Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Notices 681 

1See 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 of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews: Certain Pasta From 

Turkey, 68 FR 41554 (July 14, 2003). 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

For entries of the subject merchandise 

during the POR from companies not 

subject to this review, we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate them at the cash 

deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. 

The final results of this review shall be 

the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

For the China First–Three Star 

collapsed entity and Rongxin, we have 

calculated customer–specific 

antidumping duty assessment amounts 

for subject merchandise based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total quantity of sales examined. 

We calculated these assessment 

amounts because there is no information 

on the record which identifies entered 

values or the importers of record for the 

U.S. sales of the China First–Three Star 

collapsed entity and Rongxin. 

As noted above, SFTC, the company 

that met the separate rate application 

status, will be assigned the simple– 

average dumping margin based on the 

calculated margins of mandatory 

respondents which are not de minimis 

or based on adverse facts available, in 

accordance with Department practice. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on this company’s 

entries equal to the margin this 

company receives in the final results, 

regardless of the importer or customer. 

The other three companies, Anhui, 

Guangdong and Tianjin, did not provide 

separate rate information. Therefore, the 

Department finds that they are not 

entitled to a separate rate. As a result, 

these three companies will be 

considered part of the PRC–wide entity, 

subject to the PRC–wide rate. 

For Dixon, for which this review is 

preliminarily rescinded, antidumping 

duties shall be assessed at rates equal to 

the cash–deposit of estimated. 

antidumping duties required at the time 

of entry, or withdrawal form warehouse, 

for consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will apply to all 

shipments of certain cased pencils from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 

(1) the cash deposit rates for the 

reviewed companies named above will 

be the rates for those firms established 

in the final results of this administrative 

review; (2) for any previously reviewed 

or investigated PRC or non–PRC 

exporter, not covered in this review, 

with a separate rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the company–specific rate 

established in the most recent segment 

of this proceeding; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 

the PRC–wide rate established in the 

final results of this review; and (4) the 

cash–deposit rate for any non–PRC 

exporter of subject merchandise from 

the PRC will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice 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. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

preliminary results determination in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–00062 Filed 1–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–805] 

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Certain Pasta From Turkey 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

(Marsan), a producer of pasta, pursuant 

to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), the 

Department is initiating a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

(pasta) from Turkey. This review is 

being conducted to determine whether 

Marsan is the successor-in-interest to 

Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. (Gidasa) for purposes of 

determining antidumping duty liability. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4161. 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on pasta from 

Turkey. 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) (Pasta from 

Turkey Order). On December 3, 2008, 

Marsan filed a request for an expedited 

changed circumstances review to 

determine whether it is the successorin-interest to Gidasa, in accordance with 

section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216. Marsan submitted certain 

information in support of its claim that 

it is the successor-in-interest to Gidasa 

and, therefore, is entitled to Guidasa’s 

current antidumping duty cash deposit 

rate of 0.29 percent.1

Scope of the Order 

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 

682 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Notices 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise subject to the order is 

dispositive. 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act, the Department will conduct a 

changed circumstances review upon 

receipt of a request from an interested 

party or receipt of information 

concerning an antidumping duty order 

which shows changed circumstances 

sufficient to warrant a review of the 

order. On December 3, 2008, Marsan 

submitted its request for an expedited 

changed circumstances review. With its 

request, Marsan submitted certain 

information related to its claim that 

Gidasa changed its name to Marsan, 

including information describing the 

acquisition of Gidasa by MGS Marmara 

Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Based on 

the information Marsan submitted, the 

Department has determined that 

changed circumstances sufficient to 

warrant a review exist. See 19 CFR 

351.216(d). In antidumping duty 

changed circumstances reviews 

involving a successor-in-interest 

determination, the Department typically 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

Management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See Brass Sheet and 

Strip from Canada: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 

1992) and Certain Cut-To-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

22847 (May 3, 2005) (Plate from 

Romania), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from 

Romania, 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005). 

While no single factor or combination of 

factors will necessarily be dispositive, 

the Department generally will consider 

the new company to be the successor to 

the predecessor company if the resulting 

operations are essentially the same as 

those of the predecessor company. See, 

e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from 

Israel: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), 

and Plate from Romania, 70 FR 22847. 

Thus, if record evidence demonstrates 

that, with respect to the production and 

sale of the subject merchandise, the new 

company operates as the same business 

entity as the predecessor company, the 

Department may assign the successor 

company the cash deposit rate of its 

predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 

1999). Although Marsan submitted 

documentation related to its name 

change and some limited information 

regarding the four factors that the 

Department considers in its successorin-interest analysis, it did not provide 

complete supporting documentation for 

the four elements listed above. 

Accordingly, the Department has 

determined that it would be 

inappropriate to expedite this action by 

combining the preliminary results of 

review with this notice of initiation, as 

permitted under 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(ii). Thus, the Department 

is not issuing the preliminary results of 

its antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review at this time. 

The Department will issue 

questionnaires requesting additional 

information for the review and will 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

of the preliminary results of the 

antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2) and (4), and 

19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). That notice will 

set forth the factual and legal 

conclusions upon which our 

preliminary results are based and a 

description of any action proposed. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), 

interested parties will have an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results of review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the 

Department will issue the final results 

of its antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review not later than 270 

days after the date on which the review 

is initiated. 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, 

deposit requirements for the subject 

merchandise exported and 

manufactured by Marsan will continue 

to be the rate established in the 

antidumping duty order, as amended, 

for all manufacturers and exporters not 

investigated. See Pasta from Turkey 

Order, 61 FR 38545. The cash deposit 

will be altered, if warranted, pursuant 

only to the final results of this review. 

This notice of initiation is in 

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(1). 

Dated: December 31, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–70 Filed 1–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A-549-821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2008, in 

response to a request from an interested 

party, the Department of Commerce 

published a notice of initiation of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Thailand. The period of review is 

August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. 

The Department of Commerce is 

rescinding this review in part. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482-5760 and (202) 

482-4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 30, 2008, in response 

to a request from an interested party, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on polyethylene retail carrier bags 

(PRCBs) from Thailand for the period of 

review August 1, 2007, through July 31, 

2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 56795, 56796 (September 30, 

2008). 

On December 9, 2008, the interested 

party that requested the review of C.P. 

Packaging Co., Ltd., C.P. Poly-Industry 

Co., Ltd., Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Nari 

Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. withdrew its 

request. On December 29, 2008, the 

interested party that requested the 

review of Poly Plast (Thailand) Co., Ltd., 

withdrew its request.