Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47201 

1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Dated: September 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

List of Comments in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether to Collapse Venus and 

Affiliated Producer Sieves 

Comment 2: Whether Certain U.S. Sales by 

Venus are Constructed Export Price 

(‘‘CEP’’) or Export Price (‘‘EP’’) Sales and 

Whether A Principal-Agent Relationship 

Exists 

Comment 3: Alleged Reporting Deficiencies 

for Venus and Sieves 

3a: Bahubali’s and Venus Metal’s 

Involvement in the Production/Sale of 

Stainless Steel Bar 

3b: Hindustan’s Involvement in the 

Production/Sale of Stainless Steel Bar 

3c: Hitech’s Involvement in the 

Production/Sale of Stainless Steel Bar 

3d: Affiliated Party Loans 

3e: Affiliated Party Transactions 

Comment 4: Whether Respondents Failed to 

Follow the Procedural Requirements of 

the Department’s Regulations 

Comment 5: Venus’ Request to Revise Its U.S. 

Sales Database to Reflect a Billing 

Adjustment 

Comment 6: Comparison of Certain Similar 

Merchandise Sold in the Home Market 

Comment 7: Whether Certain Home Market 

Sales are Outside the Ordinary Course of 

Trade and Whether the Department 

Should Make a Level of Trade 

Adjustment 

Comment 8: Offsetting Negative Margins 

Comment 9: Whether to Rely on DoubleBracketed Information 

[FR Doc. E9–22069 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–331–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Ecuador: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 

Ecuador. This review covers 81 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2007, through August 14, 2007. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes in the margin 

calculations for Promarisco, S.A. 

(Promarisco) and Sociedad Nacional de 

Galapagos, S.A. (Songa), producer/ 

exporters selected for individual review. 

Therefore, the final results for 

Promarisco and Songa differ from the 

preliminary results. The final weighted– 

average dumping margins for the 

reviewed firms are listed below in the 

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’ 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This review covers 81 producers/ 

exporters. The respondents which the 

Department selected for individual 

review are Promarisco and Songa. The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual review are listed in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

On March 9, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the 2007 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on shrimp from 

Ecuador. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 9983 

(March 9, 2009) (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on those 

Preliminary Results. In May 2009, we 

received case briefs from the domestic 

producers of frozen warmwater shrimp 

(i.e., the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action 

Committee, hereafter ‘‘Domestic 

Producers’’), the respondents, 

Promarisco and Songa, and the domestic 

processors of frozen warmwater shrimp 

(‘‘the Processors’’), an interested party 

in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs were 

received from the Domestic Producers, 

Promarisco, Songa, and the Processors. 

In June 2009, we extended the 

deadline for the final results, due no 

later than September 8, 2009. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Ecuador: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the Third 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 28018 

(June 12, 2009). 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm–raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head–on or head–off, 

shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,1

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild– 

caught warmwater species include, but 

are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp 

(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 

(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 

(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: 1) 

breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell–on or peeled 

(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47202 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

2This rate is based on the simple average of the 

margins calculated for those companies selected for 

individual examination, excluding de minimis 

margins or margins based entirely on FA, as 

discussed above. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product: 1) that is produced from fresh 

(or thawed–from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; 2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of 

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; 3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; 4) with the non–shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and 10 percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par–fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2007, through 

August 14, 2007. 

Cost of Production 

As discussed in the Preliminary 

Results, we conducted this 

administrative review to determine 

whether Promarisco and Songa made 

third country sales of the foreign like 

product during the POR at prices below 

their costs of production (COP) within 

the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act. For Promarisco and Songa, we 

performed the cost test for these final 

results following the same methodology 

as in the Preliminary Results, except as 

discussed in the decision memorandum 

accompanying this notice (the Decision 

Memo). 

We found that 20 percent or more of 

each respondent’s sales of a given 

product during the reporting period 

were at prices less than the weighted– 

average COP for this period. Thus, we 

determined that these below–cost sales 

were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ 

within an extended period of time and 

at prices which did not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in the normal course of 

trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of 

the Act. 

Therefore, for purposes of these final 

results, we find that Promarisco and 

Songa made below–cost sales not in the 

ordinary course of trade. Consequently, 

we disregarded these sales for each 

respondent and used the remaining 

sales as the basis for determining 

normal value pursuant to section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties to this administrative review, 

and to which we have responded, are 

listed in the Appendix to this notice and 

addressed in the Decision Memo, which 

is adopted by this notice. 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 Central Records Unit, HCHB Room 

1117, of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(Decision Memo) can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes in the margin 

calculations for Promarisco and Songa. 

These changes are discussed in the 

relevant sections of the Decision Memo. 

In addition, we have changed our 

calculation of the margins and 

assessment rates applicable to the 

companies not selected for individual 

examination to reflect the simple 

average of the margins calculated for the 

respondents selected for individual 

examination in this review, rather than 

the weighted average of these margins, 

excluding de minimis margins or 

margins based entirely on facts available 

(FA). This is consistent with our current 

practice with respect to the calculation 

of the margins and assessment rates 

applicable to non–mandatory 

respondents in cases such as the instant 

one, where there are only two 

mandatory respondents with above de 

minimis margins, or margins based 

entirely upon FA. See Ball Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 

Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent 

to Rescind Reviews in Part, 73 FR 

25654, 25655 (May 7, 2008); unchanged 

in Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in 

Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 

2008). 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that weighted–average 

dumping margins exist for the 

respondents for the period February 1, 

2007, through August 14, 2007, as 

follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Promarisco, S.A. ........... 0.85 

Sociedad Nacional de 

Galapagos C.A. 

(Songa) ..................... 0.75 

Review–Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies:2

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Agricola e Industrial 

Ecuaplantation SA .... 0.80 

Agrol SA ....................... 0.80 

Alberto Xavier 

Mosquera Rosado ..... 0.80 

Alquimia Marina SA ...... 0.80 

Babychic SA ................. 0.80 

Biolife SA ...................... 0.80 

Braistar ......................... 0.80 

Camaronera Jenn 

Briann ........................ 0.80 

Camarones ................... 0.80 

Comar Cia Ltda. ........... 0.80 

Doblertel SA ................. 0.80 

Dumary SA ................... 0.80 

Dunci SA ....................... 0.80 

El Rosario Ersa SA ...... 0.80 

Empacadora Bilbo SA 

(Bilbosa) .................... 0.80 

Empacadora del 

Pacifico SA 

(EDPACIF SA) .......... 0.80 

Empacadora Dufer Cia. 

Ltda. (DUFER) .......... 0.80 

Empacadora Grupo 

Gran Mar (Empagran) 

SA ............................. 0.80 

Empacadora Nacional 

CA ............................. 0.80 

Empacadora y 

Exportadora Calvi 

Cia. Ltda. ................... 0.80 

Emprede SA ................. 0.80 

Estar CA ....................... 0.80 

Exporclam SA ............... 0.80 

Exporklore SA ............... 0.80 

Exportadora Bananera 

Noboa ........................ 0.80 

Exportadora de 

Productos de Mar 

(Produmar) ................ 0.80 

Exportadora del Oceano 

(Oceanexa) CA ......... 0.80 

Exportadora Langosmar 

SA ............................. 0.80 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47203 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Exportadora del Oceano 

Pacifico SA 

(OCEANPAC) ............ 0.80 

Exports Langosmar SA 0.80 

Fortumar Ecuador SA ... 0.80 

Gambas del Pacifico SA 0.80 

Gondi SA ...................... 0.80 

Hector Canino Marty .... 0.80 

Hectorosa SA ............... 0.80 

Industrial Pesquera 

Santa Priscila SA 

(Santa Priscila) .......... 0.80 

Inepexa SA ................... 0.80 

Jorge Luis Benitez 

Lopez ........................ 0.80 

Karpicorp SA ................ 0.80 

Luis Loaiza Alvarez ...... 0.80 

Mardex Cia. Ltda. ......... 0.80 

Marine ........................... 0.80 

Marines CA ................... 0.80 

Mariscos de 

Chupadores 

Chupamar ................. 0.80 

Mariscos del Ecuador 

C. Ltda. (Marecuador) 0.80 

Natural Select SA ......... 0.80 

Negocios Industriales 

Real Nirsa SA 

(NIRSA) ..................... 0.80 

Novapesca SA .............. 0.80 

Ocean Fish ................... 0.80 

Oceaninvest SA ............ 0.80 

Oceanmundo SA .......... 0.80 

Oceanpro SA ................ 0.80 

Operadora y 

Procesadora de 

Productos Marinos 

SA (Omarsa) ............. 0.80 

Oyerly SA ..................... 0.80 

P.C. Seafood SA .......... 0.80 

Pacfish SA .................... 0.80 

PCC Congelados & 

Frescos SA ............... 0.80 

Pescazul SA ................. 0.80 

Peslasa SA ................... 0.80 

Phillips Seafoods of Ecuador CA (Phillips) .... 0.80 

Pisacua SA ................... 0.80 

Procesadora del Rio SA 

(Proriosa) .................. 0.80 

Productos Cultivados 

del Mar Proc. ............ 0.80 

Productos Cultivados 

del Mar Proculmar 

Cia. Ltda. ................... 0.80 

Productos del Mar 

Santa Rosa Cia. Ltda. 

(Promarosa) .............. 0.80 

Propemar SA ................ 0.80 

Provefrut ....................... 0.80 

Rommy Roxana Alvarez 

Anchundia ................. 0.80 

Sea Pronto Hector 

Marty Canino (Sea 

Pronto) ...................... 0.80 

Sociedad Atlantico 

Pacifico SA ................ 0.80 

Soitgar SA .................... 0.80 

Studmark SA ................ 0.80 

Tecnica y Comercio de 

la Pesca CA 

(TECOPESCA) .......... 0.80 

Tolyp SA ....................... 0.80 

Trans Ocean ................. 0.80 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Transcity SA ................. 0.80 

Transmarina CA ........... 0.80 

Transocean Ecuador 

SA ............................. 0.80 

Uniline Transport System ............................ 0.80 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. 

Because Promarisco and Songa each 

reported the entered value of all of their 

U.S. sales, we have calculated an 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rate based on the ratio of the 

total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales for each respective importer. We 

have calculated a single importer– 

specific assessment rate for Promarisco 

and Songa, consistent with our practice 

in the final results of the 2006 2007 

administrative review (see Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Ecuador: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39945 

(July 11, 2008)). See also Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and Singapore: 

Final Results of the Antidumping 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Review in part, and 

Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 2003), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 9B; and 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products From 

Canada, 69 FR 75921 (December 20, 

2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. 

For the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual review, 

we have calculated an assessment rate 

based on the simple average of the 

margins calculated for the companies 

selected for individual review excluding 

any which are de minimis or 

determined entirely on FA. 

We will instruct Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 

See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The 

Department will issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– 

others rate established in the LTFV 

investigation if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Discontinuation of Cash Deposit 

Requirements 

On August 15, 2007, in accordance 

with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) 

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

the U.S. Trade Representative, after 

consulting with the Department and 

Congress, directed the Department to 

implement its determination to revoke 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. 

See Implementation of the Findings of 

the WTO Panel in United States 

Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from 

Ecuador: Notice of Determination Under 

section 129 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act and Revocation of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 72 

FR 48257 (August 23, 2007). 

Accordingly, the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from Ecuador was revoked 

effective August 15, 2007. As a result, 

we have instructed CBP to discontinue 

collection of cash deposits of 

antidumping duties on entries of the 

subject merchandise. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility, 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47204 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of review in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

September 8, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix Issues in Decision Memo 

General Comments: 

Comment 1: Offsetting of Negative 

Margins 

Comment 2: Using CBP Data for 

Respondent Selection 

Comment 3: Restricting Count–Size 

Comparisons Under the Model– 

Matching Methodology 

Comment 4: Assessment Rate Assigned 

to Companies Receiving the Review– 

Specific Average Rate 

Comment 5: Reporting of Raw Material 

Costs 

Company–Specific Comments: 

Promarisco 

Comment 6: Use of Adverse Facts 

Available to Calculate Promarisco’s 

Imputed Credit Expenses 

Comment 7: Treatment of Promarisco’s 

Bill of Lading Fees and Analysis and 

Inspection Fees 

Comment 8: Adjustment of Promarisco’s 

Indirect Selling Expenses 

Comment 9: Treatment of Promarisco’s 

U.S. and Comparison–Market Billing 

Adjustments 

Comment 10: Payment Date Assigned 

for Certain U.S. sales 

Comment 11: Treatment of Write–offs in 

G&A Expenses 

Comment 12: Treatment of Promarisco’s 

Interest Income Offset 

Comment 13: Processing Costs for 

Block–Frozen Products 

Comment 14: Calculation of Entered 

Value for a Certain U.S. Sale 

Songa 

Comment 15: Revision of Count–Size 

Range Model–Match Coding for Certain 

Head–On Shrimp Products 

Comment 16: Completeness of Indirect 

Selling Expense Reporting 

Comment 17: Inclusion of Foreign 

Exchange Losses in Songa’s Financial 

Expense Ratio 

Comment 18: Treatment of Depreciation 

for Revalued Fixed Assets in Fixed 

Overhead Costs 

Comment 19: Amortization of the Cost 

of Export Certificates in Financial 

Expenses 

Comment 21: Offset Adjustment to G&A 

Expenses for Certain Non–Operating 

Income Items 

[FR Doc. E9–22186 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–475–819] 

Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results 

of the 12th (2007) Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) has 

completed its administrative review of 

the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order 

on certain pasta from Italy for the period 

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007. On May 28, 2009, we published 

the Preliminary Results of this review. 

See Certain Pasta from Italy: 

Preliminary Results of the 12th (2007) 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 25489 (May 28, 2009) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We did not 

receive any comments on the 

Preliminary Results and have made no 

revisions. We find that De Matteis 

Agroalimentare S.p.A. (‘‘De Matteis’’) 

received countervailable subsidies. The 

final net subsidy rate for De Matteis is 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelly Atkinson or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0116 and (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published a CVD order on certain pasta 

(‘‘pasta’’ or ‘‘subject merchandise’’) from 

Italy. See Notice of Countervailing Duty 

Order and Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544 

(July 24, 1996). On July 11, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review’’ of this CVD order for calendar 

year 2007, the period of review (‘‘POR’’). 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39948 

(July 11, 2008). On July 28, 2008, we 

received such a request from F.lli De 

Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino 

S.p.A. (‘‘De Cecco’’). On July 31, 2008, 

we received a review request for review 

from De Matteis. On July 31, 2008, we 

received a collective request from New 

World Pasta Company, American Italian 

Pasta Company, and Dakota Growers 

Pasta Company (‘‘petitioners’’) for a 

review of De Matteis. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we 

published a notice of initiation of this 

review on August 26, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). 

On September 15, 2008, we issued 

CVD questionnaires to the Commission 

of the European Union (‘‘EU’’), the 

Government of Italy (‘‘GOI’’), De 

Matteis, and De Cecco. We received 

responses to our questionnaires in 

October and November 2008. On 

December 22, 2008, De Cecco withdrew 

its request for review. On January 27, 

2009, we rescinded the review with 

respect to De Cecco. See Certain Pasta 

From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission 

of Twelfth (2007) Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 4734 

(January 27, 2009). 

We issued supplemental 

questionnaires to De Matteis and the 

GOI in December 2008, January 2009, 

and March 2009, and we received 

responses to our supplemental 

questionnaires in December 2008, 

February 2009, March 2009, and April 

2009. 

Since the publication of the 

Preliminary Results, we invited 

interested parties to submit briefs. No 

briefs were received. 

Period of Review 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 

1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES