Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 7251 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–475–819] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results 

of the Tenth (2005) Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 6, 2007, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register its preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

pasta from Italy for the period January 

1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. See 

Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary 

Results of the Tenth Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

43616 (August 6, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We preliminarily found that 

Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.L. 

(‘‘Pallante’’) and De Matteis 

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

received countervailable subsidies in 

this review, and Atar S.r.L. (‘‘Atar’’) did 

not receive any countervailable 

subsidies in this review and its rate is, 

consequently, zero. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have revised the net subsidy rate for De 

Matteis. Therefore, the final results 

differ from the preliminary results. The 

final net subsidy rates for the reviewed 

companies are listed below in the 

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew McAllister or Brandon 

Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

1, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1174 and (202) 482–0182, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the publication of the 

Preliminary Results, we sent 

supplemental questionnaires to De 

Matteis and the Government of Italy 

(‘‘GOI’’) on August 1, 2007, and received 

responses on August 9, 2007, and a 

further clarification from De Matteis on 

September 10, 2007. Also, on October 

25, 2007, the Department requested 

additional clarification on De Matteis’

September 10 response. We received a 

response on November 5, 2007. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

Case briefs were received from De 

Matteis and petitioners on September 

19, 2007. A rebuttal brief was received 

from De Matteis on September 24, 2007. 

The Department did not conduct a 

hearing in this review because none was 

requested. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) for 

which we are measuring subsidies is 

January 1, 2005, through December 31, 

2005. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds four ounces 

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 the order 

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, 

Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International 

Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il 

Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, 

Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura 

Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, 

based on publicly available information, 

the Department has determined that, as 

of August 4, 2004, imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by 

Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from 

this order. See Memorandum from Eric 

B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, 

dated August 4, 2004, which is on file 

in the Department’s Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of the 

main Department building. In addition, 

based on publicly available information, 

the Department has determined that, as 

of March 13, 2003, imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by 

Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e 

Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded 

from this order. See Memorandum from 

Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, 

dated February 28, 2006, entitled 

‘‘Recognition of Instituto per la 

Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) 

as a Public Authority for Certifying 

Organic Pasta from Italy’’ which is on 

file in the Department’s Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of the 

main Department building. 

The merchandise subject to review is 

currently classifiable under items 

1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are 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, which is on file in 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 to 

Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, 

which is available in the CRU. 

(3) 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. 

(4) On April 27, 2000, the Department 

self-initiated an anti-circumvention 

inquiry to determine whether Pastificio 

Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.’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 Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from 

Italy: Notice of Initiation of AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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