[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 298-300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-126]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-805]
Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke the Antidumping
Duty Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order in
Part: Certain Pasta from Turkey.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 28, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. This review covers
the following exporters/producers of subject merchandise: (1)
Pastavilla Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Pastavilla); and (2)
Filiz Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Filiz). The period of review (POR)
is July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, these final results
differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed in
the section ``Final Results of Review.'' For our final results, we have
found that during the POR, Pastavilla sold subject merchandise at less
than normal value (NV). In addition, we are not revoking the
antidumping order with respect to Pastavilla, because it has not had
three years of sales in commercial quantities at less than NV. See
``Determination Not to Revoke'' section of this notice. We have also
found that during the POR, Filiz did not make sales of the subject
merchandise at less than NV (i.e., it had ``zero'' or de minimis
dumping margins).
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Lyman Armstrong, 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) 482-3601, 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 (2000).
Case History
On June 28, 2001, 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 Turkey, 66 FR 34410 (June 28, 2001) (Preliminary Results). The
review covers two manufacturers/exporters. The POR is July 1, 1999,
through June 30, 2000. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary
results of review. In response to the Department's invitation to
comment on the preliminary results of this review, New World Pasta, a
petitioner\1\ in the case, filed a case brief on August 2, 2001, and
the respondents filed case briefs on August 6, 2001. We received
rebuttal briefs from New World Pasta and Pastavilla on August 13, 2001.
A public hearing was not held with respect to this review because no
party requested one. On September 26, 2001, respondents requested that
the Department extend its final results in order to incorporate in our
margin calculation programs the results from the most recently
completed reviews of the countervailing duty order on pasta from
Turkey. On November 1, 2001, the Department published a notice
postponing the final results of this review until December 25, 2001 (66
FR 55160). The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are Borden Inc., Hershey Foods Corp.
(Hershey Pasta), Grocery Corp Inc., and Gooch Foods, Inc. (effective
January 1, 1999, Hershey Pasta and Grocery Corp., Inc. became New
World Pasta, Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 299]]
Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099 (the CRU).
Determination Not To Revoke
Pastavilla has had zero or de minimis dumping margins for the
previous two review periods. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey 64 FR 69493
(December 13, 1999); see also, Notice of Final Results and Partial
Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from
Turkey 63 FR 68429 (December 11, 1998). However, as shown in the final
results of this review, Pastavilla's weight-averaged dumping margin is
2.78 percent, which is above the de minimis rate of 0.50 percent. See
19 CFR 351.106(c). Consequently, Pastavilla has not made sales of
subject merchandise ``at not less than NV for a period of at least
three consecutive years'' as required by the Department's regulations.
Because one of the requirements to qualify for revocation has not been
met, the Department has not addressed the issues of commercial
quantities and whether the continued application of the antidumping
duty order is necessary to offset dumping with regard to Pastavilla.
Thus, we determine not to revoke this order with respect to Pastavilla.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
(Decision Memorandum) from Bernard Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have
raised, and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum, is
attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain
changes in the margin calculations. We calculated the export price and
normal value using the same methodology stated in the Preliminary
Results, except as follows:
For the countervailing duty field (i.e., CVDU) reported by
Filiz, in the preliminary results, the Department mistakenly divided
Filiz's reported figure by one thousand, on the premise that the figure
was reported in $/metric ton and therefore must be converted to $/
kilogram. We have corrected this error by not converting this field for
purposes of these final results. In addition, we have reevaluated the
appropriate amount of countervailing duties applicable to the dumping
calculations for Filiz and Pastavilla.
The Department has deleted its re-indexing of Pastavilla's
fixed overhead (FOH) field and, instead, accepted Pastavilla's indexing
of its FOH reported in the cost database.
The Department corrected a typographical error for the
amount to be indexed for hyper-inflation for the month of August 1999
in its affiliated party program.
These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the
Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 1999,
through June 30, 2000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filiz...................................................... 0.00
Pastavilla................................................. 2.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rate
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific
assessment rates 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 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. We will
direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the
entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that
importer's entries under the order during the POR.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review
for all shipments of certain pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except where the
margin is de minimis or zero we will instruct Customs not to collect
cash deposits; (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
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)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to 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). These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled 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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 300]]
Dated: December 26, 2001.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum
Filiz and Pastavilla
1. Calculation of the Countervailing Duty (CVD) Field
Pastavilla
2. Calculation of Warranty Expense
3. Application of Negative Interest Cost
4. Indexing Fixed Overhead Costs
5. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order with Respect to
Pastavilla
6. Clerical Error in the Affiliated Party Program
[FR Doc. 02-126 Filed 1-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P