[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77857-77859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31754]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-805]
Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review: certain pasta from Turkey.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We determine that sales of the subject merchandise have not
been made below normal value (NV).
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Cindy Lai Robinson,
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office VI, Group II, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-3965 or (202) 482-3797, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act'') are references to the provisions
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition,
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351
(1999).
[[Page 77858]]
Case History
On August 8, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. See Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy, 65 FR 48474
(``Preliminary Results''). As discussed in the preliminary results,
this review covers shipments by one respondent, Filiz Gida Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S (``Filiz''), during the period of review (``POR'') July 1,
1998 through June 30, 1999. Interested parties did not submit case
briefs nor did they request a hearing. There have been no changes since
the preliminary results.
Scope of Review
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.
Scope Rulings
The Department has issued the following scope ruling to date:
(1) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope
inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a
result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999 we issued a
final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in
packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four
ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. See ``Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland,''
dated May 24, 1999, in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main
Commerce building, room B-099 (``the CRU'').
Price Comparisons
We calculated export price and normal value (``NV'') based on the
same methodology described in the Preliminary Results.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether the respondent participating in the
review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the
POR at prices below its cost of production (``COP'') within the meaning
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We calculated the COP for these final
results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results.
We found 20 percent or more of Filiz's sales of a given product
during the six-month reporting period were at prices less than the
weighted-average COP for the reporting period and thus determined that
these below cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within
an extended period of time in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act. As discussed in the preliminary results, in our
September 1, 1999 letter, we granted Filiz a six-month limited
reporting period, and we advised Filiz that if it elected to limit its
reporting of home market data to the six-month period, in the sales-
below-cost investigation, it would forgo the application of the
``recovery of cost'' test pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Filiz agreed to accept this limitation on September 7, 1999.
Consequently, without the application of ``recovery of cost'' test, we
determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these
final results, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act. While we disregarded some below-cost sales,
sufficient sales remained that passed the cost test in the current
review. Therefore, it was unnecessary to calculate constructed value in
this case.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Results. As noted above, we received no comments from the
petitioners or Filiz.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that Filiz had a zero
weighted-average margin for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30,
1999.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. For
assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates
for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all
U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total
entered value of the sales to that importer. Where appropriate, in
order to calculate the entered value, we subtracted international
movement expenses (e.g., international freight) from the gross sales
value. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis
we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on that
importer's entries of subject merchandise.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash-deposit rate for Filiz in this administrative
review, we divided the total dumping margins for Filiz by the total net
value for Filiz's sales during the review period.
Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be
effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Turkey
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption upon publication
of these final results of administrative review, as provided by
sections 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
Filiz will be zero; (2) for other previously reviewed or investigated
companies, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original
less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in
any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be
51.49 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation. 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).
[[Page 77859]]
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also 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. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)(1) and 19
USC 1677f(i)(1)).
Dated: December 1, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-31754 Filed 12-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P