Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. United States

2026 CIT 25

• Court: United States Court of International Trade
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 24-00037
• Status: Published

Opinion

Slip Op. 26-25

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

PASTIFICIO GENTILE S.R.L.,

Plaintiff, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge v. Court No. 24-00037 UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

OPINION

[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand redetermination in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy.]

Dated: March 5, 2026

David J. Craven, Craven Trade Law LLC, of Chicago, Illinois, for Plaintiff Pastificio Gentile S.r.l.

Sosun Bae, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. Of counsel was Brien Stonebreaker, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Barnett, Chief Judge: Before the court is a redetermination on remand by the

U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “the agency”). Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand, ECF No. 46-1 (“Remand Results”).

Plaintiff Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. (“Gentile”) commenced this case challenging the

final results of Commerce’s administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”)

order on certain pasta from Italy, for which it had been selected as a mandatory

respondent. See Certain Pasta From Italy, 89 Fed. Reg. 3,382 (Dep’t Commerce Jan.

18, 2024) (final results of CVD admin. rev.; 2021) (“Final Results”), ECF No. 14-4, and Court No. 24-00037 Page 2

accompanying Issues and Decision Mem., C-475-819 (Jan. 11, 2024), ECF No. 14-5;

Confid. Mot. for J. on the Agency R. Pursuant to Rule 56.2 of the Rules of the U.S. Ct.

of Int’l Trade, ECF No. 20, and accompanying Confid. Mem. of Law in Supp. of the Rule

56.2 Mot. of [Pl.] for J. upon the Agency R. (“Pl.’s Mem.”), ECF No. 20-1. Plaintiff

challenged Commerce’s use of total facts available with an adverse inference (“total

AFA”) for Gentile as inappropriate, Commerce’s decision to terminate verification early

as an abuse of discretion, and Commerce’s selected subsidy rate as a violation of the

Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Pl.’s Mem. at 9, 13, 26.

This court affirmed the Final Results in part and remanded in part. Pastificio

Gentile S.r.l. v. United States, 49 CIT , 798 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (2025). The court found

that Commerce’s application of total AFA was supported by substantial evidence and in

accordance with law, Commerce did not abuse its discretion when it terminated

verification, and Commerce’s application of total AFA did not violate the Eighth

Amendment. Id. at 1358–62. However, the court remanded the Final Results for

Commerce to explain why it included programs that it had verified were unused during

the period of review (“POR”). Id. at 1362–63.

On January 23, 2026, Commerce issued its Remand Results. Therein,

Commerce further explained the rationale for including subsidy programs in the total

AFA rate calculation that the court had identified as questionable. Commerce clarified

that only one tax program that was verified as not used during the POR was

incorporated into the total AFA rate, and that the exclusion of this program alone would

not change the total AFA subsidy rate because of the manner in which Commerce Court No. 24-00037 Page 3

determines the benefit for income tax programs. Remand Results at 5–6. Commerce

also explained that its non-use finding based on the verification at the Government of

Italy is of limited relevance to Gentile because that verification occurred prior to

Commerce’s discovery of unreported Gentile affiliates such that Commerce was unable

to examine their usage of subsidy programs at verification. Id. at 6–9.

Commerce had issued Draft Results of Redetermination on January 12, 2026;

however, Gentile did not submit comments to Commerce. Id. at 5.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2018), and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)

(2018). The court will uphold an agency determination that is supported by substantial

evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION

In its Remand Results, Commerce provided further explanation with respect to its

treatment of certain subsidy programs that were verified as not used during the

administrative review. Gentile did not file any comments in opposition to the Remand

Results. Commerce’s Remand Results are uncontested and comply with the court’s

remand order. In the absence of any challenge to the Remand Results, there are no

further issues for the court to adjudicate. Court No. 24-00037 Page 4

CONCLUSION

There being no challenges to the Remand Results, and that determination being

otherwise lawful and supported by substantial evidence, the court will sustain

Commerce’s Remand Results. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

/s/ Mark A. Barnett Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge March 5, 2026 Dated: New York, New York