34410 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

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. 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 had

submitted its own letter.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

July 16, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

IQF red raspberries from Chile are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

will result in the investigation being

terminated; otherwise, these

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–16298 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–805]

Notice of Preliminary Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Pasta From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial rescission of antidumping

duty administrative review

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioners and two producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain pasta

(pasta) from Turkey for the period July

1, 1999 through June 30, 2000.

We preliminarily determine that

during the POR, Filiz Gida Sanayi ve

Ticaret A.S. (Filiz) and Pastavilla

Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

(Pastavilla) 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 based on the difference between

the export price (EP) and NV.

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 their 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: June 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Terpstra or Lyman Armstrong,

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) 482–3601, 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 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

Turkey (61 FR 38545). 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 20 to July 31, 2000, we

received requests for review from

Borden Foods Corporation (Borden),

which is an affiliate of Borden Inc., a

petitioner 1 in the case, from New World

Pasta 2, and from individual Turkish

exporters/producers of pasta, in

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

In all, requests were made to review

four Turkish 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, for Filiz, Pastavilla, Beslen

Makarna Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

and its affiliate, Beslen Pazarlarma Gida

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively

Beslen), and Maktas Makarnacilik ve

Ticaret A.S. (Maktas). See Notice of

Initiation, 65 FR 53980 (September 6,

2000).

On September 6, 2000, Borden

withdrew its request for certain

companies enumerated in its original

letter. Of the four companies named in

the Initiation Notice, we are rescinding

a review of one company, Maktas,

because Borden withdrew its 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 three

companies for which we initiated the

review: (1) Filiz; (2) Pastavilla; and (3)

Beslen.

For Pastavilla and Filiz, the

Department disregarded sales that failed

the cost test during the most recently

completed segment of the proceeding in

which these companies participated.

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

Pastavilla and Filiz at the time we

initiated the antidumping review.

On September 21, 2000, Filiz stated

that it had no U.S. entries or sales

during the POR prior to January 1, 2000,

and therefore requested that, for

purposes of reporting home market sales

and cost data, the POR be shortened to

the six-month period from January 1

through June 30, 2000. Accordingly, on

October 5, 2000, we informed Filiz that

it could limit its reporting of home

market data to the period January 1

through June 30, 2000. In that letter we

also advised Filiz that if it elected to

limit its reporting of home market cost

data to the six-month period, in the

sales-below-cost investigation, it would

forego the application of the ‘‘recovery

of cost’’ test pursuant to section

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Filiz and Pastavilla submitted their

section A questionnaire responses on

October 4, 2000, and sections B through

D on November 3, 2000.

The Department issued supplemental

sections A through C questionnaires to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34411

Pastavilla and Filiz on November 16,

and November 28, 2000, respectively.

Pastavilla submitted its response to our

supplemental questionnaire on

November 30, 2000. We received Filiz’s

response to our supplemental

questionnaire on December 18, 2000.

The Department issued supplemental

section D questionnaires to Pastavilla

and Filiz on January 25, 2001. We

received responses from both parties on

February 8, 2001.

On January 30, 2001, the Department

published a notice postponing the

preliminary results of this review until

June 21, 2001 (66 FR 8198).

The Department issued a second

supplemental sections A through D

questionnaire to Filiz on March 26,

2001. We received Filiz’s response to

our supplemental questionnaire on

April 19, 2001.

We verified the sales information

submitted by Pastavilla from April 23–

27, 2001.

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

On September 6, 2000, Borden

withdrew its request for a review of

Maktas. Because there were no other

requests for review for Maktas, and

because Borden’s letter withdrawing its

request was timely filed, we are

rescinding the review with respect to

Maktas in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1).

On October 3, 2000, Beslen submitted

a letter stating that it had no shipments

of scope merchandise during the POR.

We verified this through data from the

U.S. Customs Service. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are

preliminary rescinding our review of

Beslen since it made no sales or

shipments of subject merchandise

during the review period.

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, 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.

Scope Rulings

The Department has issued the

following scope ruling to date:

(1) 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, in the case file in the

Central Records Unit, main Commerce

building, room B–099 (the CRU).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified sales information

provided by Pastavilla. We used

standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities and

examination of relevant sales and

financial records. Our verification

results are outlined in a verification

report placed in the case file in the CRU.

We revised certain sales and cost data

based on verification findings. See the

company-specific verification report

and calculation memorandum.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, the Department first attempted

to match contemporaneous sales of

products sold in the U.S. 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.

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.

Comparisons to Normal Value

To determine whether sales of certain

pasta from Turkey were made in the

United States at less than fair value, we

compared the export price (EP) to the

normal value (NV), as described in the

Export Price and Normal Value sections

of this notice. Because Turkey’s

economy experienced high inflation

during the POR (over 60 percent), as is

Department practice, we limited our

comparisons to home market sales made

during the same month in which the

U.S. sale occurred and did not apply our

90/60 contemporaneity rule. See, e.g.,

Notice of Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Pasta

From Turkey, 63 FR 68429, 68430

(December 11, 1998) and Certain

Porcelain on Steel Cookware from

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

42496, 42503 (August 7, 1997). This

methodology minimizes the extent to

which calculated dumping margins are

overstated or understated due solely to

price inflation that occurred in the

intervening time period between the

U.S. and home market sales.

Export Price

For the price to the United States, we

used EP in accordance with section

772(a) of the Act because the

merchandise was sold by the producer

or exporter outside the United States to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation and

constructed export price was not

otherwise warranted based on the facts

on the record. We based EP on the

packed C&F and FOB prices to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United

States.

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,

insurance, foreign brokerage handling

and loading charges, and international

freight. In addition, we increased the EP

by the amount of the countervailing

duties paid that were attributable to an

export subsidy, in accordance with

section 772(c)(1)(C).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

34412 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

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 section

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

both producers.

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, rebates, 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,

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to

determine whether each respondent’s

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 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.

As noted above, we determined that

the Turkish economy experienced high

inflation during the POR. Therefore, to

avoid the distortive effect of inflation on

our comparison of costs and prices, we

requested that each respondent submit

the product-specific cost of

manufacturing (COM) incurred during

each month of the period for which it

reported home market sales. We then

calculated an average COM for each

product after indexing the reported

monthly costs to an equivalent currency

level using the Turkish wholesale price

index from the International Financial

Statistics published by the International

Monetary Fund (IMF). We then restated

the average COM in the currency value

of each respective month. Because Filiz

limited its reporting of home market

sales to a six-month period we

requested that it submit product-specific

COM incurred during each month of the

six-month period and made our

calculations on that basis.

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices

As required under section 773(b) of

the Act, for Pastavilla and Filiz, we

compared the weighted-average COP to

the weighted-average per unit price of

the comparison market sales of the

foreign like product, to determine

whether their respective sales had been

made at prices below the COP within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities. Since Filiz limited its

reporting of home market cost data to a

six-month period, we did not conduct

an analysis to determine whether such

prices were sufficient to permit the

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. For each respondent, 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. We

added interest revenue.

3. 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 Pastavilla’s sales of a given product

during the twelve-month period 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 POR-average costs

(indexed for inflation), 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. For Filiz,

where 20 percent or more of the sales

of a given product during its six-month

period were at prices less than the COP,

we determined such sales to have been

made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within

an extended period of time. Because of

the limited six-month reporting period

used by Filiz, 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, for both

companies we disregarded the belowcost sales and used the remaining sales

as the basis for determining NV, in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act.

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 for inland freight,

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 costs,

respectively. In addition, we made

circumstance of sale adjustments for

direct expenses, including imputed

credit, advertising, promotions, billing

adjustments, and warranties, in

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

of the Act.

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. Pursuant to § 351.411 of the

Department’s regulations, we based this

adjustment on the difference in the

variable COM for the foreign like

product and subject merchandise, using

twelve-month average costs (six-month

average costs for Filiz), as adjusted for

inflation for each month of the twelvemonth period (six-month period for

Filiz), as described in the Cost of

Production Analysis section above.

E. Level of Trade (LOT)

In accordance with section

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

NV based on sales in the comparison

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34413

market at the same LOT as the U.S. EP

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.

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.

Filiz had no home market sales at the

same LOT. Consequently, we could not

match EP sales to sales at the same LOT

in the home market. Nor could we

determine a LOT adjustment. Therefore,

we made no LOT adjustment.

For Pastavilla, all EP sales were

compared to home market sales at the

same LOT. Therefore, no LOT

adjustment was necessary.

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: Level of

Trade Findings Memorandum’’ on file

in the CRU.

Intent Not To Revoke

On July 24 2000, Pastavilla submitted

a letter to the Department requesting,

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b),

revocation of the antidumping duty

order with respect to its 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 continued application of the

AD 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).

In its July 24, 2000 request for

revocation in part, Pastavilla submitted

the required certifications and

agreement. Based on the preliminary

results in this review and the final

results of the two preceding reviews,

Pastavilla has not had zero or de

minimis dumping margins for three

consecutive reviews.

Because the requirements under the

regulation have not been satisfied, if

these preliminary findings are affirmed

in our final results, we do not intend to

revoke the antidumping duty order with

respect to merchandise produced and

exported by Pastavilla.

Currency Conversion

Because this proceeding involves a

high-inflation economy, we limited our

comparison of U.S. and home market

sales to those occurring in the same

month (as described above) and only

used daily exchange rates. See Notice of

Final Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 63

FR 68429 (December 11, 1998).

The Department’s preferred source for

daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. However, the Federal

Reserve Bank does not track or publish

exchange rates for the Turkish Lira.

Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily

exchange rates from the Dow Jones

Service, as published in the Wall Street

Journal.

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)

Filiz ....................................... 3.59

Pastavilla .............................. 1.90

The Department will disclose the

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

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