Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818]

Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On October 6, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its new shipper review of the antidumping duty

order on certain pasta from Italy. The review covers shipments of this

merchandise to the United States by Corex during the period July 1,

1997, through December 31, 1997. These final results do not differ from

the preliminary results.

We find that Corex did not make sales below normal value during the

period of review. We will instruct the Customs Service not to assess

antidumping duties on certain pasta produced and exported by this

company.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or John Brinkmann,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

0631 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the

Department's) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR

part 351 (1997).

Case History

On March 4, 1998, in response to a request by CO.R.EX. S.r.l,

(Corex), the Department initiated a new shipper review.

On October 6, 1998, the Department published the preliminary

results of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of New

Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 53641

(Preliminary Results). From September 28, through October 2, 1998, we

verified the information submitted by Corex. On November 3, 1998, we

received a case brief from Corex. We did not receive comments from any

other interested party.

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. Also excluded

are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the

appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di

Certificazione (IMC), by Bioagricoop Scrl, or by QC&I International

Services.

The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under

subheading 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 under order is dispositive.

Scope Rulings

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. In addition, the Department issued a scope ruling on

July 30, 1998, that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of

pasta that are shrink wrapped into a single package are within the

scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. (See July 30,

1998 letter from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Import Administration to Barbara P. Sidari, Vice President, Joseph

A. Sidari Company, Inc.).

On October 23, 1997, the petitioners 1 filed an

application requesting that the Department initiate an anti-

circumvention investigation against Barilla S.r.L., an Italian producer

and exporter of pasta. On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its

final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act,

circumvention of the antidumping duty order is occurring by reason of

exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla which subsequently

are repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or

less for sale in the United States. (See Anti-circumvention Inquiry of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative

Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 63

FR 54672 (October 13, 1998)).

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

\1\ Borden Foods Corp., Hershey Pasta and Grocery Group, and

Gooch Foods Inc.

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

On October 26, 1998, we self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine

whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable

industry tolerances may be within the scope of the

[[Page 853]]

antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On November 18, 1998, the

Department received comments regarding this scope inquiry. The

Department received rebuttal comments on November 30, 1998. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(5), the Department will issue a scope

ruling within 120 days of the initiation of the inquiry.

Price Comparisons

We calculated export price (EP) and normal value based on the same

methodology used in the Preliminary Results, with the following

exception:

We used a revised credit rate to calculate an imputed credit

expense for U.S. and Australian sales, both of which were priced in

Italian Lire (see memorandum from Constance Handley to the file,

Analysis Memorandum for CO.R.EX. S.r.l., (December 18,1998)).

Analysis of Comment Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. As noted above, we received one comment from

Corex.

Comment 1: Commissions

Corex notes that during verification Department officials learned

of commissions on Australian sales which Corex had inadvertently failed

to include in its database. Corex notes further that the Department

officials requested information relating to Corex's indirect selling

expenses. Claiming there is no reason to believe that the information

was ever intentionally withheld, Corex requests that this information

be used in calculating the final margin.

DOC Position:

We are not including the information found at verification because

inclusion of the information would not affect the final margin.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following margin

exists for the period July 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Corex...................................................... 0.0

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

As discussed in the Preliminary Results, because Corex is primarily

a trading company, any entries of merchandise exported by Corex must

identify Corex as the producer in order for the deposit rate

established in this review to apply. If Corex is the exporter but not

the producer, the deposit rate will be the rate for the identified

producer. Otherwise, the ``all others'' rate will apply.

Therefore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for

all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results of new shipper administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Corex, when

identified as the producer, will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported

by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in

a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent

final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous

segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise

in these final results of review or in the most recent final results in

which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter

nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any

previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be

11.26 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-

fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR part 351 to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping 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 duties occurred, and in the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion

to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply is

a violation of the APO.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 29, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-244 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P