48122 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–818] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of 

Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

Final Results of Administrative Review 

and Notice of Amended Final Results 

of Administrative Review Pursuant to 

Court Decision 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 22, 2011, the United 

States Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’s’’) 

results of redetermination as applied to 

Atar, S.r.L. (‘‘Atar’’) pursuant to the 

CIT’s order granting the Department’s 

voluntary remand request in Atar, S.r.L. 

v. United States, 08–00004, (November 

10, 2009) (‘‘Remand Order’’). See Final 

Remand Determination, Court No. 08– 

00004, filed May 6, 2010 (‘‘Remand 

Results’’), and Atar, S.r.L. v. United 

States, Court No. 08–00004, Slip Op. 

11–87 (July 22, 2011). The Department 

is notifying the public that the final CIT 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with the Department’s final 

determination and is amending the final 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

pasta from Italy covering the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) of July 1, 2005, through 

June 30, 2006, with respect to Atar. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett, 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) 482–4161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 11, 2007, the 

Department published its final results of 

the administrative review for pasta from 

Italy for the period from July 1, 2005, 

through June 30, 2006. See Certain 

Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results 

of the Tenth Administrative Review and 

Partial Rescission of Review, 72 FR 

70298 (December 11, 2007) (‘‘Final 

Results’’). 

Atar appealed the Final Results to the 

CIT arguing, among other things, that 

the Department should not have 

rescinded the review with respect to 

Atar. On October 23, 2009, the 

Department requested a voluntary 

remand ‘‘to allow the Department to 

reconsider its rescission of the 

administrative review with respect to 

Atar.’’ See Memorandum in Response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment upon the 

Agency Record at 4. On November 10, 

2009, the CIT granted the Department’s 

request for a remand to reconsider its 

rescission of the administrative review 

with respect to Atar. See Remand Order. 

On May 6, 2010, the Department 

issued its final results of remand 

redetermination in which it determined 

to issue final results of review with 

respect to Atar rather than rescind the 

review. See Remand Results. On July 22, 

2011, the CIT affirmed the Department’s 

Remand Results. See Atar, S.r.L. v. 

United States, Court No. 08–00004, Slip 

Op. 11–87 (July 22, 2011). Timken 

Notice 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co. 

v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (CAFC 

1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by 

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (CAFC 

2010), pursuant to section 516A(c) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department must publish a 

notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in 

harmony’’ with a Department 

determination and must suspend 

liquidation of entries pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

judgment on July 22, 2011, sustaining 

the Department’s Remand Results with 

respect to Atar constitutes a decision of 

that court that is not in harmony with 

the Department’s Final Results. This 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of the subject merchandise pending the 

expiration of the period of appeal or, if 

appealed, pending a final and 

conclusive court decision. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

decision with respect to Atar, we 

determine that Atar was not the 

producer of pasta which it sold to the 

United States and that the actual pasta 

producers knew the goods were 

destined for the United States. 

Therefore, the appropriate assessment 

rate for entries during the period July 1, 

2005, through June 30, 2006, is the rate 

applicable to each producer (i.e., either 

the relevant producer-specific rate or all 

others rate). 

In the event the CIT’s ruling is not 

appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the 

CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of the 

subject merchandise exported during 

the POR by Atar using the revised 

assessment rates calculated by the 

Department in the Remand Results. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 2, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20052 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–841] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of 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 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET film) from Brazil. This 

administrative review covers one 

respondent, Terphane, Inc. (Terphane) 

and the period of review (POR) is 

November 1, 2009 through October 31, 

2010. Since Terphane did not respond 

to the Department’s requests for 

information, we have assigned Terphane 

a margin based on adverse facts 

available (AFA). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of this review, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise made during the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2657 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48123 

Background 

On November 10, 2008, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order on PET film from Brazil. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip From Brazil, the People’s 

Republic of China and the United Arab 

Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value for the United 

Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 

10, 2008). On November 1, 2010, the 

Department published Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 67079 (November 1, 2010). On 

November 30, 2010, DuPont Teijin 

Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., 

SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), 

Inc. (collectively, petitioners) requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of Terphane’s 

sales of PET film from Brazil made 

during the period November 1, 2009, 

through October 31, 2010. On December 

28, 2010, the Department published a 

notice of initiation for an administrative 

review of PET film from Brazil for 

Terphane for the period November 1, 

2009, through October 31, 2010. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010). 

On February 9, 2011, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Terphane. On March 

14, 2011, Terphane submitted a letter to 

the Department stating that during the 

POR, it did not ship any subject 

merchandise to the United States and all 

of its shipments to the United States 

consisted of merchandise outside the 

scope of the order on PET film from 

Brazil. Terphane also indicated it did 

not have any sales or offers for sale of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. Terphane thus 

informed the Department it did not 

intend to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire or otherwise participate 

in the administrative review. 

On May 11, 2011, the Department 

placed on the record of this proceeding 

data from CBP regarding imports of PET 

film during the POR and entry 

documentation for a certain entry. On 

May 27, 2011, the Department issued a 

letter to Terphane, stating that 

information in the CBP data suggested 

subject merchandise had entered the 

United States during the POR. The 

Department therefore requested that 

Terphane review the information in the 

Department’s May 11, 2011, 

memorandum to the file and provide 

clarification as to its claim of no 

shipments; further, the Department 

asked that Terphane respond to the 

February 9, 2011, questionnaire if 

indeed it had sales, entries or shipments 

of subject merchandise during the POR. 

On June 10, 2011, Terphane 

submitted a letter stating it did not 

review the May 11, 2011, memorandum, 

but it did examine its own transactions 

during the POR and had identified one 

‘‘de minimis’’ entry of subject 

merchandise. Terphane declared this 

entry had been accidentally shipped to 

the United States prior to the POR, and 

not pursuant to any sale or offer for sale, 

and that it paid cash deposits on this 

merchandise when it entered the United 

States during the POR. As a result, 

Terphane confirmed it would not be 

responding to the Department’s 

questionnaire or otherwise participating 

in this administrative review. 

Period of Review 

The POR is November 1, 2009, 

through October 31, 2010. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or 

primed PET film, whether extruded or 

co-extruded. Excluded are metallized 

films and other finished films that have 

had at least one of their surfaces 

modified by the application of a 

performance-enhancing resinous or 

inorganic layer more than 0.00001 

inches thick. Also excluded is roller 

transport cleaning film which has at 

least one of its surfaces modified by 

application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR 

latex. Tracing and drafting film is also 

excluded. PET film is classifiable under 

subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of these 

orders is dispositive. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, apply ‘‘the facts 

otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 

information is not available on the 

record of an antidumping proceeding or 

(2) an interested party or any other 

person: (A) withholds information that 

has been requested by the administering 

authority; (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines for the 

submission of the information or in the 

form and manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified as 

provided in section 782(i) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party with an 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act 

further provides that if the party 

submits further information that is 

unsatisfactory or untimely, the 

Department may, subject to subsection 

(e), disregard all or part of the original 

and subsequent responses. Section 

782(e) of the Act provides that the 

Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all the applicable requirements 

established by the administering 

authority’’ if the information is 

submitted in a timely manner, can be 

verified, is not so incomplete that it 

cannot be used, and the interested party 

acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information. Where all of 

these conditions are met, the statute 

requires the Department to use the 

information supplied if it can do so 

without undue difficulties. 

In this case, Terphane did not provide 

a response to our request for 

information and information necessary 

to make a determination in this segment 

of the proceeding is not on the record. 

In fact, Terphane specifically stated in 

its letter of March 14, 2011, and 

confirmed in its letter of June 10, 2011, 

that it would not be responding to the 

Department’s questionnaire or otherwise 

participating in this administrative 

review. Thus, the Department 

preliminarily determines that necessary 

information is not available on the 

record to serve as the basis for the 

calculation of Terphane’s margin. See 

section 776(a)(1) of the Act. We also 

preliminarily find that Terphane has 

withheld information requested by the 

Department and significantly impeded 

the proceeding. See section 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (C) of the Act; see also e.g., Certain 

Lined Paper Products from India: Notice 

of Final Results of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 17149 (April 14, 2009), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Therefore, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the 

Act, the Department preliminarily 

determines that the use of the facts 

otherwise available is warranted for 

Terphane. Because Terphane did not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information, sections 782(d) and (e) of 

the Act are not applicable in this case. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

and Selection of Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department finds an 

interested party has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with requests for information, 

the Department may use an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from the facts 

otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, and Final 

Determination to Revoke the Order In 

Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red 

Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 70295, 

70297 (December 11, 2007). Adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, 

Vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 870. Furthermore, 

‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 

part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 

United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, the 

Department finds Terphane failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability in this 

proceeding by refusing to respond to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire and otherwise participate 

in the Department’s administrative 

review. Therefore, since Terphane did 

not act to the best of its ability by 

complying with the Department’s 

request for information, the Department 

has preliminarily determined an adverse 

inference is warranted in selecting from 

the facts otherwise available pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Circular 

Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow 

Products From Japan, 65 FR 42985, 

42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department 

applied total AFA where a respondent 

failed to respond to subsequent 

antidumping questionnaires). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides the 

Department may use, as an adverse 

inference, information derived from the 

petition, the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. The 

Department’s practice, when selecting 

an AFA rate from among the possible 

sources of information, has been to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory 

purposes of the adverse facts available 

rule to induce respondents to provide 

the Department with complete and 

accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines to assign Terphane an AFA 

rate of 44.36 percent. This rate is 

Terphane’s cash deposit rate from the 

investigation and represents the highest 

margin alleged in the petition. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from Brazil, 73 FR 55035, 55036 

(September 24, 2008) (Final 

Determination). This rate is also 

Terphane’s margin from the 

immediately preceding administrative 

review that was based on AFA. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip From Brazil: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 75172 (December 2, 

2010). 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information Used as Adverse Facts 

Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, where the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. Information 

from a prior segment of the proceeding 

constitutes secondary information. See 

SAA at 870; see also e.g., Antifriction 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Singapore, and the United Kingdom: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 55574, 55577 (September 15, 

2004). The word ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See SAA at 870; see 

also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39940 

(July 11, 2008), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

the Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be used. 

Id. Unlike other types of information 

such as input costs or selling expenses, 

there are no independent sources for 

calculated dumping margins. The only 

sources for calculated margins are 

administrative determinations. 

In an administrative review, if the 

Department chooses to use as facts 

available a petition rate which was 

corroborated in the less-than-fair-value 

(LTFV) investigation and no information 

has been presented in the current 

review that calls into the question of 

reliability of this information, the 

information is reliable. See, e.g., Certain 

Tissue Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Rescission, In Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 17477, 17480–81 (April 

9, 2007), unchanged in Certain Tissue 

Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Final Rescission, In Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 58642 (October 16, 2007). 

Because the AFA rate of 44.36 percent 

in this review was corroborated in the 

LTFV investigation and the immediately 

preceding administrative review of 

Terphane, and no information in the 

current review calls into question the 

reliability of this rate, we find the AFA 

rate of 44.36 percent is reliable. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from Brazil, 73 FR 24560 (May 

5, 2008), unchanged in Final 

Determination. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 

6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available), because the margin was 

based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin. 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been discredited 

or judicially invalidated. See D & L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48125 

In this review, there are no 

circumstances present to indicate that 

the selected margin is not appropriate as 

AFA. The margin we have selected is 

the margin we determined for Terphane 

in the LTFV investigation and 

represents the highest margin alleged in 

the petition. This is also the margin we 

assigned to Terphane in the 

immediately preceding administrative 

review. Moreover, because Terphane 

refused to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, there is no information 

on the record of this review that 

demonstrates that 44.36 percent is not 

an appropriate AFA rate for Terphane. 

Thus, the Department considers this 

dumping margin relevant for the use of 

AFA for this administrative review. 

As the AFA rate is both reliable and 

relevant, we find it has probative value. 

Therefore, with the information at our 

disposal for the corroboration of this 

AFA rate, we find the rate of 44.36 

percent is corroborated to the extent 

practicable in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Act. We preliminarily find 

that use of the rate of 44.36 percent as 

AFA is sufficiently high to ensure that 

Terphane does not benefit from failing 

to cooperate in our review by choosing 

not to respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire and 

otherwise participate in the 

Department’s administrative review. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margin 

exists for the period November 1, 2009, 

through October 31, 2010: 

Producer/Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Terphane, Inc. ...................... 44.36 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who 

submit case or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue. 

Parties are also encouraged to provide a 

summary of the arguments not to exceed 

five pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2). Furthermore, the 

Department requests that parties 

provide the public versions of their case 

and rebuttal briefs in electronic format 

(e.g., Microsoft Word, .pdf, etc.). 

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 within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain the following information: (1) 

The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held 37 

days after the date of publication, or the 

first business day thereafter, unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. We preliminarily 

intend to instruct CBP to apply a 

dumping margin of 44.36 percent ad 

valorem to PET film from Brazil that 

was produced and/or exported by 

Terphane and entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption 

during the POR. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of administrative review for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 

Terphane will be the rate established in 

the final results of this review; (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 or the 

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; (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 

28.72 percent, the all-others rate 

established in the Final Determination. 

These cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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 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. 

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 29, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20072 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–818] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

pasta (‘‘pasta’’) from Italy for the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) July 1, 2009, through 

June 30, 2010. This review covers two 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise: Molino e Pastificio 

Tomasello S.p.A. (‘‘Tomasello’’) and 

Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A. 

(‘‘Garofalo’’). We preliminarily 

determine that during the POR, 

Tomasello and Garofalo sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES