[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23974-23978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10434]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-805]
Certain Pasta From Turkey: Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from petitioners \1\ to conduct an
administrative review of Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Marsan),
the
[[Page 23975]]
Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from
Turkey. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2009, through June 30,
2010. As discussed below, we preliminarily find that Marsan was not a
producer of subject merchandise during the POR. In addition, because
the producer of subject merchandise, Birlik Paz. San. ve Tic. A.S.
(Birlik), had knowledge that the pasta it produced and sold to Marsan
was destined for the United States, we preliminarily determine that
Marsan had no reviewable entries during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New World Pasta Company, American Italian Pasta Company, and
Dakota Growers Pasta Company (collectively, petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
DATES: Effective Date: April 29, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Cindy Robinson, AD/
CVD Operations Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3692 and (202) 482-3797, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on pasta from Turkey. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 61 FR 38545 (July 24, 1996)
(Amended Final Determination). On July 1, 2010, we published in the
Federal Register the notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review'' of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 75 FR 38074 (July 1, 2010). On July 30, 2010, we
received a request from petitioners to review Marsan, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). On August 31, 2010, we published the notice
of initiation of review of Marsan (successor-in-interest to Gidasa
Sabanci gida Sanayi ve Ticaret (``Gidasa'')). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral
of Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274 (August 31, 2010);
see also Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 74 FR 26373 (June 2,
2009) (determining that Marsan is the successor-in-interest to Gidasa
in the antidumping duty proceeding).
The Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test during
the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which this
company participated.\2\ Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales by this company of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of normal value in this review were
made at prices below the cost of production. Thus, we initiated a cost
investigation of Marsan at the time we initiated the antidumping
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The administrative review covering the period July 1, 1998,
through June 30, 1999, was the most recently completed review for
Marsan's predecessor. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 64 FR 69493
(December 13, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 15, 2010, we sent the antidumping duty questionnaire
for Sections A through D to Marsan. Marsan submitted its response to
the initial questionnaire for Sections A through D on November 12,
2010. From December 3, 2010, to February 15, 2011, supplemental
questionnaires were issued to Marsan, and responses were submitted to
the Department from December 10, 2010, to March 9, 2011. In its
response to Section D, Marsan submitted cost information on behalf of
Birlik. On April 12, 2010, the Department extended the time limit for
the preliminary results of this proceeding until no later than May 4,
2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Extension of Time Limit for
the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
76 FR 20312 (April 12, 2011).
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is July 1, 2009, through June 30,
2010.
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.
Whether Marsan Is Affiliated With the Producer
Marsan asserts that it is affiliated with the producer of subject
merchandise, Birlik, part of the larger Ulker group business structure,
because a principal shareholder of MGS Marmara Gida San. ve Tic. A.S.
(MGS), Marsan's holding company, is also a shareholder in BIM Birlesik
Magazalar (BIM). BIM is owned 12 percent by Ulker Biskuvi, which is
also an Ulker group company. See November 12, 2010, questionnaire
response at 9. Marsan argues that, under the Department's rules for
affiliation, because the owner of Marsan is affiliated with the Ulker
group, Marsan is also affiliated with the Ulker group.
Marsan states that prior to November 2008, it owned and operated
the Hendek facility in Hendek, Turkey and produced pasta at that
facility. On November 4, 2008, Marsan leased the entire Hendek facility
to Birlik. Under the lease agreement, Marsan contracted with Birlik to
produce PIYALE pasta (Marsan's brand) until November 2009. Marsan
argues that, although it retained ownership of the assets in the Hendek
facility as of November 2008, Birlik took over the pasta production and
became Marsan's sole supplier. See January 24, 2011, questionnaire
response at 7. In December 2009, Marsan sold the durum wheat milling
equipment and the pasta production equipment to the company Olkusan
(renamed Bellini in April 2010), which is also an Ulker group company.
See November 12, 2010, questionnaire response at 5. Marsan continued
ownership of the Hendek facility buildings and silos as well as the
soft wheat milling equipment, which Marsan had continued to lease to
Birlik until June 1, 2010. In June 2010, Marsan leased all of its
assets in the Hendek facility to Bellini. Bellini then contracted with
Birlik for Birlik to continue pasta production. See id.
Marsan asserts that the Ulker group exercised control-in-fact over
Marsan because Marsan increasingly lost its independence, first by
selling the durum mill and pasta plant to Olkusan/
[[Page 23976]]
Bellini (an Ulker group company). Marsan further asserts that the Ulker
group exercises full operational and strategic control over Birlik with
respect to the brands sold by Birlik, Birlik's customers (Birlik is a
supplier only to Marsan and to Ulker group companies), and Birlik's
product line. Marsan argues that because, it is co-dependent on Birlik,
the Ulker group effectively exercises considerable control over
Marsan's domestic sales activities. See November 12, 2010,
questionnaire response at 12.
Marsan surmises that even if there were no intertwining of
activities, the mere fact of cross-ownership between the owner of MGS
and the Ulker Group, coupled with the potential for mutual influence
inherent in the sole supplier/customer relationship between Marsan and
Birlik/Bellini, compels the conclusion that the parties are affiliated
for antidumping purposes.
The Department preliminary finds that Marsan and Birlik are not
affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act. Pursuant to section
771(33) of the Act, an affiliated person may be: (A) a family member;
(B) an officer or director of an organization; (C) partners; (D)
employers and their employees; (E) any person or organization directly
or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any
organization and that organization; (F) two or more persons who
directly or indirectly control, are controlled by, or are under common
control with, any person; and (G) any person who controls any other
person and such other person.
To determine affiliation between companies, the Department must
find at least one of the criteria above is applicable to the
respondent. As defined by section 771(33) of the Act, a person shall be
considered to control another person if the person is legally or
operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the
other person. Section 351.102(b)(3) of the Department's regulations
provides that in finding affiliation based on control, the Department
will, among other factors, consider (i) corporate or family groupings;
(ii) franchise or joint venture agreements; (iii) debt financing; and
(iv) close supplier relationships. In determining whether control
exists, the Department does not require evidence of the actual exercise
of control by one party over another party. Rather, we focus upon one
party's ability to control the other.\4\ In the present case, we do not
find the existence of an affiliation, as defined by the statute,
between Marsan and Birlik. First, the evidence on the record shows that
there is no direct cross-ownership between Marsan and Birlik. The only
ownership the parties have in common is that the majority owner of
Marsan's parent company and Birlik's parent company each own shares in
BIM, a third party. See id., at 9. Thus, nothing about this ownership
creates affiliation pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. Due to the
proprietary nature of this issue, see Preliminary Results Memorandum to
Melissa G. Skinner, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations 3 from the Team
regarding Marsan's Affiliation, dated April 4, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27297-98 (May 19, 1997) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We preliminarily find that Marsan's argument of affiliation based
on control and a close supplier relationship between Marsan and Birlik
do not meet the standards for affiliation based on a close supplier
relationship, within the meaning of section 771(33)(G) of the Act.
Section 771(33)(G) of the Act defines an affiliated party as ``any
person who controls any other person and such other person.'' Section
771(33) of the Act states further that ``a person shall be considered
to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in
a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.''
The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) defines a close
supplier relationship as one where ``the supplier or buyer becomes
reliant upon another.'' \5\ To establish a close supplier relationship,
the party must demonstrate that the ``relationship is so significant
that it could not be replaced.'' \6\ The Department's regulations at 19
CFR 351.102(b), states that such a relationship must have the potential
to impact decisions concerning the production, pricing or cost of the
subject merchandise or foreign like product. In Stainless Steel Wire
Rod, for instance, the Department found a close supplier relationship
between two companies based on the fact that the purchaser, whose
operations were almost exclusively dependent upon finishing unfinished
stainless steel wire rod (also known as black coil), was not able to
obtain suitable black coil from sources other than the supplier in
question.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc.
No. 103-316, vol. 1 at 838 (1994); see also Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer
Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139,
1142-43 (January 7, 2000), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer
Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 42669
(July 11, 2000).
\6\ Id.
\7\ Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
59739, 59739-59740 (October 11, 2006), unchanged in Stainless Steel
Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 6528 (February 12, 2007)
(Stainless Steel Wire Rod).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information on the record of this case does not support
Marsan's argument of affiliation based on control and a close supplier
relationship between Marsan and Birlik. The record indicates that
during the POR, Marsan and Birlik entered into a lease and contract
production agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, Marsan leased
its Hendek pasta production facility to Birlik for a fee, and Birlik
produced and sold PIYALE pasta (Marsan's brand) to Marsan. See November
12, 2010, questionnaire response at 5-6, and Exhibit 2. Although Birlik
acts as Marsan's sole supplier under the terms of the contract
production agreement, Birlik produces pasta for other companies in the
Ulker group. See id. See also January 24, 2011, questionnaire response
at 7.
Although Marsan argues that the Ulker group exercises full
operational and strategic control over Birlik with respect to its
product line and its customers, there is no record evidence that Birlik
determined the types of pasta it produces for Marsan or that Marsan was
fully inhibited to purchase pasta from other suppliers. Nothing in the
contract production agreement between Marsan and Birlik indicates that
either party could control the pricing of the other party. See November
12, 2010, questionnaire response at Exhibit 2. To the extent that the
production agreement between Marsan and Birlik can be considered an
exclusive sales contract, the Department has previously recognized such
a commercial arrangement to be ``common'' in that it is typically made
at arm's length and does not normally indicate control of one party
over the other.\8\ Moreover, the Court of International Trade has held
that, even where there are exclusive sales contracts, the Department
has properly found that such contracts alone were insufficient to
support an affiliation finding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 38872 (July 6, 2005), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 11.
\9\ See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 342 F. Supp.
1225, 1243 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is no evidence on the record that indicates that
Birlik or any other company in the Ulker group had the ability to
control Marsan or that a
[[Page 23977]]
close supplier relationship exists, we preliminarily determine that
there is no affiliation between Marsan and Birlik.
Whether the Producer Had Knowledge of Destination
Marsan states that, should the Department find that Marsan and the
Ulker group are not related, then Marsan would not be the proper
respondent because it is not the manufacturer. See November 12, 2010,
questionnaire response at 12.
Marsan explains that after it confirms the pro-forma invoice, the
order information is entered into the computer system, and Birlik has
access to this module of Marsan's computer system. Birlik then produces
the merchandise, loads it onto the container, and prepares the
``Shipping Advice'' on Marsan's letterhead, which accompanies the
merchandise from the Hendek facility to the port of export. See March
1, 2011, questionnaire response at 2. Marsan states that Birlik knows
that the pasta sold to Marsan for exportation to the United States is
destined for the United States. See Id., at 4. Marsan also states that
Birlik is familiar with the brands that Marsan exports to the United
States, and that Marsan informs Birlik of the destinations for its
export orders. See id.
The Department's review of information on the record shows that
Marsan did not produce the subject merchandise and it was not the first
party in the transaction chain to have knowledge that the merchandise
was destined for the United States. The record also shows that the
shipments of the merchandise at issue were produced by Birlik and that
Birlik had knowledge of the destination of the exports. Therefore, it
is appropriate to apply the reseller policy, as follows:
As described in the October 15, 1998, Federal Register notice,
automatic liquidation at the cash-deposit rate required at the time
of entry can only apply to a reseller which does not have its own
rate if no administrative review has been requested, either of the
reseller or of any producer of merchandise the reseller exported to
the United States. If the Department conducts a review of a producer
of the reseller's merchandise where entries of the merchandise were
suspended at the producer's rate, automatic liquidation will not
apply to the reseller's sales. If, in the course of an
administrative review, the Department determines that the producer
knew, or should have known, that the merchandise it sold to the
reseller was destined for the United States, the reseller's
merchandise will be liquidated at the producer's assessment rate
which the Department calculates for the producer in the review. If,
on the other hand, the Department determines in the administrative
review that the producer did not know that the merchandise it sold
to the reseller was destined for the United States, the reseller's
merchandise will not be liquidated at the assessment rate the
Department determines for the producer or automatically at the rate
required as a deposit at the time of entry. In that situation, the
entries of merchandise from the reseller during the period of review
will be liquidated at the all others rate if there was no company-
specific review of the reseller for that review period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954, 23954 (May 6, 2003)
(Assessment of Antidumping Duties).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Department's reseller
policy in Parkdale Int'l, Ltd. v. United States, 508 F. Supp. 2d 1338,
1343-44 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007) (Parkdale). In its decision, the Court
described the Department's reseller policy, including the producer's
knowledge of whether its product was destined for the United States as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a critical factor in determining the appropriate dumping duty rate:
If a review is requested for a reseller, Commerce will cease to
assume that the producer was aware of the reseller's entries, and
set a rate specific to the reseller if Commerce determines it was
unaffiliated with a producer. If someone requests a review of a
producer, Commerce will determine whether the producer in question
was aware of the ultimate destination of sales to a given reseller.
If Commerce discovers that the producer was aware of the destination
of a sale to a reseller, Commerce will find that the producer set
the price of sale into the United States and assess antidumping
duties accordingly. If, however, Commerce finds that a producer is
unaware of the ultimate destination of the sales to a reseller, it
can no longer rely on its prior assumption to apply the producer's
assessment rate calculated during the administrative review.
Id. at 1343-44. In affirming the Department's reseller policy, the
Court held that the policy permissibly filled a gap in the Department's
automatic assessment regulation, 19 CFR 351.212(c), which the Court
described as applying ``only to entries that are not covered by the
request for review; it says nothing about entries that were covered by
the request for review, but are not within the scope of the final
results of the review.'' Id. at 1353. The Court further explained:
To require Commerce to adhere to a producer's cash deposit rate
in liquidating entries, even after it discovers that the assumption
upon which the use of that rate was based is false, would not result
in the rate the reseller should have received, i.e., the ``proper
rate.'' * * * Under the Reseller Policy, Commerce has chosen to
apply the rate the reseller would have been assigned had Commerce
initially known that the reseller, rather than the producer, was the
first party in the commercial chain to know of the destination of
the merchandise. Use of the all others rate most closely adheres to
Commerce's policy of setting antidumping duty rates based on the
first entity in the commercial chain that has knowledge of the
destination of the subject merchandise. Thus, the all others rate is
the ``proper rate.''
Id.
In light of the principles affirmed in Parkdale and our preliminary
findings that Birlik and not Marsan was the producer of the subject
pasta and that Birlik had knowledge that the pasta was destined for the
United States, we preliminarily find that application of the reseller
policy is appropriate and that liquidation of entries corresponding to
pasta produced by Birlik should not occur at the cash deposit rate
applicable to Marsan at the time of entry.
Preliminary Results of Review
As noted above, we preliminarily determine that Marsan was not the
first party in the transaction chain to have knowledge that the
merchandise was destined for the United States, and thus Marsan is not
considered the exporter of subject merchandise during the POR for
purposes of this review. In accordance with the 1997 regulations
concerning no shipment respondents, the Department's practice had been
to rescind the administrative review.\11\ As a result, in such
circumstances, we normally instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the
deposit rate in effect on the date of entry. However, in our May 6,
2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we explained that, where
respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no
knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate
applicable to the proceeding. See Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27393 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department preliminary finds that Marsan had no shipments to
the United States during the POR for which it was the first party with
knowledge of U.S. destination. Because ``as entered'' liquidation
instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the May 2003,
clarification was intended to address, we find it appropriate in this
case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise
produced by Birlik and exported by Marsan at the rate applicable to
Birlik, i.e., the all others rate from the investigation. See, e.g.,
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial Rescission of
[[Page 23978]]
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December
19, 2008). In addition, the Department finds that it is more consistent
with the May 2003 clarification not to rescind the review in these
circumstances but, rather, to complete the review with respect to
Marsan and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final
results of the review. See Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989,
56989-56990 (September 17, 2010). See also the Assessment Rates section
of this notice below.
Disclosure
The Department will disclose these preliminary results to the
parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement
of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are
requested to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2). Additionally, parties are requested to provide their
case brief and rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., Microsoft
Word, pdf, etc.). Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing or
to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final
results of this review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rates
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of
this review.
Normally, the Department instructs CBP to liquidate any entries
from the no-shipment producer at the deposit rate in effect on the date
of entry. However, in this case, because there was only a request for
review of the reseller and not the producer, we intend to liquidate
entries at the producer's rate. However, because Birlik does not have
its own rate, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the
``all others'' rate from the investigation of 51.49 percent, in
accordance with the reseller policy.
Cash Deposit Requirements
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 for Marsan, and 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; (2) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the original
less-than-fair-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 (3) if
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review or the LTFV conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 51.49 percent, the all-others rate established in
the LTFV. See Amended Final Determination. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and 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 countervailing duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping and
countervailing duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: April 22, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-10434 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P