[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6352-6354]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-34]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-818]
Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the Twelfth
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the twelfth administrative review
for the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The review
covers ten manufacturers/exporters: Domenico Paone fu Erasmo S.p.A.
(Erasmo), Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A. (Indalco), P.A.M.
S.p.A. (PAM), Pasta Lensi (Lensi), Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.
(Pagani), Pastificio Labor S.r.L. (Labor), Pastificio Lucio Garofalo
(Garofalo), Pastificio Riscossa F.Illi Mastromauro S.r.L. (Riscossa),
Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (Rummo), and Rustichella d'Abruzzo
S.p.A. (Rustichella). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007,
through June 30, 2008. PAM and Garofalo were selected as mandatory
respondents.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to James Terpstra, from the Team regarding
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated September 25,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, the final
results differ from the preliminary results for PAM and Garofalo. The
final weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are listed
below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho (Garofalo) and
Christopher Hargett (PAM), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 and (202) 482-4161, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2009, the Department published the preliminary results
of the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain pasta from Italy. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Twelfth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 39285 (August 6, 2009) (Preliminary Results).
Petitioners,\2\ PAM, Garofalo, Riscossa and Rummo submitted case
briefs on November 20, 2009. Petitioners, Pam and Garofalo submitted
rebuttal briefs on December 4, 2009. On August 6, 2009, PAM requested a
hearing. A public hearing was held on December 14, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Petitioners are New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers
Pasta Company, and American Italian Pasta Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this 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 this 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, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by
Consorzio per il
[[Page 6353]]
Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by Associazione Italiana per
l'Agricoltura Biologica, by Codex S.r.L., by Bioagricert S.r.L., or by
Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale. Effective July 1,
2008, gluten free pasta is also excluded from this order. See Certain
Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part, 74 FR 41120 (August 14,
2009). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable
under items 1902.19.20 and 1901.90.9095 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.
Model Match Clarification
In the preliminary results we explained the basis for our
clarification.
``In the eleventh review of pasta from Italy the Department stated
that it would solicit comments from interested parties with respect to
the appropriate standards and criteria to be applied in differentiating
among wheat codes, and make any necessary changes and/or clarifications
to the model match criteria for pasta to apply to all future
respondents. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of
the Eleventh Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 73
FR 75400 (December 11, 2008).
On January 9, 2009, we contacted interested parties and solicited
comments on the following four factors: 1) industry standards, 2)
measuring material cost differences, 3) defining commercial
significance, and 4) physical characteristics. Parties submitted
comments on February 23, 2009, and rebuttal comments on March 10,
2009.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In addition, we sent a letter on June 4, 2009, soliciting
additional information from PAM and Garafolo. PAM and Garafolo
submitted responses on July 7, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of a lack of consistency in the Department's treatment of
separate wheat codes in model match decisions in previous
determinations, we solicited comments in order to articulate a clearer
statement of our policy. Our goal was to develop objective criteria
that would apply in each review of this antidumping duty order.
Petitioners and respondents in this review submitted factual
information and comments. Based on our analysis of these comments, and
our review of prior determinations, we propose to clarify and modify
our treatment of the wheat code physical characteristic. See memorandum
from James Terpstra, Program Manager, to John M. Andersen, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled Preliminary Model Match
Clarification on Pasta Wheat Code Classifications,' dated July 31,
2009. We propose replacing the existing single Wheat Code field with
the following three fields: wheat species, form, and protein content.
We note that the threshold set forth in Protein Content corresponds
to the minimum protein content of 12.5 percent established by the
Italian Commodity Exchanges. We are requesting that interested parties
provide comments on the proposed model match changes included there in.
We will evaluate comments on the proposed methodology. Any new model
match criteria developed will be applicable in the 2008-2009 and
subsequent administrative reviews of pasta from Italy.'' See the
Preliminary Results at 39286.
Subsequently we conducted verification and received case and
rebuttal comments by the parties. We have addressed the arguments
raised by the parties in the Issues & Decision Memorandum accompanying
this notice. We have concluded that no changes from the approach
proposed in the preliminary results are warranted. Accordingly, in
future reviews we intend to replace the existing wheat code field with
three new fields.
Old Field
Field 3.2: Type of Wheat
1 = 100 percent durum semolina
2 = 100 percent whole wheat
3 - n = specify categories as required
New Fields
Field 3.2: Wheat Species
1 = Durum wheat
2 = Emmer wheat
3 = Other (specify wheat species)
Field 3.3 Milling Form
1 = Made from 97-100 percent semolina
2 = Made from whole wheat
3 = Blend of semolina and other (e.g., flour, with less than 97
percent semolina)
Field 3.4 Protein Content
1 = 12.5 percent or higher protein in finished pasta
2 = 10.00-12.49 percent protein in the finished pasta
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, dated concurrent with this notice and which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised,
and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/, and is on file in the Central
Records Unit, main Commerce Building, room 1117. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for
the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAM................................................. 8.54
Garofalo............................................ 16.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those companies not selected as mandatory respondents, we
determine that the following simple average percentage margin\4\ (based
on the two reviewed companies) exists for the period July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Because there are only two respondents for which a company-
specific margin was calculated in this review, the Department has
calculated a simple average margin to ensure that the total import
quantity and value for each company is not inadvertently revealed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erasmo.............................................. 12.40
Indalco............................................. 12.40
Lensi............................................... 12.40
Pagani.............................................. 12.40
Labor............................................... 12.40
Riscossa............................................ 12.40
Rummo............................................... 12.40
Rustichella......................................... 12.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each
respondent. 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
[[Page 6354]]
to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing
this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer
(or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate
is greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an
importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act): (1) for Erasmo, Indalco, PAM, Lensi, Pagani, Labor,
Garofalo, Riscossa, Rummo, and Rustichella, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a
previous review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, 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 by this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 15.45 percent, the
all-others rate established in the implementation of the findings of
the WTO Panel in US - Zeroing (EC). See Implementation of the Findings
of the WTO Panel in US - Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under
Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and
Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261
(May 4, 2007). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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 and/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 antidumping and/or countervailing
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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 sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 2, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
General
Comment 1: Wheat Code Methodology
Comment 2: Application of Review-Specific All Other Rate
Garofalo
Comment 3: Garofalo's Submitted Wheat Code
Comment 4: Garofalo's Arms-Length Test
Comment 5: Cost Reporting Period
PAM
Comment 6: Collapsing of PAM's Wheat Code for Model Match
Comment 7: Inclusion of Transport Recovery in the U.S. Sales
Calculation
Comment 8: Treatment of AGEA Performance Bond
Comment 9: General Expenses
Comment 10: Insurance Claim as an Offset to G&A Expense
Comment 11: Over-reported Costs
[FR Doc. 2010-2802 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S