Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-805]

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On August 9, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. This review covers shipments

to the United States by two respondents during the period of review

July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998.

For our final results, we have found no margin or a de minimis

margin for the two respondents.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade

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

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

4126.

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 (1998).

Case History

This review covers two manufacturers/exporters of merchandise

subject to the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey:

Pastavilla Kartal Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Pastavilla) and

Maktas Makarnacilik ve Tic. A.S. (Maktas).

On August 9, 1998, the Department published the preliminary results

of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 64 FR 43157 (August

9, 1999) (Preliminary Results). On September 15, 1999, we received a

case brief from Maktas. We did not receive any rebuttal briefs, and no

public hearing was requested.

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 under

order is dispositive.

Scope Rulings

The Department has issued the following scope ruling to date:

(1) 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 may be 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 pound 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.

Price Comparisons

We calculated constructed export price (CEP), export price (EP),

and normal value based on the same methodology used in the Preliminary

Results, with the following exception.

[[Page 69494]]

Maktas

We did not make a claimed billing adjustment for foreign currency

exchange gain. See Comment 1.

Cost of Production

As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an

investigation to determine whether Maktas and Pastavilla made home

market sales of the foreign like product during the period of review

(``POR'') at prices below their cost of production (``COP'') within the

meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

We calculated the COP for these final results following the same

methodology as in the preliminary results. For both Maktas and

Pastavilla, we found 20 percent or more of the sales of a given product

during the 12 month period were at prices less than the weighted-

average COP for the POR. Thus we determined that these below-cost sales

have been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period

of time, and that such sales were not made at prices which would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act. Therefore, for

purposes of these final results, we disregarded these below-cost sales

and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. As noted above, we received a case brief from

Maktas.

Comment 1: Billing Adjustment

Maktas argues that for the sales to one of its customers, the

Department incorrectly deducted a billing adjustment from Maktas' U.S.

price in the preliminary results. Maktas contends that this billing

adjustment reflects a foreign exchange gain based on a payment term,

and therefore, should be added to its U.S. price.

DOC Position: We agree with Maktas, in part, that we should not

deduct the ``billing adjustment'' from Maktas' U.S. price. However, we

disagree with Maktas that this billing adjustment should be added to

its U.S. price. For these final results, this alleged ``billing

adjustment'' was neither subtracted from nor added to Maktas' U.S.

price. Rather, because the sale price was originally set in U.S.

dollars, we have used the agreed upon U.S. dollar price per ton for

these final results. Since no currency conversion is involved under our

methodology, the billing adjustment in question becomes a moot issue.

See memorandum from Cindy Robinson to the file, Analysis Memorandum for

Maktas Makarnacilik ve Tic. A.S., December 7, 1999.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we find that the following margins exist

for the period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998:

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

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

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

Maktas Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Tic. A.S.... 0.29 (de minimis)

Pastavilla Kartal Makarnacilik Sanayi 0.00

Ticaret A.S..

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

The Department shall determine, and the United States Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 (b)(1), we have calculated importer-

specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the

subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise.

We will direct the United States Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the

entered value of the merchandise entered during the POR, except where

the assessment rate is zero or de minimis (see 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2)).

Cash Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each producer and/or

exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total

dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that

company's sales during the review period.

Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be

effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Turkey

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption upon publication

of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Maktas

and Pastavilla will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will

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

period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, 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 period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; 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 51.49 percent, the ``all

others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. 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).

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 serves as a 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 351.305. Timely

notification of 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)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 7, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-32226 Filed 12-10-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P