan’s November 4, 2011 questionnaire
39 See
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices
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).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will
be effective upon publication of the
final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of certain pasta
from Turkey entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date, as provided
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rate for Marsan/Bellini
and TAT will be the rates established in
the final results of this review (except,
if the rates are zero or de minimis, then
zero 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 period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less-than-fair-value
(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; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
or the LTFV investigation conducted by
the Department, the cash deposit rate
will be 51.49 percent, the All-Others
rate established in the LTFV.42 Because
we preliminarily determine that as of
June 2, 2011, neither Birlik nor Bellini
continue to exist as independent pasta
producers, we are not establishing a
cash deposit rate for these entities.
These cash deposit requirements 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)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping and/or countervailing
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
17:11 Aug 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Dated: July 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–19157 Filed 8–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–863]
Honey From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As discussed below, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) preliminarily determines
that Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Peak’’) failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability and is, therefore,
applying adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of review,
the Deparment will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on entries
of subject merchandise during the
period of review (‘‘POR’’).
DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–2593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Case Timeline
response at 17. Thus, Marsan is not considered the
exporter of subject merchandise during the first
eleven months of the POR for purposes of this
review.
42 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 61 FR
38545 (July 24, 1996).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping and/or
countervailing duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping and/or increase the
antidumping duty by the amount of the
countervailing duties.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
On January 31, 2012, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on honey from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period
December 1, 2010, through November
30, 2011.1
1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 4759
(January 31, 2012) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46699
On March 2, 2012, the Department
issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Peak.2 On March 23,
2012, Peak responded to Section A of
the Department’s questionnaire.3 On
April 9, 2012, Peak submitted a request
for a one-day extension of the deadline
to file its response to Sections C and D
of the Department’s questionnaire, less
than 6 minutes before the deadline,4
which would make the new deadline
April 10, 2012. When the Department
granted Peak’s extension request, the
Department advised Peak to file any
future extension requests as soon as it
suspects additional time may be
necessary.5 On April 9, 2012, Peak
responded to Sections C and D of the
Department’s questionnaire.6 On April
3, 2012, the Department issued Peak a
supplemental Section A questionnaire
with a deadline of April 17, 2012.7 Peak
did not submit a response nor request
an extension by April 17, 2012. Instead,
on April 19, 2012, Peak submitted a
request for an extension of 10 days,
which would have made the new due
date April 27, 2012. On April 20, 2012,
the American Honey Producers
Association and Sioux Honey
Association (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’)
submitted an objection to the untimely
extension request by Peak.8 On April 24,
2012, Peak submitted a rebuttal to
Petitioners Objection to Untimely
Extension Request.9 On April 27, 2012,
Peak requested a second extension of
one day, until April 28, 2012, and
submitted its supplemental Section A
response after the close of business on
April 27, 2012. On May 22, 2012, the
2 See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, Office 9, to Peak, ‘‘Honey from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Non-Market
Economy Questionnaire’’ (March 2, 2012).
3 See Letter from Peak to the Secretary of
Commerce regarding Section A Response (March
23, 2012).
4 See Memo to the File from Kabir Archuletta,
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, ‘‘IA ACCESS
Submission Confirmation for Dongtai Peak Honey
Industry Co., Ltd., Section C and D Questionnaire
Response Extension’’ dated concurrently with this
notice.
5 See Memo to the File from Kabir Archuletta,
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, ‘‘Dongtai Peak
Honey Industry Co., Ltd., Questionnaire Extension’’
(April 9, 2012) (‘‘April 9 Extension Memo’’).
6 See Letter from Peak to the Secretary of
Commerce regarding Section C and D Response
(April 9, 2012).
7 See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, Office 9, to Peak regarding Supplemental
Section A Questionnaire (April 3, 2012) (‘‘Peak
Supplemental Section A’’).
8 See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of
Commerce regarding objection to extension request
by Peak (April 20, 2012) (‘‘Petitioners Objection to
Untimely Extension Request’’).
9 See Letter from Peak to the Secretary of
Commerce regarding Peak’s rebuttal to Petitioners’
objection (April 24, 2012) (‘‘Peak’s Rebuttal to
Petitioners’ Objection’’).
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46694-46699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19157]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-805]
Certain Pasta From Turkey: Notice of Preliminary Results of the
2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta
(pasta) from Turkey for the period of review (POR) July 1, 2010,
through June 30, 2011. The Department initiated the review covering TAT
Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (TAT) and Marsan Gida Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S (Marsan) and its claimed affiliates Birlik Pazarlama Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. (Birlik), Bellini Gida Sanayi A.S. (Bellini), and Marsa
Yag Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Marsa Yag). We preliminarily determine that
during the POR, TAT did not sell subject merchandise at less than
normal value (NV). In addition, we preliminarily determine that Birlik,
Bellini, and Marsan did not sell subject merchandise at less than 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 parties are
invited to comment on these preliminary results. See ``Preliminary
Results of Review'' section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Victoria Cho, 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-
3692 or (202) 482-5075, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2011, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this order for the POR of July 1,
2010, through June 30, 2011.\1\ On July 29, 2011, we received a request
to conduct a review with respect to Marsan and its claimed affiliates:
Birlik, Bellini, and Marsa Yag. We also received a request from TAT for
the Department to conduct an administrative review of TAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 38609 (July 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2011, the Department provided Marsan with an
opportunity to comply with the recently revised certification
requirements with respect to its request for review.\2\ On August 10,
2011, Marsan resubmitted its request for administrative review with the
requisite certification language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 2011, the Department published the notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the
period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
53404 (August 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 14, 2011, the Department issued initial questionnaires
covering sections A, B, C, and D to Marsan and sections A, B, and C to
TAT with a due date of October 21, 2011. Because the Department
disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently completed segment of
the proceeding in which sales were reviewed for Marsan,\4\
[[Page 46695]]
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales
of the foreign like product by Marsan were made at prices below the
cost of production (COP) during the POR, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and
therefore, included section D in the questionnaire to Marsan. After
granting extensions to Marsan, the sections A, B, and C questionnaire
responses were submitted on November 4, 2011, and the section D
questionnaire response was submitted on November 18, 2011. On November
22, 2011, petitioners submitted deficiency comments on sections A
through D of Marsan's initial questionnaire response.\5\ The Department
issued supplemental questionnaires to Marsan between January 13, 2012,
and May 3, 2012. Responses to the Department's supplemental
questionnaires were received from Marsan between January 23, 2012, and
July 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 64 FR 69493
(December 13, 1999) (97/98 Review Final). In June 2009, the
Department found that Marsan was the successor-in-interest to Gidasa
Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AS (Gidasa). See Certain Pasta from
Turkey: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 74 FR 26373 (June 2, 2009). In July 2003, the
Department found that Gidasa was the successor-in-interest to Maktas
Makarnacilik ve Ticaret AS (Maktas). See Notice of Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 68 FR 41554 (July
14, 2003). Maktas was the reviewed company in the 97/98 Review
Final.
\5\ Petitioners are New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers
Pasta Company, and American Italian Pasta Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After granting extensions to TAT, TAT's sections A, B, and C
questionnaire responses were submitted on November 9, 2011. On Novmeber
28, 2011, February 27, 2012, and May 1, 2012, petitioners submitted
deficiency comments for TAT. On February 23, 2012, petitioners
submitted its comments requesting that the Department rescind this
administrative review for TAT because TAT lacked a reviewable entry.
Petitioners urged that the Department request CBP to investigate any
entries of subject merchandise, negligence in importations, and/or
customs fraud made by TAT. The Department issued several supplemental
questionnaires to TAT and we received responses to the Department's
supplemental questionnaires on December 15, 2011, January 10, 2012,
March 29, 2012, and June 15, 2012.
On February 24, 2012, the Department published a notice extending
the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the
administrative review from April 1, 2012, to July 30, 2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Extension of Time Limit for
the Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 77 FR 11065 (February 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is July 1, 2010, through June 30,
2011.
Targeted Dumping Allegations
Petitioners contend that it conducted its own targeted dumping
analysis of Marsan's U.S. sales using the Department's targeted dumping
methodology as applied in Steel Nails and modified in Wood Flooring.\7\
Based on their analysis, petitioners argue the Department should
conduct a targeted dumping analysis and employ average-to-transaction
comparisons without offsets should the Department find that the record
supports its allegation of targeted dumping. Marsan did not comment on
the targeted dumping allegations submitted by the petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Petitioners' Allegation of Targeted Dumping with respect
to Marsan, dated June 15, 2012 (citing Certain Steel Nails from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008) (Steel Nails), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8 (Steel
Nails); Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR
64318 (Oct. 18, 2011) (Wood Flooring), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department did not
conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary
weighted-average dumping margin, the Department applied the calculation
methodology adopted in the Final Modification for Reviews.\8\ In
particular, the Department compared monthly, weighted-average export
prices with monthly, weighted-average normal values, and granted
offsets for negative comparison results in the calculation of the
weighted-average dumping margins.\9\ Application of this methodology in
these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to
meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this
recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012)
(Final Modification for Reviews).
\9\ See id. at 8102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry
pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or
not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional
ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten,
diastases, 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 review 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.
The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to
the order is dispositive.
Affiliation and Collapsing
As discussed above, in its request for review, Marsan requested a
review of itself and three companies (Birlik, Bellini, and Marsa Yag)
which it claimed as affiliates. In the instant review, the Department
preliminarily finds that Birlik, Bellini and Marsa Yag are affiliated
in accordance with sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act based on
ownership structure and major shareholder controlling interest in these
three subsidiaries.\10\ At the outset of the POR, Birlik operated the
pasta production facility, but Bellini took over operation of the pasta
production facility in October 2010.\11\ Because Birlik and Bellini
operated the pasta production facility during different periods and
both companies were not producing subject merchandise at the same time,
the Department preliminarily determines that it is not appropriate to
treat these companies as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Office Director, Office
3 from the Team, titled ``Whether to Treat Marsan and its Claimed
Affiliates as a Single Entity for Margin Calculation Purposes,''
dated July 30, 2012 (Affiliation/Collapsing Memo).
\11\ See Marsan's November 4, 2011, questionnaire response at 7.
\12\ See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with our findings in the prior review,\13\ the
Department finds that Marsan was not affiliated with Birlik or Bellini,
prior to June 2, 2011.\14\ However, as discussed in more detail in the
Affiliation/Collapsing Memo, the Department preliminarily determines
[[Page 46696]]
that effective June 2, 2011, Marsan and Bellini became affiliated
persons within the meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Notice of Final Results of
the 14th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 68339
(November 4, 2011) (14th Review Final Results), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo) at Comments 1 and 2.
\14\ See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
\15\ See Marsan's November 4, 2011, questionnaire response at 9
and Exhibit 4, and Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon finding Bellini to be affiliated with Marsan for the last
month of the POR, the Department has also considered whether to treat
Bellini and Marsan as a single entity for that month pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f). Based upon the level of common ownership and the
intertwining of the production and distribution operations of these
companies after the acquisition of Marsan, the Department preliminarily
finds there to be significant potential for manipulation of price or
production of subject merchandise and has thus treated Bellini and
Marsan as a single entity for the last month of the POR, referred to
hereafter as Marsan/Bellini.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature of TAT's Sales
Petitioners have raised various concerns about the nature of TAT's
sales of subject merchandise to the United States, including whether
TAT has reviewable entries and whether its sales prices are consistent
with normal commercial practices.\17\ Record information indicates that
TAT has at least one reviewable entry, allowing the Department to
continue with its review of TAT.\18\ With respect to petitioners'
concerns about the nature of TAT's sales, the Department does not find
support for those allegations in record evidence at this time because
they are mainly premised upon petitioners' contentions that TAT does
not have any reviewable entries subject to antidumping duty
liability,\19\ which the Department preliminarily finds not to be case
as addressed above. Petitioners also question whether TAT's sales to
its U.S. customers were conducted at arm's length.\20\ Record evidence,
however, establishes that TAT is not affiliated with its U.S. customers
\21\ and petitioners have not identified information on the record
demonstrating otherwise. However, we will continue to consider this
matter. Should we determine that petitioners' concerns have merit we
will further investigate in the context of this administrative review
and, if necessary, conduct an analysis of whether TAT's sales are bona
fide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Petitioners' February 23, 2012, submission.
\18\ See, e.g., TAT's March 29, 2012, submission at Attachment
1.
\19\ See Petitioners' February 23, 2012, submission at 3-5.
\20\ See id.
\21\ See TAT's November 9, 2011, section A questionnaire
response at 9-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Comparisons
For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines
``foreign like product'' as merchandise which is either (1) identical
or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When no
identical products are sold in the home market, the products which are
most similar to the product sold in the United States are identified.
For the non-identical or most similar products which are identified
based on the Department's product matching criteria, an adjustment is
made to the NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in
the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United
States and the home market.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 19 CFR 351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted
to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States
and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the
following characteristics: (1) Pasta shape; (2) wheat species; (3)
milling form; (4) protein content; (5) additives; and (6) enrichment.
Where 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.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Turkey were made
in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP)
to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice. In particular, the Department compared
monthly, weighted-average export prices with monthly, weighted-average
normal values, and granted offsets for negative comparison results in
the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margins.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Final Modification for Reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our affiliation and collapsing preliminary determinations,
as discussed above, we separately calculated weighted-average dumping
margins for: (1) Birlik for the period July 2010 through September
2010; (2) Bellini for the period October 2010 through May 2011; and (3)
Marsan/Bellini (the collapsed entity of Bellini and Marsan) for the
month of June 2011. For each of the respondents, we compared the
respective monthly weighted-average NVs to monthly, weighted-average
export prices.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo; see also Preliminary
Results in the 10/11 Administrative Review on Certain Pasta from
Turkey: Calculation Memorandum for Birlik/Bellini (Preliminary
Calculation Memo Birlik/Bellini). As noted above, for these these
preliminary results, the Department has applied the weighted-average
dumping margin calculation method adopted in Final Modification for
Reviews. Note that the Department did not calculate a rate for
Marsan Yag because they are collapsed into the gourp Bellini and
Marsan and are not a producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP, 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 EP for each of the respondents' U.S. sales because they
were made to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States and
constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the
facts on the record.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including foreign
inland freight from plant/warehouse to customer. 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta (``Pasta'') from Turkey, 61 FR 30366 (June 14, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
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 EP or CEP. 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
[[Page 46697]]
calculating NV, we used the combined home market sales volume for
Marsan, Birlik and Bellini, and TAT's volume of home market sales of
the foreign like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the
respondents 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See TAT's November 9, 2011, section A response at 3 and
also see Marsan's November 4, 2011, section A response at 4 and
Exhibit A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Arm's-Length Sales
We included in our analysis the respondents' home market sales to
affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales were made
at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to prices at which
identical merchandise was sold to their unaffiliated customers. To test
whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we
compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses,
discounts, and packing. Where the prices to that affiliated party were,
on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the prices of
comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that
the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's-length.\27\
Conversely, where we found that the sales to an affiliated party did
not pass the arm's-length test, then all sales to that affiliated party
have been excluded from the dumping analysis.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
\28\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002);
TAT's November 9, 2011, section B response at B-3; and also see
Marsan's November 4, 2011, section B response at 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Cost of Production Analysis
As discussed above, because the Department disregarded below-cost
sales in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which
sales were reviewed for Marsan,\29\ we had reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product
by Marsan were made at prices below the COP during the POR, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted a COP
investigation of sales in the home market by Marsan. Therefore, we
required Marsan to submit a response to section D of the Department's
questionnaire. As discussed above and in the Affiliation/Collapsing
Memo, the Department has preliminarily determined to collapse Marsan
and Bellini and, therefore, we have relied on the cost data from both
of these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 97/98 Review Final. Marsan is the successor-in-interest
to Gidasa, who was the successor-in-interest to Maktas, the company
subject to the 97/98 review cited in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing, in accordance
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Except as noted below, the
Department relied on the COP data submitted by Marsan and Bellini--the
affiliated party we preliminarily determined to collapse with Marsan.
We have applied our standard methodology of using annual costs
based on the reported data. We relied on the COP data submitted by
Marsan on May 9, 2012, for Bellini, except for the following
adjustments: For Bellini, we adjusted the per-unit material costs for
one CONNUM sold but not produced during the POR to account for the cost
of bran consumed. We adjusted Bellini's reported total cost of
manufacturing (TCOM) to account for an unreconciled difference between
the total cost of sales in the audited financial statements and the
extended total cost of manufacturing captured in the reported cost
file.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of
Accounting through Taija A. Slaughter, Lead Accountant from Robert
B. Greger, Senior Accountant, titled ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results--Bellini,'' dated July 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
We compared the weighted-average COPs for the collapsed Marsan/
Bellini entity 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Marsan's Preliminary Calculation Memo Birlik/Bellini.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market
sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded
the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended
period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs, they were at prices
which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We found that Marsan/Bellini made sales below cost and we
disregarded such sales where appropriate.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Preliminary Calculation Memo Marsan/Bellini.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(c), we made deductions from the starting price, when
appropriate, for discounts and rebates. In accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and
deducted comparison market packing, respectively. We also deducted home
market movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b). Specifically, we
made adjustments to NV for comparison to respondents' 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). See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.410(c).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 variable cost of manufacturing
[[Page 46698]]
(VCOM) for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using
weighted-average costs.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Marsan's November 4, 2011, section B response at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/or 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 an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
During the POR, TAT reported that all of its sales were EP sales.
TAT produced and sold pasta to affiliated and unaffiliated wholesalers/
distributors and retailers in the home market. TAT sold pasta through
two channels of distribution in the home market. TAT sold pasta to
unaffiliated wholesalers/distributors in the U.S. market and sold pasta
through one channel of distribution. TAT claimed that there were no
differences in levels of trade between sales in the home market and
sales to the United States, and thus TAT did not provide a selling
functions chart in its Section A Response.\35\ Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that no level of trade adjustment is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See TAT's November 9, 2011, section B questionnaire
response at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birlik and Bellini produced and sold the subject merchandise to
both affiliated and unaffiliated companies in the home and U.S. markets
during the POR. Marsan, an unaffiliated company purchased pasta from
Birlik and Bellini and sold the purchased pasta to unaffiliated
customers in the home market and U.S. market. Birlik, Bellini, and
Marsan claimed that there were no differences in levels of trade
between sales in the home market and sales to the United States.\36\
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that no level of trade adjustment
is warranted,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Marsan's November 4, 20111, section B questionnaire
response at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates
published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
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, 2010, through June 30, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birlik...................................................... 0.00
Bellini..................................................... 0.00
Bellini/Marsan.............................................. 0.00
TAT......................................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we intend to disclose the
calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within
five days of the publication date of this notice.
Comments and Hearing
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs,
may be filed no later than 5 days after the time limit for filing the
case briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). As specified by 19
CFR 351.309(c)(2), parties who submit arguments are requested to submit
with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary
of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Written arguments
should be submitted via the Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA
ACCESS).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See generally 19 CFR 351.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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,
filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document
must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department by 5
p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication
of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address
and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of
issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs.
The Department intends to publish a notice of the final results of
this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within
120 days from publication of this notice, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless the time limit is extended.
Assessment
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department calculated importer-
specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of the examined sales for that importer.\38\ Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.\39\
Where the importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.\40\ The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\39\ See id.
\40\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Assessment of Antidumping Duties. This clarification
will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of
review 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.\41\ In such instances, we
[[Page 46699]]
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ As in the 14th Review Final Results, we preliminarily
determine that, for the first eleven months of the POR when Marsan
was not affiliated with Birlik or Bellini, Marsan was not the first
party in the transaction chain to have knowledge that the
merchandise was destined for the United States. See Marsan's
November 4, 2011 questionnaire response at 17. Thus, Marsan is not
considered the exporter of subject merchandise during the first
eleven months of the POR for purposes of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication
of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
certain pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Marsan/Bellini
and TAT will be the rates established in the final results of this
review (except, if the rates are zero or de minimis, then zero 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 period; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or
the less-than-fair-value (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; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
review or the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 51.49 percent, the All-Others rate established in
the LTFV.\42\ Because we preliminarily determine that as of June 2,
2011, neither Birlik nor Bellini continue to exist as independent pasta
producers, we are not establishing a cash deposit rate for these
entities. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From
Turkey, 61 FR 38545 (July 24, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice 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 and/or countervailing duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
and/or increase the antidumping duty by the amount of the
countervailing duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-19157 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
