70 FR 17971, April 8, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-819]
Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for
the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. We preliminarily
find that the countervailing duty rates during the period of review for
all of the producers/exporters under review are less than 0.5 percent
and are, consequently, de minimis. See the ``Preliminary Results of
Review'' section, below. If the final results remain the same as these
preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to liquidate entries during the period January 1, 2003
through December 31, 2003 without regard to countervailing duties in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). We are also rescinding the review
for Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A./Pastificio Di Nola S.p.A. and
Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.1. in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3). Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results (see the ``Public Comment'' section of this
notice).
DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melani Miller Harig or Mac Rivitz, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0116 and (202) 482-1382,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Case History
On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (``pasta'' or
``subject merchandise'') from Italy. See Notice of Countervailing Duty
Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2004,
the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of this countervailing duty order for calendar
year 2003, the period of review (``POR''). See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1,
2004). On July 30, 2004, we received requests for reviews from the
following four producers/exporters of Italian pasta: Pastificio Antonio
Pallante S.r.1. (``Pallante''), Pastificio Corticella S.p.A.
(``Corticella'')/Pastificio Combattenti S.p.A. (``Combattenti'')
(collectively, ``Corticella/Combattenti''), Pasta Lensi S.r.1.
(``Lensi''), \1\ and Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A./Pastificio Di Nola
S.p.A. (collectively, ``Russo/Di Nola''). In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of the review on
August 30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 52857
(August 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC Italia S.r.1. See
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 41553
(July 14, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 7,2004, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires
to the Commission of the European Union, the Government of Italy
(``GOI''), Pallante, Corticella/Combatteni, Lensi, and Russo/Di Nola.
We received responses to our questionnaires in October and November
2004. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents in
November 2004, and received responses to our supplemental
questionnaires in November and December 2004.
On September 15, 2004, Russo/Di Nola withdrew its request for
review. Pallante withdrew its request for review on October 28, 2004.
As discussed in the ``Partial Rescission'' section, below, we are
rescinding this administrative review for both Russo/Di Nola and
Pallante.
Partial Rescission
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that
the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within
90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the
requested review. On September 15, 2004, Russo/Di Nola withdrew its
request for an administrative review; Pallante withdrew its request for
an administrative review on October 28, 2004. Both parties submitted
their withdrawal requests within the 90-day deadline. No other party
requested a review of Pallante's or Russo/Di Nola's sales. Therefore,
because these withdrawal requests were timely filed, we are rescinding
this review with respect to Pallante and Russo/Di Nola in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``Customs'') to liquidate any entries from Pallante and
Russo/Di Nola during the POR and to assess countervailing duties at the
rate that was applied at the time of entry.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the 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 the 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, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services,
Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici,
Associazione Italiana per l' Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.L. In
addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has
determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from
Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by
Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. See memorandum
from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004,
which is on file
[[Page 17972]]
in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in Room B-099 of the
main Department Building.
The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under
items 1901.90.9095 and 1902.19.20 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.
Scope Rulings
The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
(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 antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. See memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated
August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU.
(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
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See letter from Susan H.
Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is available
in the CRU.
(3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application
requesting that the Department initiate an anti\circumvention
investigation of Barilla S.r.L. (``Barilla''), an Italian producer and
exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on
December 8, 1997. See Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on
Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Pasta From Italy, 62 FR 65673
(December 15, 1997). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its
final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'')
effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''), circumvention of the
antidumping order on pasta from Italy was occurring by reason of
exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla which subsequently
were 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).
(4) 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 is 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 pounds four
ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. See memorandum from John Brinkmann to Rickard Moreland, dated
May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU.
(5) On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-
circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani
S.p.A.'s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the
United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes
circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of
Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published
an affirmative finding of the anti-circumvention inquiry. See Anti-
Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders
on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of
Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR
54888 (September 19, 2003).
Period of Review
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January
1, 2003 through December 31, 2003.
Changes in Ownership
Effective June 30, 2003, the Department adopted a new methodology
for analyzing privatizations in the countervailing duty context. See
Notice of Final Modification of Agency Practice Under Section 123 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 2003)
(``Modification Notice'').\2\ The Department's new methodology is based
on a rebuttable ``baseline'' presumption that non-recurring, allocable
subsides continue to benefit the subsidy recipient throughout the
allocation period (which normally corresponds to the average useful
life (``AUL'') of the recipient's assets). However, an interested party
may rebut this baseline presumption by demonstrating that, during the
allocation period, a change in ownership occurred in which the former
owner sold all or substantially all of a company or its assets,
retaining no control of the company or its assets, and that the sale
was an arm's-length transaction for fair market value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Modification Notice explicitly addresses full
privatizations, but notes that the Department would not make a
decision at that time as to whether the new methodology would also
be applied to other types of ownership changes and factual
scenarios, such as partial privatizations or private-to-private
sales. See 68 FR at 37136. We have now determined to apply the new
methodology to full, private-to-private sales of a company (or its
assets) as well. Among other reasons, we note that our prior ``same
person'' methodology used for analyzing changes in ownership such as
private-to-private sales has been found not in accordance with law
in Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 367 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering whether the evidence presented demonstrates that the
transaction was conducted at arm's length, we will be guided by the
definition of an arm's-length transaction included in the Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316,
vol. 1 (1994), which defines an arm's-length transaction as a
transaction negotiated between unrelated parties, each acting in its
own interest, or between related parties such that the terms of the
transaction are those that would exist if the transaction had been
negotiated between unrelated parties. See id. at 928.
In analyzing whether the transaction was for fair market value, the
basic question is whether the full amount that the company or its
assets (including the value of any subsidy benefits) was actually worth
under the prevailing market conditions was paid, and paid through
monetary or equivalent compensation. In making this determination, the
Department will normally examine whether the seller acted in a manner
consistent with the normal sales practices of private, commercial
sellers in that country. Where an arm's-length sale occurs between
purely private parties, we would normally expect the private seller to
act in a manner consistent with the normal sales practices of private,
commercial sellers in that country. With regard to a government-to-
private transaction, however, where we cannot make that same
assumption, a primary consideration in this regard normally will be
whether the government failed to maximize its return on what it sold,
indicating that the purchaser paid less for the company or assets than
it otherwise would have had the government acted in a manner
[[Page 17973]]
consistent with the normal sales practices of private, commercial
sellers in that country.
If we determine that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
that the change in ownership was at arm's length for fair market value,
the baseline presumption will not be rebutted and we will find that the
unamortized amount of any pre-sale subsidy benefit continues to be
counteravailable. Otherwise, if it is demonstrated that the change in
ownership was at arm's length for fair market value, any pre-sales
subsidies will be presumed to be extinguished in their entirety and,
therefore, non-counteravailable.
A party can, however, obviate this presumption of extinguishment by
demonstrating that, at the time of the change in ownership, the broader
market conditions necessary for the transaction price to reflect fairly
and accurately the subsidy benefit were not present, or were severely
distorted by government action (or, where appropriate, inaction). In
other words, even if we find that the sales price was at ``market
value,'' parties can demonstrate that the broader market conditions
were severely distorted by the government and that the transaction
price was meaningfully different from what it would otherwise have been
absent the distortive government action.
Where a party demonstrates that these broader market conditions
were severely distorted by government action and that the transaction
price was meaningfully different from what it would otherwise have been
absent the distortive government action, the baseline presumption will
not be rebutted and the unamortized amount of any non-recurring pre-
sale subsidy benefit will continue to be countervailable. Where a party
does not make such a demonstration with regard to an arm's-length sale
for fair market value, we will find all non-recurring pre-sale
subsidies to be extinguished by the sale and, therefore, non-
countervailable.
In the instant proceeding, Corticella/Combattenti underwent changes
in ownership during the applicable period. Corticella/Combattenti did
not challenge the Department's baseline presumption that non-recurring
subsidies continue to benefit the recipient over the allocation period.
Thus, we preliminarily find for this respondent that any unallocated
benefits from non-recurring subsidies received prior to its change in
ownership continue to be countervailable.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies are
allocated over a period corresponding to the AUL of the renewable
physical assets used to produce the subject merchandise. Section
351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations creates a rebuttable
presumption that the AUL will be taken from the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (``IRS
Tables''). See 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2). For pasta, the IRS Tables
prescribe an AUL of 12 years. None of the responding companies or
interested parties objected to this allocation period. Therefore, we
have used the 12-year allocation period for all respondents.
Attribution of Subsidies
Pursuanty to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6), the Department will attribute
subsidies received by certain companies to the combined sales of those
companies. Based on our review of the responses, we preliminarily find
that ``cross-ownership'' exists with respect to certain companies, as
described below, and we have attributed subsidies accordingly.
Lensi: Lensi is an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. As
further discussed in the April 4, 2005 proprietary memorandum entitled
``Pasta Lensi S.r.1.--Attribution Issues,'' which is on file in the
Department's CRU, Lensi has reported that IAPC Leasing, another company
in Lensi's family of companies, did not receive any benefits under the
programs being examined. Therefore, there are no benefits to this
company that require attribution. Moreover, IAPC Leasing does not
produce subject merchandise. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies
received to Lensi's sales only.
Corticella/Combattenti: Corticella and Combattenti are both
producers of the subject merchandise and are owned by the same holding
company, Euricom S.p.A. (``Euricom''), and companies in the Euricom
group. Euricom group companies own 100 percent of Combattenti and 70
percent of Corticella. Other Euricom group companies are also involved
in the production and distribution of subject merchandise.
Specifically, one group company (whose name is proprietary), receives a
commission on some of Corticella's home market sales. Also, Euricom
group company Molini Certosa S.p.A. (``Certosa'') mills durum and non-
durum wheat, some of which is an input for the Corticella/Combattenti
subject merchandise.
Additionally, Cooperative Lomellina Cerealicoltori (``CLC''), which
is a cooperative, provides conversion services for Combattenti. CLC was
formed in 1980 for the sole purpose of producing rise. In 1990, CLC
signed an agreement with Combattenti to ``toll produce all of
Combattenti's pasta production requirements'' following a fire at
Combattenti's pasta factory. See Corticella/Combattenti's November 5,
2004 submission at Exhibit 2, page 5. CLC is not part of the Euricom
group and Euricom is not a member of CLC. However, Euricom's majority
shareholder is a member/shareholder of the CLC cooperative. Euricom's
majority shareholder was the sole administrator of Combattenti during
most of the POR, and also ``had operational and management control over
CLC and could direct CLC's workers.'' See id. The son of Euricom's
majority shareholder was also a CLC member/shareholder, as well as
member of both Combattenti's and CLC's boards, and was ``very active in
both companies day to day activities.'' See id. According to
Corticella/Combattenti, Euricom's majority shareholder and his son
control ``the direction of CLC and Combattenti,'' with Euricom's
majority shareholder ``taking a more strategic role'' and his son
``taking a hands-on-day-to-day operational role.'' See Corticella/
Combattenti's December 6, 2004 submission at 4.
With regard to Corticella and Combattenti, we preliminarily find
that they each meet the criteria for cross-ownership in 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(ii). As for Certosa, we preliminarily find that it meets
the criteria in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv). With regard to the Euricom
group company that receives a commission on some of Corticella's home
market sales, the company does not meet any of the criteria in 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(ii) through (iv). Moreover, because Corticella/
Combattenti has reported that this company acts as a selling agent only
on Corticella's home market sales and not on its exports, 19 CFR
351.525(c) does not apply. Thus, we are also not including subsidies
received by this company or this company's sales in our preliminary
subsidy calculations.
Finally, with regard to CLC, in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final
Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
70657 (December 7, 2004) (``Pasta Seventh Review'') and the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum in the ``Attribution of
Subsidies'' section, we determined that cross-ownership did not exist
with regard to CLC consistent with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). In the
[[Page 17974]]
instant review, we have new information with regard to CLC and its
relationship with Combattenti and the Euricom group that might,
otherwise, warrant a reconsideration of our earlier finding. However,
because CLC did not receive any benefits under the programs being
examined, and because CLC's other division (the first being the
division that operates the Combattenti facilities), has no past-related
operations, there is no need in the instant review to revisit our
previous finding on this matter.
Combattenti/Corticella has reported that Euricom and Certosa did
not receive any POR subsidies. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies
received to the combined sales of Corticella and Combattenti.
Discount Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we used the national
average cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans as a discount rate for
allocating non-recurring benefits over time because no company for
which we need such discount rates took out any loans in the years in
which the government agreed to provide the subsidies in question.
Consistent with past practice in this proceeding, for years prior to
1995, we used the Bank of Italy reference rate adjusted upward to
reflect the mark-up an Italian commercial bank would charge a corporate
customer. For benefits received in 1995 and later, we used the Italian
Bankers' Association interest rate, increased by the average spread
charged by banks on loans to commercial customers plus an amount for
bank charges.
Analysis of Programs
I. Program Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies During the POR
Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90
Under Law 304/90, the GOI provided grants to promote the sale of
Italian food and agricultural products in foreign markets. The grants
were given for pilot projects aimed at developing links and integrating
marketing efforts between Italian food producers and foreign
distributors. The emphasis was on assisting small and medium-sized
enterprises.
Corticella received a grant under this program in 1993 to assist it
in establishing a sales office and network in the United States. No
other respondent covered by this review received benefits under this
program during the POR.
In the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain
Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30288 (June 14, 1996) (``Pasta
Investigation''), the Department determined that these export marketing
grants confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section
771(5) of the Act. They are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI
bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Also, these grants were
found to be specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the
Act because their receipt was contingent upon exportation. In this
review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided new
information which would warrant reconsideration of our determination
that these grants confer a countervailable subsidy.
Also in the Pasta Investigation, the Department treated these
export marketing grants as non-recurring. No new information has been
placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from
this treatment.
Because the amount of the grant that was approved by the GOI
exceeded 0.5 percent of Corticella's exports to the United States in
the year of approval, we used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR
351.524(d) to allocate the benefit over time. We divided the benefit
attributable to the POR by the value of the companies' total exports to
the United States in the POR.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable
subsidy from these Law 304/90 export marketing grants to be 0.06
percent ad valorem for Corticella/Combattenti.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Subsidies During
the POR
A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions--Sgravi
Italian law allows companies, particularly those localted in the
Mezzogiorno (sourthern Italy), to use a variety of exemptions and
reductions (sgravi) of the payroll contributions that employers make to
the Italian social security system for health care benefits, pensions,
etc. The sgravi benefits are regulated by a complex set of laws and
regulations, and are sometimes linked to conditions such as creating
more jobs. We have found in past segments of this proceeding that the
benefits under some of these laws (e.g., Laws 183/76 and 449/97) are
available only to companies located in the Mezzogiorno and other
disadvantaged regions. Other laws (e.g., Laws 407/90 and 863/84)
provide benefits to companies all over Italy, but the level of benefits
is higher for companies in the south than for companies in other parts
of the country.
The various laws identified as having provided sgravi benefits
during the POR are the following: Law 407/90 (Lensi), Law 223/91 (Lensi
and Combattenti), and Law 337/90 (Corticella).
In the instant review, no party in this proceeding challenged our
past determinations in the Pasta Investigation and subsequent reviews
that sgravi benefits were not countervailable for companies located
outside of the Mezzogiorno. Additionally, no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances was received that would warrant
reconsideration of these past determinations. Therefore, because Lensi
and Corticella/Combattenti are not located in the Mezzogiorno, we find
that neither of these companies recieved countervailable subsidies
under this program during the POR.
B. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Grants
The Chamber of Commerce of Brescia provided training grants during
2002 and 2003 to companies in the province of Brescia for the
professional training of entrepreneurs, directors, and employees. The
goal of these grants was to improve economic, social, and productive
development in the province. The Brescia Chamber of Commerce also
provided grants to small and medium-sized enterprises, artisan and
agricultural enterprises, and pools and cooperatives in the province of
Brescia for their direct participation in fairs and exhibitions abroad
during calendar year 2003.
Lensi was the only respondent in this proceeding that reported
receiving grants from the Brescia Chamber of Commerce. Specifically,
Lensi reported receiving training grants from the Brescia Chamber of
Commerce in 2002 and 2003. Lensi also reported receiving a fairs and
exhibitions grant in 2004, subsequent to the POR.
With regard to the training grants, in situations where any benefit
to the subject merchandise would be so small that there would be no
impact on the overall subsidy rate, regardless of a determination of
counteravailability, it may not be necessary to determine whether
benefits conferred under these programs to the subject merchandise are
counteravailable. (See, e.g., Pasta Seventh Review and Live Cattle From
Canada; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 64 FR 57040,
57055 (October 22, 1999).) In this instance, any benefit to the subject
merchandise resulting from this grant would be so small that there
would be no impact on the overall subsidy rate, regardless of a
determination of counteravailability. Thus, consistent with our past
practice, we do not consider it necessary to determine
[[Page 17975]]
whether benefits conferred thereunder to the subject merchandise are
countervailable.
As for the fairs and exhibitions grant, because it was received in
2004, subsequent to the POR, we preliminarily find that no benefit was
provided to Lensi during the POR from this grant.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Have Been Used During the
POR
We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that
the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise under review
did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the
POR:
A. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92
B. Industrial Development Loans Under Law 64/86
C. European Regional Development Fund Grants
D. Law 236/93 Training Grants
E. Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions (Sabatini Law) (Formerly Lump-Sum
Interest Payment Under the Sabatini Law for Companies in Southern Italy)
F. Development Grants Under Law 30 of 1984
G. Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione Iniziative Economiche (Revolving Fund
for Economic Initiatives) Loans
H. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 64/86
I. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments
J. Tremonti Law 489/94 (Formerly Law Decree 357/94)
k. Ministerial Decree 87/02
L. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation
M. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans
(Formerly Debt Consolidation Law 341/95)
N. Regional Tax Exemptions Under IRAP
O. Corporate Income Tax (IRPEG) Exemptions
P. Export Restitution Payments
Q. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 and 675/55
R. Export Credits Under Law 227/77
S. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77
T. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77
U. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77
V. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds
W. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81
X. Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181
Y. Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the
Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (PRISMA)
Z. Industrial Development Grants under Law
AA. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94
AB. Duty-Free Import Rights
AC. Remission of Taxes on Export Credit Insurance Under Article 33 of Law 227/77
AD. European Social Fund Grants
AE. Law 113/86 Training Grants
AF. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter covered by this
administrative review. For the period January 1, 2003 through December
31, 2003, we preliminarily find the net subsidy rates for the
producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the chart
shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
subsidy
Producer/exporter rate
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasta Lensi S.r.1........................................... \1\ 0.00
Pastificio Corticella S.p.A./Pastificio Combattenti S.p.A... \1\ 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ De minimis.
The calculations will be disclosed to the interested parties in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, because the countervailing duty rates for all of
the above-noted companies are less than 0.5 percent and, consequently,
de minimis, we will instruct Customs to liquidate entries during the
period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 without regard to
countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The
Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to Customs
within 15 days of publication of these final results of this review.
For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e
R. F.IIi S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded
from the order), the Department has directed Customs to assess
countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2003 and
December 31, 2003 at the rates in effect at the time of entry.
The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect cash
deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the above-noted
companies at the above-noted rates on the f.o.b. value of all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the producers/exporters under review
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of the final results of this
administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e
R. F.IIi S.p.A, and Gruppe Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded
from the order), we will instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or
all others rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to
all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these
rates is requested.
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later
than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. Parties who
submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f).
Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal
briefs.
The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this
administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these
preliminary results.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 31, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-6958 Filed 4-7-05; 8:45 am]