[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4938-4940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1713]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-489-806]


Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 
A.S. (``Marsan'') pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act'') and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), 
the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is initiating a changed 
circumstances review of the countervailing duty (``CVD'') order on 
certain pasta (``Pasta'') from Turkey. Marsan, a producer of pasta, 
claims that Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (``Gidasa'') 
changed its corporate name to Marsan and, therefore, Marsan should be 
entitled to the same cash deposit rate as its predecessor company, 
Gidasa.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Atkinson, Office of AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the CVD order on Pasta from Turkey. See Notice of Countervailing Duty 
Order: Certain Pasta (``Pasta'') From Turkey, 61 FR 38546 (July 24, 
1996). Since then, the Department has completed two administrative 
reviews of this CVD order but is not currently conducting an 
administrative review. See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 64398 (December 13, 
2001); Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 52774 (September 7, 2006) (``Pasta from 
Turkey: Results of Administrative Review''). Also, with respect to 
Gidasa, in July 2003, the Department determined that Gidasa was the 
successor-in-interest to Maktas Makarnacilik ve Ticaret A.S. 
(``Maktas'') and that Gidasa was entitled to the cash deposit rate 
assigned to Maktas in the most recently completed CVD administrative 
review. See Notice of

[[Page 4939]]

Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 68 FR 41554 
(July 14, 2003); see also Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 64398 (December 13, 
2001).
    On December 3, 2008, Marsan filed a request for an expedited 
changed circumstances review to determine whether it is the successor-
in-interest to Gidasa, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.216 for the antidumping (``AD'') and CVD orders on pasta 
from Turkey. Marsan submitted certain information in support of its 
claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Gidasa and argued that it 
should be entitled to Gidasa's current CVD cash deposit rate of 0.0 
percent. See Marsan's December 3, 2008 submission entitled Pasta From 
Turkey: Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances Review of AD/CVD 
Orders; see also Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of Administrative 
Review, 71 FR at 52775. In response to Marsan's request regarding the 
AD order, on January 7, 2009, the Department published its initiation 
of a changed circumstances review and stated that it will seek further 
information for the preliminary determination. See Notice of Initiation 
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta From 
Turkey, 74 FR 681 (January 7, 2009).

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry 
pasta in packages of five pounds (or 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.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will 
conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from 
an interested party, or receipt of information, concerning a CVD order 
which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the 
order. On December 3, 2008, Marsan submitted its request for an 
expedited changed circumstances review. With its request, Marsan 
submitted certain information related to its claim including 
information describing the acquisition of Gidasa in March 2008 by MGS 
Marmara Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (``MGS''). Following the 
acquisition of Gidasa, in June 2008, MGS changed Gidasa's name to 
Marsan. Based on the information Marsan submitted, the Department has 
determined that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review 
exist. See 19 CFR 351.216(d). Additionally, we note that there is no 
concurrent administrative review of Gidasa in which this name change 
could be examined.
    In the context of a changed circumstances review of an AD order 
based on a name change or a change in the company's ownership or 
structure, the Department relies on its ``successor-in-interest'' 
analysis to determine whether the successor remains essentially the 
same entity as the predecessor so that it is appropriate to impose the 
existing AD cash deposit rate of the predecessor on the successor. 
However, the AD successor-in-interest test may not fully address 
whether it is appropriate to apply the CVD cash deposit rate of a 
previously examined company to its claimed successor.
    In Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of 
Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review, 71 FR 75937 (December 19, 2006), the Department indicated that 
it intended to further consider the issue of whether alternative or 
additional successorship criteria, other than those the Department 
relies upon in an AD successor-in-interest analysis, would be more 
appropriate in a successorship-type CVD changed circumstances review 
context. Moreover, the Department stated that it anticipated issuing a 
Federal Register notice inviting the public to submit comments on the 
issue. Subsequently, the Department published Countervailing Duty 
Changed Circumstances Reviews; Request for Comment on Agency Practice, 
72 FR 3107 (January 24, 2007), in which the Department reiterated that 
the AD successor-in-interest analysis may not be entirely relevant in 
the CVD context, highlighted various considerations that distinguish 
CVD changed circumstances reviews from AD changed circumstances 
reviews, and provided the public an opportunity to comment on whether 
any changes to the Department's practice regarding such reviews was 
warranted and, if so, what those changes should entail.
    In the instant changed circumstances review, we intend not to apply 
the AD successor-in-interest methodology to determine whether Marsan is 
the successor-in-interest to Gidasa. The Department anticipates 
requesting additional information for this review and will publish in 
the Federal Register a notice of the preliminary results of the CVD 
changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2) 
and (4), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). That notice will set forth the 
factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are 
based and a description of any action proposed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to 
comment on the preliminary results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its CVD 
changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on 
which the review is initiated.
    Because the Department is not using the standard AD successor-in-
interest methodology to examine this changed circumstances review and 
the Department will seek further information from Marsan, the 
Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to expedite 
this action by combining the preliminary results of review with this 
notice of initiation, as permitted under 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). 
Thus, the Department is not issuing the preliminary results of its CVD 
changed circumstances review at this time.
    The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated 
countervailing duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless 
and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed 
circumstances review.
    This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) 
of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).


[[Page 4940]]


    Dated: January 16, 2009.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-1713 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S