Certain Pasta From Italy: Post-Preliminary Analysis of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (December 31, 2025) (A-475-818).
1. Introduction
On September 4, 2025, Commerce issued its preliminary findings in the antidumping administrative review concerning “Certain pasta from Italy,” related to imports that occurred between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024 (the “POR”) by a number of pasta manufacturers. Commerce imposed a 91.74% tariff on 13 Italian pasta producers. [1]
The administrative review was initiated on August 14, 2024 and triggered on timely requests by a number of interested parties as per section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930.[2] The interested parties initially covered in the administrative review were the following 18 parties: Agritalia S.r.l; Aldino S.r.l.; Andriani S.p.A.; Antiche Tradizioni di Gragnano S.r.l.; Barilla G. e R. Fratelli S.p.A.; George DeLallo Company Inc.; Gruppo Milo S.p.A.; La Molisana S.p.A.; Pastificio Artigiano Cocco S.r.l.; Pastificio Chiavenna S.r.l.; Pastificio di Martino Gaetano e Flli S.p.A. and Pastificio dei Campi S.p.A.; Pastificio Liguori S.p.A., PAM S.p.A., PAM S.r.l., Liquori Pastificio dal 1820 S.p.A., Pastificio della Forma S.r.l; Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A.; Pastificio Mediterranea S.r.l.; Pastificio Rigo S.p.A.; Pastificio Sgambaro S.p.A.; Pastificio Tamma S.r.l.; Rummo S.p.A., Pasta Castiglioni S.r.l., Molino e Pastificio (Rummo), Rummo Lenta Lavorazione S.p.A.[3]
On September 4, 2025, Commerce issued its preliminary determination covering 13 producers/exporters subject to antidumping duties, including the two mandatory respondents, La Molisana and Pastificio Lucio Garofalo. [4]
As discussed in our November 2025 brief comment,[5] Commerce's September 4, 2025 preliminary determination relied on the application of total adverse facts available (AFA) as per section 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, because respondents remained uncooperative or provided deficient documentation. Commerce cited issues related to documentation quality, untranslated terms, and the use of undefined acronyms in questionnaire responses (the Garofalo and La Molisana memo).[6]
2. Preliminary Deficiencies and Respondents’ November Arguments
In the Garofalo memo (Barton, “Garofalo Preliminary Analysis Memorandum” (Aug. 28, 2025), Commerce identified significant deficiencies in the company's home market sales reconciliation, including inconsistencies in rebate reporting (REBATEH fields), unsubstantiated billing adjustments (BILLADJ2H and BILLADJ3H), unreliable movement expense reporting for ex-works sales, inadequate documentation of U.S. market sales reconciliation, deleted U.S. sales transactions without proper justification, and critical deficiencies in cost of production data, including incorrect yield loss calculations and unreconciled quarterly cost data.[7]
In the La Molisana memorandum (Barton, “La Molisana Preliminary Analysis Memorandum” (Aug. 28, 2025), Commerce documented deficiencies in the company's home market rebate reconciliation (with rebate values totaling [x]% of gross revenue), improper gift box product classification under SHAPEH codes, incorrectly calculated indirect selling expenses (INDIRSH) affecting nearly all home market transactions, missing U.S. market sales identified in the company's own documentation, unreliable credit expense (CREDITU) reporting, inconsistent terms of sale (SALETERU) coding, unsubstantiated packing expenses, and a cost reconciliation that failed to tie to the company's audited financial statements.[8]
Between September and December 2025, La Molisana and Garofalo submitted multiple supplemental questionnaire responses with the intent to address these deficiencies.[9] In their briefs, both respondents contested Commerce's preliminary findings.[10] La Molisana argued that Commerce's application of total AFA was based on misunderstandings of Italian accounting practices and laws, asserting that "the Home Market and U.S. Sales reconciliations were both complete and accurate" once properly understood. The company dedicated substantial sections of its brief to explaining that rebates are not recorded with invoices under Italian accounting standards and that sales are booked at net price in the accounting system.[11] (OIC/IFRS 15 requires revenue to be measured at the fair value of consideration received/receivable. Therefore, sales must be recorded net of rebates[12]).
Similarly, Garofalo contended that "the Department erred in the application of AFA based on the facts of this case," arguing that it had "fully cooperated with the Department" and that any alleged discrepancies were "de minimis or not meaningful."[13] Both respondents invoked constitutional arguments under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, contending that a 91% AFA rate would constitute an unconstitutional penalty.[14]
3. Post-preliminary Analysis (PPA) and Procedural Concerns
On December 31, 2025, less than four months after publishing its preliminary results applying total AFA, Commerce issued its Post-Preliminary Analysis (PPA) and reversed its preliminary determination.[15] The PPA reflects a reassessment of the administrative record prior to the issuance of final results on March 11, 2026.
Based on the supplemental questionnaire responses and case brief arguments submitted by La Molisana and Garofalo, Commerce determined that certain information previously deemed unusable could instead be relied upon for purposes of calculating dumping margins, resulting in a recalibration of the applicable rates. As a result, the revised estimated dumping margins announced in the PPA are:[16]
· Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A.: 13.89% (down from 91.74%);
· La Molisana S.p.A.: 2.26% (down from 91.74%);
· Non-selected companies: 9.09% (down from 91.74%).
However, these margins are not definitive. While Commerce provided the general calculation methodology (differential pricing analysis, COP test, adjustments), it did not explain which specific deficiencies were resolved or which previously rejected data became acceptable.
Procedural concerns. The timeline of this revision was extremely short: Commerce reversed total AFA determination less than two months after receiving respondents’ documents, during a period that included a government shutdown between November and December 2025. According to the Tariff Act Section 776, when Commerce applies AFA in a preliminary determination, the revision of AFA rates typically requires Commerce to review and verify new data submissions, recalculate margins, and publish preliminary recalculations with methodology disclosure. This process normally takes not less than 120 days, with the entire verification and recalculation process taking a minimum of 4 months.
Following the PPA, the domestic industry submitted case briefs on January 26, 2026, fundamentally challenging both the factual sufficiency of the respondents' supplemental submissions and the legal adequacy of Commerce's explanation for reversing its preliminary AFA determination.[17]
For those interested in the Pasta from Italy saga, it would be interesting to see how Commerce will show and determine the calculation methodology rates, as this is an issue that generally goes through a comment process. For this we would need to wait until March 11, 2026.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or relying on this material does not create an attorney–client relationship.
[1] Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024, 90 Fed. Reg. 42,743 (Sept. 4, 2025).
[2] Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 89 Fed. Reg. 66,035 (Aug. 14, 2024).
[3] Id.
[4] By the time Commerce issued the preliminary results, five companies were rescinded from the review. See 90 Fed. Reg. 42,743.
[5] Melchionna PLLC, Now is the Time to Eat Pasta. The Evolving Tariff Landscape for Made in Italy Pasta Exports to the United States Market (Nov. 13, 2025),
[6] Memorandum from Patrick Barton, Int’l Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, “Garofalo Preliminary Analysis Memorandum” (Aug. 28, 2025) on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS and Memorandum from Patrick Barton, Int’l Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, "La Molisana Preliminary Analysis Memorandum" (Aug. 28, 2025) U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS.
[7] “Garofalo Preliminary Analysis Memorandum” (Aug. 28, 2025) on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS.
[8] "La Molisana Preliminary Analysis Memorandum" (Aug. 28, 2025) on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS.
[9] See generally supplemental questionnaire responses filed by both respondents between September and December 2025, on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS.
[10] Case Brief of La Molisana S.p.A (Nov. 4, 2025) on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS; Garofalo Case Brief (Nov. 6, 2025) on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS.
[11] Case Brief of La Molisana S.p.A. at p. 5-7 (Nov. 4, 2025).
[12] IFRS 15, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, IFRS Foundation, https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-15-revenue-from-contracts-with-customers/.
[13] Garofalo Case Brief at p. 3-4 (Nov. 6, 2025).
[14] Case Brief of La Molisana S.p.A, at 44-45 (Nov. 4, 2025); Garofalo Case Brief, at p. 50 (Nov. 6, 2025).
[15] Post-Preliminary Analysis for the 2023-2024 Administrative Review of Pasta from Italy" (Dec. 31, 2025), https://www.trade.gov/post-preliminary-analysis-antidumping-duty-administrative-review-certain-pasta-italy
[16] Id.
[17] Domestic Industry's Case Brief Concerning Garofalo (Jan. 26, 2026) on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS; Domestic Industry's Affirmative Case Brief Concerning La Molisana (Jan. 26, 2026) on file with U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, available via ITA ACCESS.