Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17153 

5As stated above, Ria will receive an AFA rate 

of 23.17 percent. 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and 

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 

68545 (July 24, 1996). 

2See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta from 

Turkey, 74 FR 681 (January 7, 2009). 

companies5 subject to this review which 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we calculated an 

assessment rate based on the cash 

deposit rate calculated for Kejriwal in 

this review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of these final results of review. The 

Department clarified its ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’’ regulation on May 6, 2003 

(68 FR 23954). This clarification applies 

to POR entries of subject merchandise 

produced by companies examined in 

this review (i.e., companies for which a 

dumping margin was calculated) where 

the companies did not know that their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all–others rate if there is 

no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of certain lined 

paper products from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of these final results, as provided 

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

companies covered by this review, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 

above; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies other than those 

covered by this review, the cash deposit 

rate will be the company–specific rate 

established for the most recent period; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

less–than-fair–value investigation, but 

the producer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the subject merchandise; and (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the producer is 

a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the investigation, the cash 

deposit rate will be 3.91 percent, the 

all–others rate established in the less– 

than-fair–value investigation. These 

deposit requirements shall remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

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 and/or 

countervailing duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties occurred and the 

subsequent increase in antidumping 

duties by the amount of antidumping 

and/or countervailing duties 

reimbursed. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 

notification of the 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 

results and notice in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX I 

List of Comments in the Accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Appropriate Rate for Non– 

Selected Respondents 

Comment 2: Whether to Assign a Higher 

Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Rate to 

Ria 

Comment 3: General and Administrative 

Expense Ratio 

Comment 4: Financial Expense Ratio 

Comment 5: Capitalized Expenses 

[FR Doc. E9–8495 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–805] 

Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 7, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order of 

certain pasta from Turkey as requested 

by Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticret A.S. 

(‘‘Marsan’’). After receiving additional 

information on the operations of 

Marsan, we preliminarily determine that 

Marsan is the successor–in-interest to 

Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. (‘‘Gidasa’’), and should be accorded 

the same antidumping duty treatment 

accorded Gidasa with respect to the 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Turkey. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Turkey.1 On December 3, 2008, 

Marsan requested that the Department 

initiate and conduct an expedited 

changed circumstances review to 

determine that, for purposes of the 

antidumping law, Marsan is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa. See 

December 3, 2008, letter from Marsan to 

the Secretary of Commerce. On January 

7, 2009, the Department published a 

notice of initiation of a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping order.2 On February 23, 

2009, the Department requested 

additional information from Marsan 

regarding its operations in Turkey. See 

February 23, 2009, changed 

circumstances review questionnaire 

from the Department to Marsan. On 

March 16, 2009, Marsan replied to the 

Department’s questionnaire. See March 

16, 2009, letter from Marsan to the 

Secretary of Commerce. 

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 

17154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

3See 19 CFR 351.310. 

4See 19 CFR 351.309. 

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. 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review 

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.216, the 

Department will conduct a changed 

circumstances review upon receipt of 

information concerning, or a request 

from an interested party for review of, 

an antidumping duty order which 

shows changed circumstances sufficient 

to warrant a review of the order. In this 

case, the Department finds that the 

information submitted by the 

respondent provided sufficient evidence 

of changed circumstances to warrant a 

review to determine whether Marsan is 

the successor–in-interest to Gidasa. 

Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) 

of the Act, the Department initiated a 

changed circumstances review to 

determine whether Marsan is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability with respect to imports of 

certain pasta from Turkey. 

In making a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 

(May 13, 1992). While no single factor 

or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that 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 

(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the 

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 former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily 

determine that Marsan is the successor– 

in-interest to Gidasa. In its December 3, 

2008, and March 16, 2009, submissions 

Marsan provided evidence supporting 

its claim to be the successor–in-interest 

to Gidasa. Documentation attached to 

Marsan’s December 3, 2008, submission 

shows that the acquisition of Gidasa by 

MGS Marmara Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. (‘‘MGS’’) and the following name 

change to Marsan resulted in little or no 

change in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, or 

customer base. This documentation 

consists of: (1) organizational charts of 

both Marsan and Gidasa; (2) the 

documentation of the name change from 

Gidasa to Marsan; (3) a list of products 

before and after the acquisition of 

Gidasa by MGS; (4) a list of suppliers 

before and after the name change from 

Gidasa to Marsan; (5) a list of home 

market and U.S. customers before and 

after the name change from Gidasa to 

Marsan; (6) MGS’s articles and notice of 

incorporation; (7) MGS’s 2007 

management report to shareholders; and 

(8) MGS’s 2008 draft income statement 

and balance sheet. The documentation 

described above demonstrates that there 

was little to no change in management 

structure, supplier relationships, 

production facilities, or customer base 

and, thus, the operations of Marsan are 

essentially the same as the operations of 

Gidasa. 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that 

Marsan is the successor–in-interest to 

Gidasa and, thus, should receive the 

same antidumping duty treatment with 

respect certain pasta from Turkey as the 

former Gidasa. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held no later than 44 days after 

the date of publication of this notice, or 

the first workday thereafter.3 Case briefs 

from interested parties may be 

submitted not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues 

raised in those comments, may be filed 

not later than 37 days after the date of 

publication of this notice.4 All written 

comments shall be submitted in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 

Persons interested in attending the 

hearing, if one is requested, should 

contact the Department for the date and 

time of the hearing. The Department 

will publish the final results of this 

changed circumstances review in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written comments. 

The current requirement for a cash 

deposit of estimated antidumping duties 

on all subject merchandise will 

continue unless and until it is modified 

pursuant to the final results of this 

changed circumstances review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. 

Dated: April 8, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–8498 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–932] 

Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), the Department is issuing an 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

threaded rod (‘‘STR’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On April 6, 

2009, the ITC notified the Department of 

its affirmative determination of material