Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Notices 65673

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32690 Filed 12–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–818]

Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

on Antidumping Duty Order on Certain

Pasta From Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of anticircumvention inquiry.

SUMMARY: On the basis of an application

filed with the Department of Commerce,

we are initiating an anti-circumvention

inquiry to determine whether an Italian

producer of pasta is circumventing the

antidumping duty order on certain pasta

from Italy issued July 24, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Easton or John Brinkmann,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1777

or (202) 482–5288, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 23, 1997, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

received an application filed by the

petitioners in the above-referenced case,

requesting that the Department conduct

an anti-circumvention investigation,

pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),

with respect to the antidumping duty

order on certain pasta from Italy (‘‘the

order’’) issued July 24, 1996 (61 FR

38547). The petitioners allege that

Barilla S.r.L. (‘‘Barilla’’) is

circumventing the order by importing

pasta into the United States in bulk,

defined as packages of greater than five

pounds (2.27 kilograms), and

repackaging the pasta into packages of

five pounds or less for resale in the

United States. Inasmuch as the scope of

the order covers only pasta in packages

of five pounds or less, the petitioners

claim that Barilla’s repackaging

operations in the United States have

allowed it to import pasta into the

United States free of any antidumping

duties. The petitioners assert that all the

elements necessary for an affirmative

determination under Section 781(a) of

the Act are present.

On November 19, 1997, Barilla filed

comments replying to the petitioners’

circumvention allegations. On

December 2, 1997, petitioners filed

comments in response to Barilla’s

November 19, 1997 submission. Barilla

rebutted the petitioners’ December 2,

1997 comments in a submission filed

December 3, 1997.

Initiation of Anti-Circumvention

Proceeding

In accordance with section 781(a) of

the Act, the Department may include

merchandise completed or assembled in

the United States within the scope of an

existing order when the following four

conditions are met: (A) The

merchandise sold in the United States is

of the same class or kind as any other

merchandise that is the subject to the

antidumping duty order; (B) such

merchandise sold in the United States is

completed or assembled in the United

States from parts or components

produced in the foreign country with

respect to which such order applies; (C)

the process of assembly or completion

in the United States is minor or

insignificant; and (D) the value of the

parts or components produced in the

foreign country to which the

antidumping duty order applies is a

significant portion of the total value of

the merchandise sold in the United

States.

In determining whether to include

parts or components in the order, the

Act states at section 781(a)(3) that the

Department must take into account: (1)

the pattern of trade, including sourcing

patterns; (2) whether the manufacturer

or exporter of the parts or components

is affiliated with the person who

assembles or completes the merchandise

sold in the United States; and (3)

whether imports into the United States

of the parts or components produced in

such foreign country have increased

after the initiation of the investigation

which resulted in the issuance of such

order or finding.

Based upon our review of the

foregoing allegations and supporting

information submitted in the

application and in Barilla’s submission,

and with respect to the preceding

criteria, we find that the application

contains all of the elements that warrant

an anti-circumvention inquiry (see,

December 8, 1997 Memorandum from

Richard Moreland to Robert S. LaRussa).

Therefore, we are initiating an anticircumvention inquiry concerning the

antidumping duty order on pasta from

Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.225 of the

Department’s regulations.

We intend to notify the International

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) in the event

of an affirmative preliminary

determination of circumvention, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7).

The Department will not order the

suspension of liquidation at this time.

However, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.225(l)(2), the Department will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

suspend liquidation in the event of an

affirmative preliminary determination of

circumvention.

This notice is issued pursuant to

section 781 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677j)

and 19 CFR 351.225.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32629 Filed 12–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–818]

Certain Pasta From Italy; Notice of

Court Decision

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On October 2, 1997, in the

case of De Cecco et al. v. United States

et al., Slip Op. 97–143 (‘‘De Cecco’’), the

United States Court of International

Trade (the CIT) granted plaintiffs’ and

plaintiff-intervenors’ motions for

judgment with respect to the extension

by the United States Department of

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) of

provisional antidumping measures for

the period May 19, 1996 through July

24, 1996. On October 23, 1997, the CIT

ordered the Department to issue

appropriate instructions to the U.S.

Customs Service to implement its

October 2, 1997, decision to grant

judgment to plaintiffs and plaintiffintervenors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Easton or John Brinkmann, at