[Federal Register: October 10, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 196)]
[Page 51640-51642]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-819]
Final Results of Sunset Review: Countervailing Duty Order on
Certain Pasta From Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review:
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2001, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty
order on certain pasta (``pasta'') from Italy (66 FR 29771) pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On
the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive
comments filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, and
inadequate response from respondent interested parties, we determined
to conduct an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this countervailing
duty order. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we find
that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The
net countervailable subsidy and the nature of the subsidy are
identified in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Carole A.
Showers, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5050 or (202) 482-3330, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreement Act
(``URAA''). The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset
reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (
``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63
FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''), and in 19 CFR Part
351 (2000) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues
relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in
the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3 Policies Regarding the Conduct of
Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy
Bulletin'').
Scope of Order
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 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 Istituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione (``IMC''), by
Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by
the Conzorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, or by the
Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica. The merchandise
subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
[[Page 51641]]
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise
subject to the order is dispositive.
Scope Rulings
(1) 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 countervailing duty order. (See August
25, 1997 memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, which is on
file in Central Record Unit (``CRU'') in Room B-099 of the main
Commerce building.)
(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding
that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are
shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the
countervailing duty order. (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.,
which is on file in the CRU).
(3) 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
countervailing duty order. 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 pounds four ounces is
within the scope of the countervailing duty order. (See May 24, 1999
memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, which is on file in
the CRU.
Background
On June 1, 2001, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
countervailing duty order on pasta from Italy (66 FR 29771), pursuant
to section 751(c) of the Act). The Department received a Notice of
Intent to Participate on behalf of New World Pasta, American Italian
Pasta Company, Borden Foods Corporation, and Dakota Growers Pasta
Company (collectively, ``the domestic interested parties''), on June
15, 2001, within the applicable deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Pursuant to section
771(9)C) of the Act, the domestic interested parties claimed
interested-party status as domestic producers of certain pasta. The
domestic interested parties assert that most of them participated in
the original investigation and the scope clarification proceeding.\1\
The domestic interested parties are fully committed to full
participation in this sunset review to preserve and maintain the
countervailing duty order.\2\ We received complete substantive response
from the domestic interested parties on July 16, 2001, within the 30-
day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section
351.218(d)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Substantive Response by the Domestic Industry, Sunset
Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy,
July 2, 2001, at 4.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2001, we received a request for an extension to file
substantive responses and rebuttal comments from the domestic
interested parties.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On June 29, 2001, the Department received a letter from the
domestic interested parties regarding request for additional time to
file substantive and rebuttal comment in this sunset review. On June
29, 2001, the Department granted the extension to the domestic
parties and to all participants to file substantive and rebuttal
comments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), the deadline for all
parties for filing substantive responses was extended to July 16,
2001. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4), the deadline for filing
rebuttal comments was therefore extended to July 23, 2001 for all
parties. In this case, no rebuttal briefs were filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2001, we received a response from the European Union
Delegation of the European Commission (``EC''), expressing its
willingness to participate in this review as the authority responsible
for defending the interest of the Member States of the European Union
(``EU'').\4\ We received also a response from the Government of Italy
(``GOI''), on June 29, 2001 expressing its willingness to participate
in this review as the government of a country in which the subject
merchandise is produced and exported. On July 16, 2001 we received a
complete response from interested parties, Rienzi & Sons, Inc.
(``Rienzi'') an importer of pasta from Italy, and N. Puglisi & F.
Industria Paste Alimentari S.p.A. (``Puglisi'') an Italian producer of
pasta. Rienzi and Puglisi claim interested-party status pursuant to
section 771(9)(A) of the Act. The GOI and the EU claim interested-party
status in this sunset review pursuant to section 771(9)(B) of the
Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See June 28, 2001 Response of the EC.
\5\ See June 29, 2001 Response of the GOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 23, 2001, the Department determined that the response of
the respondent interested parties in this review was inadequate.\6\ As
a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(ii)(C), the Department
determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of the
countervailing duty order on pasta from Italy.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 351.218 (e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) provides that, where
respondent interested parties provide inadequate response, the
Department will conduct an expedited sunset review under section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and issue final results of review based on
the facts available.
\7\ See July 23, 2001, Letter from Jeffrey A. May, Director,
Office of Policy to Lynn Featherstone, Director, Office of
Investigations, International Trade Commission, regarding Pasta from
Italy: Expedited Sunset Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised by parties to this sunset review are addressed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Decision Memorandum'') from
Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to
Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated
October 1, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues
discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins
likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on
file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce
building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum
can be accessed directly on the Web at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn, under
the heading ``October 2001.'' The paper copy and electronic version of
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on
pasta from Italy would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a
countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
Manufacturer/producer countervailable
subsidy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agritalia, S.r.l....................................... 3.03
Arrighi S.p.A. Industrie Alimentari.................... 2.92
De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A........................ 2.55
Delverde, S.r.l........................................ 4.04
F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A........ 3.47
Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A................... 2.08
Isola del Grano S.r.L.................................. 11.71
Italpast S.p.A......................................... 11.71
Italpasta S.r.L........................................ 2.92
La Molisana Alimentari S.p.A.,......................... 3.94
Labor S.r.L............................................ 11.71
Molino e Pastificio De Cecco S.p.A. Pescara............ 3.47
[[Page 51642]]
Pastificio Guido Ferrara............................... 1.41
Pastificio Campano, S.p.A.............................. 2.54
Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro S.r.L............ 6.48
``All Other'' Manufacturers/producers/exporters........ 3.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barilla G.e R. F.lli S.p.A (``Barrilla'') and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana
S.r.L. (``Gruppo'') are excluded the countervailing duty order on
pasta from Italy.
Nature of Subsidies
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states that,
consistent with section 752(a)(6)of the Act, the Department will
provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the
subsidy, and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. In this review we find that
three of the programs included in the calculations of the net
countervailable subsidy fall within the definition of an export subsidy
under Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement. They are: Export
Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90, Remission of Taxes on Export Credit
Insurance Under Article 33 of Law 227/77, and the Export Restitution
Program. Furthermore, some or all of the programs at issue could be
found to be inconsistent with Article 6.1. For example, the net
countervailable subsidy may exceed five percent, as measured in
accordance with Annex IV of the Subsidies Agreement. The Department,
however, has no information with which to make such a calculation; nor
do we believe it appropriate to attempt such a calculation in the
course of a sunset review. Moreover, we note that, as of January 1,
2000, Article 6.1 has cease to apply (see Article 31 of the Subsidies
Agreement). As such, we are providing the Commission with program
descriptions in our Decision Memo.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations.
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 1, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-25407 Filed 10-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P