34414 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners are Borden Inc., Hershey Foods

Corp. (‘‘Hershey Pasta’’), Grocery Corp. Inc., and

subtracted international movement

expenses (e.g., international freight)

from the gross sales value.

Cash Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for

each producer and/or exporter included

in this administrative review, we

divided the total dumping margins for

each company by the total net value for

that company’s sales during the review

period.

The following deposit rates will be

effective upon publication of the final

results of this administrative review for

all shipments of certain pasta from

Turkey entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided by

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rates for the companies

listed above will be the rates established

in the final results of this review; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent final

results in which that manufacturer or

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, a

prior review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent final results for the manufacturer

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a

firm covered in this or any previous

review conducted by the Department,

the cash deposit rate will be 51.49

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order

and Amended Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 38546 (July

24, 1996).

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

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.

This administrative review is issued

and published in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–16299 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–818]

Notice of Preliminary Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Intent

To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in

Part: Certain Pasta From Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial rescission of antidumping

duty administrative review and intent to

revoke the antidumping duty order in

part.

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

July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000.

We preliminarily determine that

during the POR, (1) Barilla G.e.R. F.lli

S.p.A. (‘‘Barilla’’), (2) Delverde S.p.A.

and its affiliate, Tamma Industrie

Alimentari di Capitanata, S.r.L.

(collectively, ‘‘Delverde’’), (3) Pastificio

Guido Ferrara S.r.l. (‘‘Ferrara’’), (4)

Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. and its

affiliate Industrie Alimentari Molisane

S.r.l. (collectively, ‘‘Pallante’’), (5)

P.A.M., S.r.l. and its affiliate Liguori

(collectively, ‘‘PAM’’), and (6) Pastificio

Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.r.l.

(‘‘Riscossa’’) 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 the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties equal to the difference between

the export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) and NV.

We preliminarily determine that

during the POR, (1) CommercioRappresentanze-Export S.p.A.

(‘‘Corex’’), (2) Pastificio F.lli Pagani

S.p.A. (‘‘Pagani’’), (3) N. Puglisi & F.

Industria Paste Alimentari S.p.A.

(‘‘Puglisi’’), and (4) Rummo S.p.A.

Molino e Pastificio (‘‘Rummo’’) did not

make sales of the subject merchandise at

less than NV (i.e., made sales at ‘‘zero’’

or de minimis dumping margins). If

these preliminary results are adopted in

the final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to liquidate

appropriate entries without regard to

antidumping duties. Also, if these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of this administrative

review, we intend to revoke the

antidumping duty order with respect to

Puglisi and Corex, based on three years

of sales at not less than NV. See ‘‘Intent

to Revoke’’ section of this notice.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding should also submit with

them: (1) A statement of the issues; (2)

a brief summary of the comments; and

(3) a table of authorities. Further, we

would appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments on diskette.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Terpstra or Geoffrey Craig, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 6, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3965 or

(202) 482–4161, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department regulations refer to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2000).

Case History

On July 24, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on pasta from

Italy (61 FR 38547). On July 20, 2000,

we published in the Federal Register

the notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

an Administrative Review’’ of this

order, for the period July 1, 1999

through June 30, 2000 (65 FR 45035).

From July 13 to July 31, 2000, we

received requests for review from the

Borden Foods Corporation (‘‘Borden’’),

which is an affiliate of Borden Inc., a

petitioner 1 in the case, from New World

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34415

Gooch Foods, Inc. (effective January 1, 1999,

Hershey Pasta and Grocery Corp. Inc. became New

World Pasta, Inc.).

2See letter from Collier Shannon Scott dated July

31, 2000, submitted on behalf of Borden and New

World Pasta, on file in room B–099 of the

Department’s main building. This letter was written

on behalf of Borden and New World Pasta.

However, on September 7, 2000, Collier Shannon

Scott submitted a letter stating that its July 31, 2000

letter should have been on behalf of New World

Pasta alone, because Borden submitted its own

letter.

3This list included companies known to be

affiliated. After accounting for known affiliated

parties, there are 27 companies in the Initiation

Notice.

4The third administrative review was the most

recently completed review for Corex, La Molisana,

Puglisi, Pallante, and PAM. See Certain Pasta From

Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13,

2000). The most recently completed review that

Rummo participated in was the second

administrative review. See Notice of Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:

Certain Pasta From Italy, 65 FR 7349 (February 14,

2000). The LTFV investigation was the most recent

segment of the proceeding in which Delverde

participated. See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From

Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996).

5 Delverde S.r.l. has an affiliate, Tamma Industrie

Alinmentari di Capitanata, SrL. Pastificio Antonio

Pallante S.r.l. is affiliated with Industrie Alimentari

Molisane S.r.l and P.A.M., S.r.l. has an affiliate,

Liguori. Each of these pairs of affiliates was treated

as a single entity in the prior segments of this

proceeding.

Pasta,2 and from individual Italian

exporters/producers of pasta, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2).

There were requests made for 31 Italian

companies. On September 6, 2000, we

published the notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

covering the period July 1, 1999 through

June 30, 2000 and listed 30 companies.

Notice of Initiation, 65 FR 53980

(September 6, 2000). Although Borden

requested a review of De Matteis

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

we did not initiate a review of De

Matteis because it received a de minimis

margin in the less-than-fair-value

(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation and, thus, is

excluded from the order.

On September 6, 2000 and September

7, 2000, respectively, Borden and New

World Pasta withdrew their request for

certain companies enumerated in their

original letters. Of the 30 companies 3

named in the Initiation Notice, we are

rescinding a review of 14 companies

because petitioners withdrew their

request and there was no request from

any other interested party. See

Memorandum from Melissa G. Skinner

to Bernard Carreau, ‘‘Partial Rescission

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review’’ dated June 21, 2001 (‘‘Partial

Rescission Memo’’) and the Partial

Recission section below.

On September 13, 2000, we sent

questionnaires to the remaining

companies that we initiated a review of:

(1) Arrighi S.p.A. Industrie Alimentari

(‘‘Arrighi’’); (2) Barilla; (3) Corex; (4)

Delverde; (5) Di Martino Gaetano E. F.lli

S.r.l. (‘‘Di Martino’’); (6) Ferrara; (7) La

Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A.

(‘‘La Molisana’’); (8) Puglisi; (9) Pallante;

(10) Pagani; (11) Riscossa; (12) PAM;

and (13) Rummo.

During the most recently completed

segment in which each of the following

companies participated, the Department

disregarded sales that failed the cost

test: Corex, Delverde, La Molisana,

Puglisi, Pallante, PAM and Rummo.4

Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales by these companies of the

foreign like product under consideration

for the determination of NV in this

review were made at prices below the

cost of production (‘‘COP’’). Therefore,

we initiated cost investigations on these

companies.

In the first administrative review,

which was the most recently completed

segment of the proceeding involving

Arrighi and Pagani, the Department

initiated cost investigations of Arrighi

and Pagani. However, we were unable to

complete those investigations because

we had to base the final determination

on facts otherwise available. The use of

facts otherwise available precluded the

Department from determining whether,

in fact, sales below the cost of

production would be disregarded from

the home market sales response in that

proceeding. Nonetheless, pursuant to

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we

initiated cost investigations on Arrighi

and Pagani at the time we initiated this

antidumping review based on the fact

that we initiated COP investigations for

these companies in the most recently

completed review involving these

companies and presumably would have

disregarded sales that failed the cost test

but for having to base their margins on

total facts available.

However, we are preliminarily

rescinding the review with respect to

Arrighi because it submitted a letter

stating that it had no shipments of

subject merchandise during the POR. As

discussed in the Partial Recission

section below, using customs data, we

verified that Arrighi did not have

shipments of subject merchandise

during the POR.

Also, on September 27, 2000 and

October 18, 2000, respectively, La

Molisana and Di Martino withdrew their

requests for a review. Thus, as also

discussed in the Partial Recission

section below, we are rescinding the

review for La Molisana and Di Martino

because they withdrew their requests in

a timely manner and there was no other

request by an interested party to review

La Molisana or Di Martino.

We also received a letter from Barilla

stating that it did not intend to respond

to the Department’s questionnaire. See

‘‘Facts Available’’ section of this notice.

After several extensions, the

remaining respondents submitted their

responses to sections A through C of the

questionnaire by November 15, 2000,

and section D responses by January 16,

2001, except Riscossa and Ferrara who

were not required to respond to section

D.

From October 2000 to April 2001, the

Department issued supplemental and

second supplemental section A through

C questionnaires to the responding

companies. From November 2000 to

March 2001, supplemental and second

supplemental section D questionnaires

were issued to all relevant companies.

We verified the sales information

submitted by Corex from February 12–

16, 2001; Riscossa from February 26-

March 2, 2001; Pallante from March 12–

23, 2001; Ferrara from March 26–29,

2001; and Puglisi from April 30-May 4,

2001. We verified the cost information

submitted by Corex from February 19–

23, 2001; Pallante from March 12–23,

2001; and Puglisi from May 7–11, 2001.

On January 30, 2001, the Department

published a notice postponing the

preliminary results of this review until

June 21, 2000 (66 FR 8198).

Partial Rescission

We initiated a review of 30

companies. However, this list included

companies known to be affiliated. After

accounting for known affiliated parties,5

there are 27 companies in the Initiation

Notice. On September 6, 2000, we

received a revised letter from Borden

shortening its list to five companies for

the Department to review. New World

Pasta submitted a letter withdrawing its

request for the Department to review

any companies. In its September 6, 2000

letter, Borden included Arrighi as a

company that it wanted the Department

to review. On October 4, 2000, Arrighi

submitted a letter stating that it had no

shipments of subject merchandise

during the period of review. We verified

this information through customs data.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily

rescinding the review in part as to

Arrighi because it made no sales or

shipments of subject merchandise

during the review period.

34416 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

There were eight companies that selfrequested a review. On September 27,

2000 and October 18, 2000, respectively,

La Molisana and Di Martino withdrew

their requests for a review. Because

there were no other requests for review

of Di Martino and La Molisana and

because the letters withdrawing the

requests were timely filed, we are

rescinding the review with respect to Di

Martino and La Molisana in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

We are rescinding the review, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),

with respect to the remaining 14

companies for which petitioners

withdrew their request and the producer

did not self-request a review. See the

‘‘Partial Rescission Memo’’ which lists

the 14 companies that we are

rescinding.

Use of Facts Available

Barilla notified the Department in an

October 6, 2000 letter that it did not

intend to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the

Act provides that if any interested party:

(A) Withholds information that has been

requested by the Department; (B) fails to

provide such information by the

deadlines for submission of the

information or in the form or manner

requested; (C) significantly impedes an

antidumping investigation; or (D)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall, subject to section

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise

available in making its determination.

Because Barilla wholly failed to respond

to our questionnaire, pursuant to section

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we have applied

facts available (‘‘FA’’) to determine its

dumping margin.

Selection of Adverse FA

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act authorizes the Department to

use an adverse inference if the

Department finds that an interested

party failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of its ability to comply with

the request for information. See e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20

(October 16, 1997). We find that

Barilla’s refusal to answer the

questionnaire in whole or part and its

failure to offer alternative methods of

compliance constitutes a failure to act to

the best of its ability. For this reason,

and to ensure that Barilla does not

benefit from that lack of cooperation, we

are employing an adverse inference in

selecting from facts otherwise available.

In assigning an adverse facts available

rate in an administrative review, the

Department’s practice is to use the

highest rate given to any respondent in

any segment of the proceeding. See e.g.,

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and

Strip from Germany, 64 FR 43342

(August 10, 1999). In the first

administrative review, we based the

antidumping duty rate for Arrighi,

Barilla, and Pagani on the highest

margin from the petition, as adjusted by

the Department, 71.49 percent. See

Notice of Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Pasta

From Italy, 64 FR 6615 (February 10,

1999).

Pagani did not contest the 71.49

percent rate. However, Barilla and

World Finer Foods, Inc. (an importer of

Arrighi pasta) sued the Department on

the basis that the adverse facts available

rate selected by the Department was not

properly corroborated. The Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) ruled that

the Department must determine an

appropriate facts available rate for

Arrighi and assess Barilla a dumping

margin that, while adverse, ‘‘bears a

rational relationship to the probability

of dumping.’’ See World Finer Foods v.

the United States, Slip Op. 00–72 (CIT

June 26, 2000) at 26–27.

On September 15, 2000, we filed with

the Court the final results of

redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s

remand order. We assigned Arrighi a

rate of 19.09 percent (net of export

subsidies) which was the rate we

calculated for Arrighi in the prior

segment of the proceeding, the LTFV

investigation. We based the adverse

facts available margin for Barilla on

secondary price information in the

petition and U.S. Customs import

statistics. Normal value was derived

using a Barilla price list contained in

the petition with an effective date of

January 1, 1995. With respect to U.S.

price, we reviewed U.S. Customs import

statistics from the first administrative

period of review and were able to

identify an average unit value (‘‘AUV’’)

specifically for Barilla. We calculated a

margin for every product on the price

list and found margins ranging from

39.63 to 63.63 percent with a simple

average of 45.59 percent. We applied the

63.63 percent margin to Barilla.

On November 3, 2000, the CIT

affirmed the final revised remand

determination in World Finer Foods,

Inc. v. United States, 120 F. Supp.2d

1131 (November 3, 2000). With respect

to Barilla, the CIT found that ‘‘the only

margin that is available that is

supported by the evidence is the margin

of 45.59 percent, Commerce’s best

guess, which, based on this record, is

adverse.’’ Barilla did not appeal the CIT

decision. See Notice of Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Pasta

From Italy, 66 FR 20636 (April 24,

2001).

After the litigation relating to the first

administrative review, the highest rate

given to a respondent is the 71.49

percent rate assigned to Pagani. The

court did not address the

appropriateness of this rate for Pagani

because Pagani did not challenge the

Department after the final results. The

only other company to receive a facts

available rate was De Cecco in the LTFV

investigation. For De Cecco, we chose a

simple average of the margins calculated

in the petition, which ranged from 21.85

percent to 71.49 percent, as adjusted by

the Department: 46.67 percent. See

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1344,

1345 (January 19, 1996). De Cecco filed

suit and the Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) affirmed the

CIT’s rejection of the 46.67 percent rate

as ‘‘discredited and uncorroborated’’ on

the record of the LTFV investigation.

See F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S.

Martino S.p.A. v. the United States, 216

F. Supp.3d 1027, 1032–33 (CAFC June

16, 2000).

Although we prefer to use the highest

rate given to a company in the course

of the proceeding as the basis for an

adverse facts available rate, we are

cognizant of the legal history of this case

and the court’s rejection of the 71.49

percent rate with respect to Arrighi and

Barilla and the 46.67 percent rate with

respect to De Cecco. The 45.59 percent

rate assigned to Barilla from the remand

of the first administrative review is the

highest rate ever upheld by the court. In

considering the appropriateness of the

45.59 percent rate as an adverse facts

available rate for Barilla in the current

administrative review, we must

consider whether the rate has probative

value, i.e. is relevant and reliable. The

rate is reliable because it is based on

Barilla’s own price lists and the actual

average import prices. It is based on a

home market price list (effective January

1995) which was compared to U.S.

import prices during the first

administrative period of review (July

1996 through June 1997).

We are mindful that the 45.59 percent

rate is based upon data from the LTFV

investigation and the first

administrative review. However, there is

no evidence on the record that is more

contemporaneous since Barilla did not

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34417

participate in the second or third

administrative reviews of this order and

did not provide the Department with

any information related to the current

review. Further, we do not consider data

from the LTFV investigation and first

administrative review to be so outdated

as to warrant rejecting said data since

only three years have passed between

the LTFV investigation and this review.

Moreover, in the current review, we

have found individual sales transactions

of other respondents at or above 45.59

percent. Thus, it is reasonable to

conclude that the 45.59 percent rate is

still relevant to Barilla’s current level of

dumping.

Next, we consider whether the 45.59

percent rate is appropriately adverse.

Inasmuch as we found the 45.59 percent

rate to be adverse in our remand

determination, and the CIT upheld this

determination, and there is no new

information that would lead us to

conclude this rate is not adverse in this

review, we find the 45.59 percent rate

to still be an appropriately adverse rate.

Thus, we are assigning Barilla an

adverse facts available rate of 45.59

percent.

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

enriched or fortified or containing milk

or other optional ingredients such as

chopped vegetables, vegetable purees,

milk, gluten, diastasis, 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. Also excluded are imports of

organic pasta from Italy that are

accompanied by the appropriate

certificate issued by the Instituto

Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by

Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International

Services, by Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio

per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, or

by Associazione Italiana per

l’Agricoltura Biologica.

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.

Scope Rulings

The Department has issued the

following scope rulings to date:

(1) On August 25, 1997, the

Department issued a scope ruling that

multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen

display bottles of decorative glass that

are sealed with cork or paraffin and

bound with raffia, is excluded from the

scope of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders. See

Memorandum from Edward Easton to

Richard Moreland, dated August 25,

1997, in the case file in the Central

Records Unit, main Commerce building,

room B–099 (‘‘the CRU’’).

(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department

issued a scope ruling, finding that

multipacks consisting of six one-pound

packages of pasta that are shrinkwrapped into a single package are

within the scope of the antidumping

and countervailing duty orders. See

Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, to Barbara P. Sidari,

Vice President, Joseph A. Sidari

Company, Inc., dated July 30, 1998,

which is available in the CRU.

(3) On October 23, 1997, the

petitioners filed an application

requesting that the Department initiate

an anti-circumvention investigation of

Barilla, an Italian producer and exporter

of pasta. The Department initiated the

investigation on December 8, 1997 (62

FR 65673). On October 5, 1998, the

Department issued its final

determination that Barilla’s importation

of pasta in bulk and subsequent

repackaging in the United States into

packages of five pounds or less

constitutes circumvention, with respect

to the antidumping duty order on pasta

from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See

Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain

Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final

Determination of Circumvention of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 54672

(October 13, 1998).

(4) On October 26, 1998, the

Department self-initiated a scope

inquiry to determine whether a package

weighing over five pounds as a result of

allowable industry tolerances is within

the scope of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders. On May 24,

1999 we issued a final scope ruling

finding that, effective October 26, 1998,

pasta in packages weighing or labeled

up to (and including) five pounds four

ounces is within the scope of the

antidumping and countervailing duty

orders. See Memorandum from John

Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated

May 24, 1999, which is available in the

CRU. The following scope ruling is

pending:

(1) On April 27, 2000, the Department

self-initiated an anti-circumvention

inquiry to determine whether Pagani’s

importation of pasta in bulk and

subsequent repackaging in the United

States into packages of five pounds or

less constitutes circumvention, with

respect to the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on pasta

from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). See

Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of

Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry

of the Antidumping and Countervailing

Duty Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5,

2000).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified sales and cost

information provided by Corex,

Pallante, and Puglisi, and the sales

information provided by Ferrara and

Riscossa. We used standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturers’ facilities and

examination of relevant sales and

financial records. Our verification

results are outlined in the companyspecific verification reports placed in

the case file in the CRU. We revised

certain sales and cost data based on

verification findings. See the companyspecific verification report and

calculation memorandum.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we first attempted to match

contemporaneous sales of products sold

in the United States and comparison

markets that were identical with respect

to the following characteristics: (1) Pasta

shape; (2) type of wheat; (3) additives;

and (4) enrichment. Where there were

no sales of identical merchandise in the

home market to compare with U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales with the

most similar product based on the

characteristics listed above, in

descending order of priority. Where

there were no appropriate comparison

market sales of comparable

merchandise, we compared the

merchandise sold in the United States to

CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act.

For purposes of the preliminary

results, where appropriate, we have

calculated the adjustment for

differences in merchandise based on the

difference in the variable cost of

manufacturing between each U.S. model

and the most similar home market

model selected for comparison.

34418 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

Comparisons to Normal Value

To determine whether sales of certain

pasta from Italy were made in the

United States at less than normal value,

we compared the EP or CEP to the NV,

as described in the ‘‘Export Price and

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of

the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For the price to the United States, we

used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in

accordance with sections 772(a) and (b)

of the Act. We calculated EP where the

merchandise was sold by the producer

or exporter outside of the United States

directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and CEP was not otherwise

warranted based on the facts on the

record. We calculated CEP where sales

to the first unaffiliated purchaser took

place in the United States. We based EP

and CEP on the packed CIF, ex-factory,

FOB, or delivered prices to the first

unaffiliated customer in, or for

exportation to, the United States. Where

appropriate, we reduced these prices to

reflect discounts and rebates.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2)

of the Act, we made deductions, where

appropriate, for movement expenses

including inland freight from plant or

warehouse to port of exportation,

foreign brokerage, handling and loading

charges, export duties, international

freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties,

and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight

from port to the customer). In addition,

where appropriate, we increased EP or

CEP as applicable, by an amount equal

to the countervailing duty rate

attributed to export subsidies in the

most recently completed administrative

review, in accordance with section

772(c)(1)(C).

For CEP, in accordance with section

772(d)(1) of the Act, where appropriate,

we deducted from the starting price

those selling expenses that were

incurred in selling the subject

merchandise in the United States,

including direct selling expenses

(advertising, cost of credit, warranties,

and commissions paid to unaffiliated

sales agents). In addition, we deducted

indirect selling expenses that related to

economic activity in the United States.

These expenses include certain indirect

selling expenses incurred by affiliated

U.S. distributors. We also deducted

from CEP an amount for profit in

accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and

(f) of the Act.

Certain respondents reported the

resale of subject merchandise purchased

in Italy from unaffiliated producers.

Where an unaffiliated producer of the

subject pasta knew at the time of the

sale that the merchandise was destined

for the United States, the relevant basis

for the export price would be the price

between that producer and the

respondent. See Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit or Above From the Republic of

Korea: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, Partial

Rescission of Administrative Review

and Notice of Determination Not to

Revoke Order, 63 FR 50867, 50876

(September 23, 1998). In this review, we

determined that it was reasonable to

assume that the unaffiliated producers

knew or had reason to know at the time

of sale that the ultimate destination of

the merchandise was the United States

because virtually all enriched pasta is

sold to the United States. See Notice of

Preliminary Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Intent to

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in

Part: Certain Pasta from Italy, 65 FR

4867, 4869 (August 8, 2000).

Accordingly, consistent with our

methodology in prior reviews (see id.),

when respondents purchased pasta from

other producers and we were able to

identify resales of this merchandise to

the United States, we excluded these

sales of the purchased pasta from the

margin calculation for that respondent.

Where the purchased pasta was

commingled with the respondent’s

production and the respondent could

not identify the resales, we examined

both sales of produced pasta and resales

of purchased pasta. Inasmuch as the

percentage of pasta purchased by any

single respondent was an insignificant

part of its U.S. sales database, we

included the sales of commingled

purchased pasta in our margin

calculations.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared each

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise. Pursuant to sections

773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, because,

with the exception of Corex, each

respondent’s aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

was greater than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was viable for all

producers, except Corex.

Corex reported that it made no home

market sales during the POR. Therefore,

in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we have

based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the respondent’s largest

third-country market, Australia, which

had an aggregate sales quantity greater

than five percent of the aggregate

quantity sold in the United States.

B. Arm’s Length Test

Sales to affiliated customers for

consumption in the home market which

were determined not to be at arm’s

length were excluded from our analysis.

To test whether these sales were made

at arm’s length, we compared the prices

of sales of comparison products to

affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net

of all movement charges, direct selling

expenses, discounts, and packing.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in

accordance with our practice, where the

prices to the affiliated party were on

average less than 99.5 percent of the

prices to unaffiliated parties, we

determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party were not at arm’s length.

See e.g., Notice of Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Roller Chain,

Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR

60472, 60478 (November 10, 1997), and

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties: Final Rule (‘‘Antidumping

Duties’’), 62 FR 27295, 27355–56 (May

19, 1997). We included in our NV

calculations those sales to affiliated

customers that passed the arm’s-length

test in our analysis. See 19 CFR 351.403;

Antidumping Duties, 62 FR at 27355–

56.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

1. Calculation of COP

Before making any comparisons to

NV, we conducted a COP analysis of

Corex, Delverde, PAM, Pallante, Pagani,

Puglisi, and Rummo, pursuant to

section 773(b) of the Act, to determine

whether the respondents’ comparison

market sales were made below the COP.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of the cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for selling, general, and

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and

packing, in accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the

respondents’ information as submitted,

except in instances where we used

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34419

revised data based on verification

findings. See the company-specific

calculation memoranda on file in the

CRU, for a description of any changes

that we made.

2. Startup Adjustment

PAM claimed a start-up adjustment

for its new pasta production line at the

D’Apuzzo facility. Construction of the

new line began on April 30, 2000 and

the new line was ready for commercial

production on August 23, 2000. During

this period, the existing lines were

periodically shut down because the new

production line was installed in close

proximity to the rest of the facility. PAM

claims a startup adjustment equal to the

amount of the fixed overhead which can

be attributed to the period of time that

the D’Apuzzo facility was closed during

the POR for installation of the new

production lines.

We are not allowing a startup

adjustment in this case. Specifically,

section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act states

that the Department will make an

adjustment for startup costs where the

following two conditions are met: (1) A

producer is using new production

facilities or producing a new product

that requires substantial additional

investment, and (2) the production

levels are limited by technical factors

associated with the initial phase of

commercial production.

We have examined PAM’s claim and

determined that the criteria for granting

a startup adjustment have not been

satisfied in this case. The construction

of a new pasta production line does not

constitute a ‘‘new facility,’’ nor is PAM

producing a ‘‘new product’’ that

required substantial additional

investment, within the meaning of

section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act.

Rather, the addition of a new

production line within an already

existing facility is a ‘‘mere

improvement’’ that the Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, Vol.

I, (1994) at 835 (‘‘SAA’’) states will not

qualify for a startup adjustment.

Moreover, PAM has not identified any

additional costs associated with

‘‘substantially retooling’’ its existing

facility, which, according to the SAA

might satisfy the first criterion. See

Certain Cold-Rolled and CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13200 (March 18,

1998) (where the Department

disallowed a startup adjustment because

the respondent failed to demonstrate

that the production line in question

constituted a ‘‘new facility’’ and

manufactured a ‘‘new product’’).

Section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act

establishes that both prongs of the

startup test must be met to warrant a

startup adjustment; therefore, this

finding is sufficient to deny PAM’s

claim. As a result, we have not

addressed PAM’s arguments concerning

technical factors that limit commercial

production levels. See Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved

Mushrooms From Chile, 63 FR 41786,

41788 (August 5, 1998).

3. Test of Comparison Market Prices

As required under section 773(b) of

the Act, we compared the weightedaverage COP to the per unit price of the

comparison market sales of the foreign

like product, to determine whether

these sales had been made at prices

below the COP within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities,

and whether such prices were sufficient

to permit the recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time. We

determined the net comparison market

prices for the below-cost test by

subtracting from the gross unit price any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, rebates, direct and indirect

selling expenses (also subtracted from

the COP), and packing expenses.

4. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of sales

of a given product were at prices less

than the COP, we did not disregard any

below-cost sales of that product because

we determined that the below-cost sales

were not made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more

of a respondent’s sales of a given

product were at prices less than the

COP, we determined such sales to have

been made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’

within an extended period of time in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B)

and (C) of the Act. In such cases,

because we compared prices to PORaverage costs, we also determined that

such sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of

this administrative review, we

disregarded the below-cost sales and

used the remaining sales as the basis for

determining NV, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Specifically, we have disregarded

below-cost sales made by Corex,

Delverde, PAM, Pallante, Pagani,

Puglisi, and Rummo in this

administrative review.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Comparison Market Prices

We calculated NV based on ex-works,

FOB or delivered prices to comparison

market customers. We made deductions

from the starting price, where

appropriate, for handling, loading,

inland freight, warehousing, inland

insurance, discounts, and rebates. In

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B) of the Act, we added U.S.

packing costs and deducted comparison

market packing, respectively. In

addition, we made circumstance of sale

(‘‘COS’’) adjustments for direct

expenses, including imputed credit

expenses, advertising, warranty

expenses, commissions, bank charges,

billing adjustments, and interest

revenue, in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

We also made adjustments, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for

indirect selling expenses incurred on

comparison market or U.S. sales where

commissions were granted on sales in

one market but not in the other (the

‘‘commission offset’’). Specifically,

where commissions are incurred in one

market, but not in the other, we make

an allowance for the indirect selling

expenses in the other market up to the

amount of the commissions.

When comparing U.S. sales with

comparison market sales of similar, but

not identical, merchandise, we also

made adjustments for physical

differences in the merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 of the

Department’s regulations. We based this

adjustment on the difference in the

variable cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’)

for the foreign like product and subject

merchandise, using POR-average costs.

Sales of pasta purchased by the

respondents from unaffiliated producers

and resold in the comparison market

were treated in the same manner

described above in the ‘‘Export Price

and Constructed Export Price’’ section

of this notice.

E. Normal Value Based on CV

For Corex, where we could not

determine the NV based on comparison

market sales because there were no

contemporaneous sales of a comparable

product above COP, we compared the

EP to CV. In accordance with section

773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of the cost of

manufacturing of the product sold in the

United States, plus amounts for SG&A

expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs.

In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)

of the Act, we based SG&A expenses

and profit on the amounts incurred by

34420 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

Corex in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the comparison market.

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV for COS

differences, in accordance with section

773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

We made COS adjustments by

deducting direct selling expenses

incurred on comparison market sales

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

F. Level of Trade (‘‘LOT’’)

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined

NV based on sales in the comparison

market at the same LOT as the EP and

CEP sales, to the extent practicable.

When there were no sales at the same

LOT, we compared U.S. sales to

comparison market sales at a different

LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV

LOT is that of the sales from which we

derive SG&A expenses and profit.

Pursuant to § 351.412 of the

Department’s regulations, to determine

whether comparison market sales were

at a different LOT, we examined stages

in the marketing process and selling

functions along the chain of distribution

between the producer and the

unaffiliated (or arm’s length) customers.

If the comparison-market sales were at

a different LOT and the differences

affected price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export

transaction, we made a LOT adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

PAM was the only company for which

we made an LOT adjustment.

Finally, if the NV LOT was more

remote from the factory than the CEP

LOT and there was no basis for

determining whether the differences in

LOT between NV and CEP affected price

comparability, we granted a CEP offset,

as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR

61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 1997).

We granted a CEP offset for the

following companies: Delverde; Puglisi;

and Rummo.

For a detailed description of our LOT

methodology and a summary of

company-specific LOT findings for

these preliminary results, see the June

21, 2001, ‘‘99/00 Administrative Review

of Pasta from Italy and Turkey:

Preliminary Determination Level of

Trade Findings’ memoranda on file in

the CRU.

G. Company-Specific Issues

We relied on the respondents’

information as submitted, except in

instances where, based on verification

findings, we made modifications to the

calculation of normal value and EP or

CEP. See the company-specific

calculation memoranda on file in the

CRU, for a description of any changes

that we made.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of these preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

in accordance with section 773A(a) of

the Act, based on the official exchange

rates published by the Federal Reserve.

Intent To Revoke

On July 13, 2000 and July 31, 2000,

Puglisi and Corex, respectively,

submitted letters to the Department

requesting, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.222(b), revocation of the

antidumping duty order with respect to

their sales of the subject merchandise.

The Department ‘‘may revoke, in

whole or in part’’ an antidumping duty

order upon completion of a review

under section 751 of the Act. While

Congress has not specified the

procedures that the Department must

follow in revoking an order, the

Department has developed a procedure

for revocation that is described in 19

CFR 351.222. This regulation requires,

inter alia, that one or more exporters

and producers covered by the order

submit the following: (1) A certification

that the company has sold the subject

merchandise at not less than NV in the

current review period and that the

company will not sell at less than NV

in the future; (2) a certification that the

company sold the subject merchandise

in each of the three years forming the

basis of the request in commercial

quantities; and (3) an agreement to

immediate reinstatement of the order if

the Department concludes that the

company, subsequent to the revocation,

has sold subject merchandise at less

than normal value. See 19 CFR

351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a

request, the Department will consider

the following in determining whether to

revoke the order in part: (1) Whether the

producer or exporter requesting

revocation has sold subject merchandise

at not less than NV for a period of at

least three consecutive years; (2)

whether the continued application of

the antidumping duty order is otherwise

necessary to offset dumping; and (3)

whether the producer or exporter

requesting revocation in part has agreed

in writing to the immediate

reinstatement of the order, as long as

any exporter or producer is subject to

the order, if the Department concludes

that the exporter or producer,

subsequent to revocation, sold the

subject merchandise at less than NV.

See 19 CFR. 351.222(b)(2).

On July 31, 2000 and September 13,

2000, respectively, Puglisi and Corex

submitted the required certifications

and agreements.

Based on the preliminary results in

this review and the final results of the

two preceding reviews, Puglisi and

Corex had de minimis dumping margins

for three consecutive reviews. Further,

in determining whether three years of

no dumping establish a sufficient basis

to make a revocation determination, the

Department must be able to determine

that the company continued to

participate meaningfully in the U.S.

market during each of the three years at

issue. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and

Determination To Revoke in Part, 64 FR

2173, 2175 (January 13, 1999); see also

Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and

Determination Not to Revoke Order in

Part, 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 16,

1999); and Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination Not to

Revoke the Antidumping Order: Brass

Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands,

65 FR 742 (January 6, 2000). This

practice has been codified in

§ 351.222(d)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, which states that, ‘‘before

revoking an order or terminating a

suspended investigation, the Secretary

must be satisfied that, during each of the

three (or five) years, there were exports

to the United States in commercial

quantities of the subject merchandise to

which a revocation or termination will

apply.’’ 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1) (emphasis

added); see also 19 CFR

351.222(e)(1)(ii). For purposes of

revocation, the Department must be able

to determine that past margins are

reflective of a company’s normal

commercial activity. Sales during the

POR which, in the aggregate, are an

abnormally small quantity do not

provide a reasonable basis for

determining that the discipline of the

order is no longer necessary to offset

dumping.

With respect to the threshold matter

of whether Puglisi and Corex made sales

of subject merchandise to the United

States in commercial quantities, we find

that Puglisi’s and Corex’s aggregate sales

to the United States were made in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34421

commercial quantities during all

segments of this proceeding. Both the

quantity and number of Puglisi’s and

Corex’s shipments to the United States

of subject merchandise have remained

at sufficiently high levels to be

considered commercial quantities.

Therefore, we can reasonably conclude

that the zero or de minimis margins

calculated for Puglisi and Corex in each

of the last three administrative reviews

are reflective of the company’s normal

commercial experience. See

Memorandum from Geoffrey Craig to

File, ‘‘Shipments of Pasta to the United

States by Puglisi,’’ dated June 21, 2001;

and Memorandum from Cindy Robinson

to File, ‘‘Shipments of Pasta to the

United States by Corex,’’ dated June 21,

2001.

With respect to 19 CFR

351.222(b)(2)(ii), in considering whether

continued application of the order is

necessary to offset dumping, ‘‘the

Department may consider trends in

prices and costs, investment, currency

movements, production capacity, as

well as all other market and economic

factors relevant to a particular case.’’

Proposed Regulation Concerning the

Revocation of Antidumping Duty

Orders, 64 FR 29818, 29820 (June 3,

1999). Thus, based upon three

consecutive reviews resulting in zero or

de minimis margins, the Department

presumes that the company requesting

revocation is not likely to resume selling

subject merchandise at less than the NV

in the near future unless the Department

has been presented with evidence to

demonstrate that dumping is likely to

resume if the order were revoked. In this

proceeding, we have not received any

evidence that would demonstrate that

Puglisi and Corex are likely to resume

dumping in the future if the order were

revoked. Therefore, we also

preliminarily determine that the order is

no longer necessary to offset dumping.

Because all requirements under the

regulation have been satisfied, if these

preliminary findings are affirmed in our

final results, we intend to revoke the

antidumping duty order with respect to

merchandise produced and exported by

Puglisi and Corex. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), if these findings

are affirmed in our final results, we will

terminate the suspension of liquidation

for any such merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the first day

after the period under review, and will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

refund any cash deposit.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following percentage weighted-average

margins exist for the period July 1, 1999,

through June 30, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Barilla ...................................... 45.59

Corex ...................................... 0

Delverde ................................. 0.58

Ferrara .................................... 4.39

Pagani ..................................... 0

Pallante ................................... 2.40

PAM ........................................ 4.48

Puglisi ..................................... * 0.10

Rummo ................................... * 0.02

Riscossa ................................. 1.81

*De Minimis.

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties of this proceeding in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication of these

preliminary results. See 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs and/or written comments no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results

of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to issues

raised in such briefs or comments, may

be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication. Parties who submit

arguments are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the

issue, (2) a brief summary of the

argument and (3) a table of authorities.

Further, we would appreciate it if

parties submitting written comments

would provide the Department with an

additional copy of the public version of

any such comments on diskette. The

Department will issue the final results

of this administrative review, which

will include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments, or

at a hearing, if requested, within 120

days of publication of these preliminary

results.

Assessment Rate

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the

Department calculated an assessment

rate for each importer of the subject

merchandise. Upon issuance of the final

results of this administrative review, if

any importer-specific assessment rates

calculated in the final results are above

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent),

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

appropriate entries by applying the

assessment rate to the entered value of

the merchandise. For assessment

purposes, we calculated importerspecific assessment rates for the subject

merchandise by aggregating the

dumping margins for all U.S. sales to

each importer and dividing the amount

by the total entered value of the sales to

that importer. Where appropriate, in

order to calculate the entered value, we

subtracted international movement

expenses (e.g., international freight)

from the gross sales value.

Cash Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash deposit rate for

each producer and/or exporter included

in this administrative review, we

divided the total dumping margins for

each company by the total net value for

that company’s sales during the review

period.

The following deposit rates will be

effective upon publication of the final

results of this administrative review for

all shipments of certain pasta from Italy

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rates for the companies listed

above will be the rates established in the

final results of this review, except if the

rate is less than 0.5 percent and,

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit

will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed

or investigated companies not listed

above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent final

results in which that manufacturer or

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, a

prior review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent final

results for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 11.26 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation. See Notice of

Antidumping Duty Order and Amended

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from

Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996).

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

34422 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

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.

This administrative review is issued

and published in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–16300 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–836]

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: Final

Results of the Fourth Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of fourth

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 22, 2001, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the fourth

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan. The

review covers Chang Chun

Petrochemical Company Ltd., a

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise. The period of review is

May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000.

We received no comments from

interested parties on our preliminary

results. Therefore, we have made no

changes to the margin calculation.

Therefore, the final results do not differ

from the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margin for

Chang Chun Petrochemical Company

Ltd. is listed below in the section

entitled ‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Ledgerwood or Brian Smith,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3836 or (202) 482–

1766, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Background

The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Chang Chun Petrochemical

Company Ltd. (‘‘Chang Chun’’). The

period of review (‘‘POR’’) is May 1,

1999, through April 30, 2000.

On February 22, 2001, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of the fourth

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

polyvinyl alcohol (‘‘PVA’’) from Taiwan

(66 FR 11137).

We invited parties to comment on the

preliminary results of the review. No

interested party submitted comments.

The Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Order

The product covered by this order is

PVA. PVA is a dry, white to creamcolored, water-soluble synthetic

polymer. This product consists of

polyvinyl alcohols hydrolyzed in excess

of 85 percent, whether or not mixed or

diluted with defoamer or boric acid.

Excluded from this order are PVAs

covalently bonded with acetoacetylate,

carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid

uniformly present on all polymer chains

in a concentration equal to or greater

than two mole percent, and PVAs

covalently bonded with silane

uniformly present on all polymer chains

in a concentration equal to or greater

than one-tenth of one mole percent.

PVA in fiber form is not included in the

scope of this order.

The merchandise under order is

currently classifiable under subheading

3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written

description of the scope is dispositive.

Final Results of the Review

Since neither party submitted

comments for consideration in the final

results, our final results remain

unchanged from the preliminary results.

The following weighted-average margin

percentage remains for Chang Chun for

the period May 1, 1999, through April

30, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Chang Chun ......................... 0.00

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct the Customs Service 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).

This notice also 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 duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of doubled antidumping duties.

Cash deposits are no longer required

on or after May 14, 2001, the effective

date of revocation of the antidumping

duty order on PVA as a result of the

five-year sunset review (see 66 FR

22145, May 3, 2001).

This notice also serves as 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(a)(3).

Timely written notification of return or

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of an

APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

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

Act.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–16296 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P