7252 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On 

September 19, 2003, we published an 

affirmative finding of the anticircumvention inquiry. See AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: 

Affirmative Final Determinations of 

Circumvention of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 

54888 (September 19, 2003). 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

There has been one change since the 

Preliminary Results which affects De 

Matteis’ rate. All issues raised in this 

review are addressed in the 

accompanying ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Tenth (2005) Administrative Review 

of the Countervailing Duty Order on 

Certain Pasta from Italy’’ from Stephen 

J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration (January 31, 2008), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice 

(‘‘Decision Memo’’). Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for Pallante and 

De Matteis. See Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Calculations for the Final Results 

for De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A.’’

(January 31, 2008) for the revised rate 

calculation for De Matteis. Pallente’s 

rate did not change from the 

preliminary results and Atar had no 

countervailable subsidies. We did not 

calculate an individual rate for Agritalia 

because a review was not requested for 

Agritalia. Agritalia was only asked to 

participate because of the possible effect 

of subsidies it received on its suppliers 

who are included in this review. We 

have found that Agritalia did not receive 

any subsidies which affected any 

suppliers’ rates. Listed below are the 

programs we examined in the review 

and our findings with respect to each of 

these programs. For a complete analysis 

of the programs found to be 

countervailable, and the basis for the 

Department’s determination, see the 

Decision Memo. For the period January 

1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, we 

find the net subsidy rates for the 

producers/exporters under review to be 

those specified in the chart shown 

below: 

Producer/Exporter 

Net subsidy 

rate 

(percent) 

De Matteis Agroalimentare 

S.p.A ..................................... 1.83 

Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.L 2.02 

Atar S.r.l .................................... 0.00 

The calculations will be disclosed to 

the interested parties in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Because the countervailing duty rate 

for Atar is zero, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to liquidate entries for Atar during the 

period January 1, 2005, through 

December 31, 2005, without regard to 

countervailing duties in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.106(c). For Pallante 

and De Matteis, the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess countervailing 

duties at these net subsidy rates. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of these final results of 

this review. 

For all other companies that were not 

reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli 

S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana 

S.r.l., which are excluded from the 

order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was 

revoked from the order), the Department 

has directed CBP to assess 

countervailing duties on all entries 

between January 1, 2005, and December 

31, 2005, at the rates in effect at the time 

of entry. Agritalia has been reviewed 

previously and has its own exporterspecific rate of 2.92 percent. 

The Department also intends to 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated countervailing duties. Since 

the countervailable subsidy rate for Atar 

is zero, the Department will instruct 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

of entries, but to collect no cash 

deposits of estimated countervailing 

duties for Atar on all shipments of the 

subject merchandise that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review. 

For all non-reviewed firms (except 

Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo 

Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are 

excluded from the order, and Pasta 

Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the 

order), we will instruct CBP to collect 

cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties at the most recent 

company-specific or all-others rate 

applicable to the company. These rates 

shall apply to all non-reviewed 

companies until a review of a company 

assigned these rates is requested. 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition 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 the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: De Matteis Received 

Additional Subsidies Under Law 662/96 and 

Law 488/92. 

Comment 2: The Department Should 

Countervail Subsidies Received by Agritalia’s 

Cross-Owned Companies. 

Comment 3: The Benefits Under Law 488/ 

92 Received by De Matteis Should be 

Allocated Over Total Sales. 

[FR Doc. E8–2280 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–824] 

Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 7, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on polyethylene terephthalate film, 

sheet and strip (PET film) from India. 

See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

44086 (August 7, 2007) (Preliminary 

Results). 

The review covers one respondent, 

MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 7253 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received on the Preliminary Results, we 

have made changes to our calculations 

for MTZ. Therefore, the final results 

differ from the preliminary results of 

review. The final weighted-average 

dumping margin for MTZ is listed in the 

‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: February 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun 

Jack Zhao or Martha Douthit, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1396 or 

(202) 482–5050, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 7, 2007, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PET film 

from India. In accordance with 19 CFR. 

351.309(c)(ii), we invited parties to 

comment on our Preliminary Results. 

On September 6, 2007, MTZ, the sole 

respondent in this administrative 

review, submitted a case brief relating to 

one issue: Adjustment of export price by 

the amount of countervailing duties 

imposed on PET film. No rebuttal brief 

was filed by any other interested party, 

and no hearing was requested. We have 

now completed the administrative 

review in accordance with section 751 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 

2005 through June 30, 2006. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this administrative 

review, the products covered are all 

gauges of raw, pretreated or primed PET 

Film, whether extruded or coextruded. 

Excluded are metallized films and other 

finished films that have had at least one 

of their surfaces modified by the 

application of a performance-enhancing 

resinous or inorganic layer of more than 

0.00001 inches thick. Since the order 

was published, there has been one scope 

determination, dated August 25, 2003. 

In this determination, requested by 

International Packaging Films, Inc., the 

Department determined that tracing and 

drafting film is outside of the scope of 

the order. Imports of PET Film are 

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written scope of this proceeding is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised by interested parties 

in the case briefs are listed in the 

Appendix to this notice, and addressed 

in the Memorandum from Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on PET Film from India (Decision 

Memorandum), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this administrative review in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, Room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received from MTZ, we have made 

changes to the margin calculation used 

in the Preliminary Results, taking into 

consideration the amount of 

countervailing duties imposed on 

subject merchandise to offset export 

subsidies, in accordance with section 

772(c)(1)(C)of the Act. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

percentage margin exists for the period 

July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(%) 

MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd ................ 0.00 

Duty Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appraisement instructions 

directly to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. For duty-assessment 

purposes, we calculated importerspecific assessment rates by dividing the 

dumping margins calculated for each 

importer by the total entered value of 

sales for each importer during the 

period of review. 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

final results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of 

this notice of final results of 

administrative review for all shipments 

of PET Film from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 

rate for MTZ will be the rate shown 

above; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not covered in 

this review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, a prior review, or the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but 

the manufacturer is a firm covered in 

this review, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate established for the most recent 

period for the manufacturer of the 

subject merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

proceeding conducted by the 

Department, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be 5.71 percent, which is 

the all others rate established in the less 

than fair value investigation (24.14 

percent), adjusted for the export subsidy 

rate found in the companion 

countervailing duty investigation. These 

cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties or countervailing 

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 the antidumping 

duties or countervailing duties occurred 

and the subsequent assessment of 

double antidumping duties or 

countervailing duties. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APOs) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
7254 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 

1Mid Continent Nail Corporation, Davis Wire 

Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Atlas 

Steel & Wire Division), Maze Nails (Division of 

W.H. Maze Company), Treasure Coast Fasteners, 

Inc., and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial 

and Service Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and 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) of the Act. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Issues in the Decision Memorandum 

Appendix 1 

1. Adjustment of Export Price (EP) by the 

countervailing duties imposed on PET Film. 

[FR Doc. E8–2270 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–909] 

Certain Steel Nails From the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: February 7, 2008. 

SUMMARY: On January 23, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

steel nails from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). See Certain Steel Nails 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination, 73 FR 3928 

(January 23, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). We are amending our 

preliminary determination to correct 

certain ministerial errors with respect to 

the antidumping duty margin 

calculation for Illinois Tool Works Inc. 

and Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., 

Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Paslode’’). The 

corrections to Paslode’s margin also 

affect the margin applied to companies 

granted separate-rate status. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Bankhead, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–9068. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 23, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary determination that certain 

steel nails (‘‘nails’’) from the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at LTFV, as provided in 

section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Preliminary 

Determination. 

On January 22, 2008, Paslode and 

Petitioners1 filed timely allegations of 

ministerial errors contained in the 

Department’s Preliminary 

Determination. After reviewing the 

allegations, we have determined that the 

Preliminary Determination included 

significant ministerial errors. Therefore, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), 

we have made changes, as described 

below, to the Preliminary 

Determination. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2006, through March 31, 

2007. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

May 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain steel nails 

having a shaft length up to 12 inches. 

Certain steel nails include, but are not 

limited to, nails made of round wire and 

nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may 

be of one piece construction or 

constructed of two or more pieces. 

Certain steel nails may be produced 

from any type of steel, and have a 

variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point 

types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. 

Finishes include, but are not limited to, 

coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, 

whether by electroplating or hotdipping one or more times), phosphate 

cement, and paint. Head styles include, 

but are not limited to, flat, projection, 

cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, 

countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles 

include, but are not limited to, smooth, 

barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and 

fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded 

nails subject to this proceeding are 

driven using direct force and not by 

turning the fastener using a tool that 

engages with the head. Point styles 

include, but are not limited to, 

diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no 

point. Finished nails may be sold in 

bulk, or they may be collated into strips 

or coils using materials such as plastic, 

paper, or wire. Certain steel nails 

subject to this proceeding are currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7317.00.55, 

7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75. 

Excluded from the scope of this 

proceeding are roofing nails of all 

lengths and diameter, whether collated 

or in bulk, and whether or not 

galvanized. Steel roofing nails are 

specifically enumerated and identified 

in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 

revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also 

excluded from the scope of this 

proceeding are corrugated nails. A 

corrugated nail is made of a small strip 

of corrugated steel with sharp points on 

one side. Also excluded from the scope 

of this proceeding are fasteners suitable 

for use in powder-actuated hand tools, 

not threaded and threaded, which are 

currently classified under HTSUS 

7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also 

excluded from the scope of this 

proceeding are thumb tacks, which are 

currently classified under HTSUS 

7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the 

scope of this proceeding are certain 

brads and finish nails that are equal to 

or less than 0.0720 inches in shank 

diameter, round or rectangular in cross 

section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 

inches in length, and that are collated 

with adhesive or polyester film tape 

backed with a heat seal adhesive. 

While the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of these investigations is 

dispositive. 

Significant Ministerial Error 

Ministerial errors are defined in 

section 735(e) of the Act as ‘‘errors in 

addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical errors 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

type of unintentional error which the 

administering authority considers 

ministerial.’’ Section 351.224(e) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

the Department ‘‘will analyze any 

comments received and, if appropriate, 

correct any significant ministerial error 

by amending the preliminary 

determination* * *.’’ A significant 

ministerial error is defined as an error, 

the correction of which, singly or in 

combination with other errors, would 

result in (1) a change of at least five 

absolute percentage points in, but not 

less than 25 percent of, the weightedVerDate Aug<31>2005 17:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES