Atar S.r.l. v. United States - Opinion (Slip. Op. 14-26) - Antidumping Duty Review on Certain Pasta from Italy

Sep 5, 2026

Uploaded by Theodore

Opinion in Atar S.r.l. v. United States (Court No. 07-00086) addresses compliance with a remand from the Federal Circuit. The court explains how it will follow the appellate mandate after reversing prior judgment and further directing action consistent with the opinion. The dispute concerns Commerce’s ninth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, including the calculated weighted-average margin and the constructed value methodology.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Background

Previous opinions and remand mandate

Ninth administrative review and period covered

Commerce’s Final Results and constructed value methodology

Slip. Op. 14-26 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE ATAR S.R.L., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and AMERICAN ITALIAN PASTA COMPANY, DAKOTA GROWERS PASTA COMPANY, and NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY, Defendant-intervenors. Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 07-00086 OPINION [Affirming the final results of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy, in compliance with a remand issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit] Dated: March 3, 2014 David J. Craven, Riggle & Craven, of Chicago, IL, for plaintiff Atar S.r.l. Jane C. Dempsey, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Deborah King, Attorney-International, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. Paul C. Rosenthal and David C. Smith, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors American Italian Pasta Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company, and New World Pasta Company. Court No. 07-00086 Page 2 Stanceu, Judge: Before the court is the mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) in Atar S.r.l. v. United States, 730 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Atar”) . CAFC Mandate in Appeal \# 13-1001 (Nov. 4, 2013) . Atar reversed the judgment entered by the court in this case, Atar S.r.l. v. United States, 36 CIT__, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (2012), rev’d, 730 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Atar IV”), and“remand[ed] for further action consistent with this opinion,” Atar, 730 F.3d at 1329-30. The court issues this opinion to explain how it will comply with that mandate and will enter a judgment accordingly. I. BACKGROUND The detailed background of this litigation is described in the court’s prior opinions and is summarized briefly herein. See Atar, S.r.l. v. United States, 33 CIT 658, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (2009) (“Atar I”); Atar, S.r.l. v. United States, 34 CIT __, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (2010)(“Atar II”); Atar, S.r.l. v. United States, 35 CIT __, 791 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (2011) (“Atar III”); Atar IV, 36 CIT at __, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1344. In this litigation, plaintiff Atar S.r.l. (“Atar”), an Italian pasta producer, contested the final determination (“Final Results”) that the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) issued to conclude the ninth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy (the “subject merchandise”) . See Compl. (Apr. 5, 2007), ECF No. 8; Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Admin. Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 Fed. Reg. 7,011 (Feb. 14, 2007) (“Final Results”) . The ninth review covered the period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. Final Results, [72 Fed. Reg. at 7](72 Fed. Reg. at 7),012. Court No. 07-00086 Page 3 In the Final Results, Commerce assigned Atar a weighted-average antidumping duty margin of 18.18%. Final Results, [72 Fed. Reg. at 7](72 Fed. Reg. at 7),011. In reaching this determination, Commerce calculated the normal value of Atar’s subject merchandise according to the constructed value (“CV”) method. Atar I, 33 CIT at 661, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 1072-73. Commerce used the CV method because it determined that Atar lacked sufficient sales of the foreign like product in its home market during the POR to constitute a viable comparison market and that Atar’s selling activity in Angola was insufficient to support use of Angola as a viable comparison market. Id. See also 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(4) . In Atar I, the court affirmed various determinations that Commerce made in the Final Results.1 Id., 33 CIT at 662-72, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 107

FAQs

What is the purpose of this court’s opinion?

To explain how the Court of International Trade will comply with the Federal Circuit’s remand mandate and enter judgment accordingly.

What period did the ninth administrative review cover?

It covered July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005.

How did Commerce determine Atar’s normal value in the Final Results?

Commerce used the constructed value (“CV”) method to calculate normal value.

Sep 5, 2026

Uploaded by Theodore