Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 25547-25548 [E5-2392]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
analysis of issues raised in any written
comments, not later than July 11, 2005
(i.e., 270 days after the date on which
this review was initiated).
We are issuing and publishing this
determination and notice in accordance
with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(I)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.
Dated: May 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–2390 Filed 5–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–485–806]
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Romania: Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed–
Circumstances Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a letter from
S.C. Ispat Sidex S.A. notifying the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) that its corporate name has
changed to Mittal Steel Galati S.A., the
Department is initiating a changed–
circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on certain hot–
rolled carbon steel flat products from
Romania (see Notice of Amended Final
Antidumping Duty Determination and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot–
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Romania, 66 FR 59566 (November 29,
2001) (Amended Determination and
Order). We have preliminarily
concluded that Mittal Steel Galati S.A.
is the successor–in-interest to S.C. Ispat
Sidex S.A. (Sidex) and, as a result,
should be accorded the same treatment
previously accorded to Sidex in regards
to the antidumping duty order on
certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products from Romania. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
May 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dunyako Ahmadu at (202) 482–0198 or
Dave Dirstine at (202) 482–4033, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Background
On November 29, 2001, the
Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on
certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products from Romania. See Amended
Determination and Order. Since
publication, there have been two review
periods of this order. Sidex was a
participant in both reviews. In a letter
dated March 24, 2005, Sidex advised the
Department that on February 7, 2005, it
changed its corporate name to Mittal
Steel Galati, S.A. (Mittal Steel), and that
Mittal Steel is the successor–in-interest
to Sidex. As such, Sidex requested that
the Department initiate a changed–
circumstances review to confirm that
Mittal Steel is the successor–in-interest
to Sidex for purposes of determining
antidumping–duty liabilities. Sidex also
requested that the Department conduct
a changed–circumstances review on an
expedited basis, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(ii). We did not receive any
other comments.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the
products covered include hot–rolled
carbon steel flat products. For a
complete description of the scope of the
order, see Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Romania:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
70644 (December 7, 2004).
Initiation of Changed–Circumstances
Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department
will conduct a changed–circumstances
review upon receipt of information
concerning, or a request from an
interested party for a review of, an
antidumping duty order which shows
changed circumstances sufficient to
warrant a review of the order. The
information submitted by Mittal Steel
claiming that it is the successor–ininterest to Sidex demonstrates changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant a
review. See 19 CFR 351.216(d).
In accordance with the above–
referenced regulation, the Department is
initiating a changed–circumstances
review to determine whether Mittal
Steel is the successor–in-interest to
Sidex. In determining whether one
company is the successor to another for
purposes of applying the antidumping
duty law, the Department examines a
number of factors including, but not
limited to, changes in management,
production facilities, supplier
relationships, and customer base. See
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25547
Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR
6944 (February 14, 1994). While no
single or even several of these factors
will necessarily provide a dispositive
indication of succession, generally the
Department will consider one company
to be a successor to another company if
its resulting operation is similar to that
of its predecessor. See Brass Sheet and
Strip from Canada; Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460
(May 13, 1992), and the attached
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.1
Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that,
with respect to the production and sale
of the subject merchandise, the new
company operates as the same business
entity as the prior company, the
Department will assign the new
company the cash–deposit rate of its
predecessor.
On March 24, 2005, Mittal Steel
submitted information demonstrating
that it is the successor to Sidex. With
respect to the name change itself, Mittal
Steel provided the minutes to its
January 10, 2005, ‘‘Extraordinary
General Meeting of Shareholders’’ at
which the name change was approved.
In addition, Mittal Steel provided a
copy of the new company registration
certificate issued by the Ministry of
Justice Trade Register Office of the
Galati Tribunal on February 7, 2005, the
decision of Galati Tribunal to allow the
name change (notarized by a delegated,
tribunal judge), and the certificate
issued by the National Office of the
Trade Registry, Romanian Ministry of
Justice, which established that Sidex
would adopt the Mittal Steel name and
logo. See Request for Initiation of
Changed–Circumstances Review, dated
March 24, 2005, at Exhibit 1.
According to information provided in
Mittal Steel’s March 24, 2005, request
for a changed–circumstances review, we
observed that Mittal Steel’s
management, production facilities,
suppliers, and customer base were
consistent with the management,
production facilities, suppliers, and
customer base of Sidex.
With respect to management prior to
and following the name change, the
record includes a ‘‘Good Standing
Certificate’’ issued by the Trade Registry
Office of the Galati Tribunal for Mittal
Steel. This document lists the members
1 ‘‘{G}enerally, in the case of an asset acquisition,
the Department will consider the acquiring
company to be a successor to the company covered
by the antidumping duty order, and thus subject to
its duty deposit rate, if the resulting operation is
essentially similar to that existing before the
acquisition.’’
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
25548
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
of the board of directors and their
respective tenure. Id. at Exhibit 5. Based
on this information, we conclude that
the name change did not affect board
membership nor the identity of the
board members.
Mittal Steel provided excerpts from
the 15th edition of Iron and Steel Works
of the World published in 2004 which
details Sidex’s production facilities. It
also included a print–out from the
Mittal Steel website (dated February 23,
2005) indicating that the production
facilities have not changed location nor
has the equipment used for the
production of merchandise changed
following the name change from Sidex
to Mittal Steel.
Mittal Steel states in its request for
initiation that it is still part of the same
corporate group to which Sidex
belonged and that the affiliated
suppliers in its corporate group are the
same affiliated suppliers which Sidex
used previously. Similarly, the record
shows that the relationships with
unaffiliated suppliers have not been
altered as a consequence of the name
change. In support of this position,
Mittal Steel provided reports identifying
Mittal Steel’s suppliers of raw materials
for the production of subject
merchandise from September to
December 2004 (i.e., before the name
change) and from January to February
28, 2005. Id. at Exhibit 9.
Regarding its customer base, Mittal
Steel stated that the distribution
channels for export and domestic sales,
established by Sidex prior to the name
change, remain the same after the name
change. For example, Mittal Steel stated
that the name change had no influence
on its relationship with Ispat North
America, an affiliated reseller of subject
merchandise in the U.S. market. As
further evidence that Mittal Steel’s
customer base remained the same after
the name change, Mittal Steel attached
a copy of a signed February 15, 2005,
customer contract where the company’s
name is amended in the contract
transferring legal rights and obligations
of Sidex to Mittal Steel. Id. at Exhibit
10.
Therefore, the information provided
in Mittal Steel’s March 24, 2005, request
for a changed–circumstances review
demonstrates that no major changes
have occurred with respect to Mittal
Steel’s management, production
facilities, suppliers or customer base.
When it concludes that expedited
action is warranted, the Department
may publish the notice of initiation and
preliminary results for a changed–
circumstances review concurrently. See
19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). See also
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand;
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 69 FR 30878
(June 1, 2004). Based on the information
on the record, we have determined that
expedition of this changed–
circumstances review is warranted. In
this case, we preliminarily find that
Mittal Steel is the successor–in-interest
to Sidex and, as such, is entitled to
Sidex’s cash–deposit rate with respect
to entries of subject merchandise.2
Should our final results remain the
same as these preliminary results, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to assign Mittal Steel the
antidumping duty cash–deposit rate
applicable to Sidex.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 14 days of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 28
days after the date of publication of this
notice or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit
case briefs and/or written comments not
later than 14 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, which must be limited to
issues raised in such briefs or
comments, may be filed not later than
21 days after the date of publication of
this notice. Parties who submit case
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed–
circumstances review are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a
statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument with an
electronic version included. Consistent
with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue
the final results of this changed–
circumstances review no later than 270
days after the date on which this review
was initiated or within 45 days of
publication of these preliminary results
if all parties agree to our preliminary
finding.
We are issuing and publishing this
initiation and preliminary results notice
in accordance with sections 751(b)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Dated: May 9, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–2392 Filed 5–12–05; 8:45 am]
(BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S)
2 See, e.g., Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 63 FR 20572 (April
27, 1998), where the Department found
successorship where the company only changed its
name and did not change its operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 042505D]
Taking and Importing of Marine
Mammals
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of affirmative finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant
Administrator) renewed the affirmative
finding for the Republic of El Salvador
under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding
renewal will allow yellowfin tuna
harvested in the Eastern Tropical Pacific
(ETP) in compliance with the
International Dolphin Conservation
Program (IDCP) by El Salvadorian-flag
purse seine vessels or purse seine
vessels operating under El Salvador’s
jurisdiction to continue to be imported
into the United States. The affirmative
finding was based on review of
documentary evidence submitted by the
Republic of El Salvador and obtained
from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC) and the
Department of State.
DATES: Effective April 1, 2005, through
March 31, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regional Administrator, Southwest
Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean
Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802–4213; Phone 562–980–4000; Fax
562–980–4018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows
the entry into the United States of
yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine
vessels in the ETP under certain
conditions. If requested by the
harvesting nation, the Assistant
Administrator will determine whether
to make an affirmative finding based
upon documentary evidence provided
by the government of the harvesting
nation, the IATTC, or the Department of
State.
The affirmative finding process
requires that the harvesting nation meet
several conditions related to compliance
with the IDCP. Every five years, the
government of the harvesting nation
must request an affirmative finding and
submit the required documentary
evidence directly to the Assistant
Administrator. On an annual basis
NMFS will review the affirmative
finding and determine whether El
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 92 (Friday, May 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25547-25548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2392]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-485-806]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania:
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a letter from S.C. Ispat Sidex S.A. notifying
the Department of Commerce (the Department) that its corporate name has
changed to Mittal Steel Galati S.A., the Department is initiating a
changed-circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania (see Notice of
Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania, 66
FR 59566 (November 29, 2001) (Amended Determination and Order). We have
preliminarily concluded that Mittal Steel Galati S.A. is the successor-
in-interest to S.C. Ispat Sidex S.A. (Sidex) and, as a result, should
be accorded the same treatment previously accorded to Sidex in regards
to the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products from Romania. Interested parties are invited to comment on
these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dunyako Ahmadu at (202) 482-0198 or
Dave Dirstine at (202) 482-4033, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 29, 2001, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel
flat products from Romania. See Amended Determination and Order. Since
publication, there have been two review periods of this order. Sidex
was a participant in both reviews. In a letter dated March 24, 2005,
Sidex advised the Department that on February 7, 2005, it changed its
corporate name to Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (Mittal Steel), and that
Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex. As such, Sidex
requested that the Department initiate a changed-circumstances review
to confirm that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex for
purposes of determining antidumping-duty liabilities. Sidex also
requested that the Department conduct a changed-circumstances review on
an expedited basis, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). We did not
receive any other comments.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the products covered include hot-rolled
carbon steel flat products. For a complete description of the scope of
the order, see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
69 FR 70644 (December 7, 2004).
Initiation of Changed-Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department will conduct a changed-
circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a
request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty
order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review
of the order. The information submitted by Mittal Steel claiming that
it is the successor-in-interest to Sidex demonstrates changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. See 19 CFR 351.216(d).
In accordance with the above-referenced regulation, the Department
is initiating a changed-circumstances review to determine whether
Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex. In determining
whether one company is the successor to another for purposes of
applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines a number of
factors including, but not limited to, changes in management,
production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base. See
Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994).
While no single or even several of these factors will necessarily
provide a dispositive indication of succession, generally the
Department will consider one company to be a successor to another
company if its resulting operation is similar to that of its
predecessor. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13,
1992), and the attached Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.\1\ Thus, if
the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale
of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same
business entity as the prior company, the Department will assign the
new company the cash-deposit rate of its predecessor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``{G{time} enerally, in the case of an asset acquisition,
the Department will consider the acquiring company to be a successor
to the company covered by the antidumping duty order, and thus
subject to its duty deposit rate, if the resulting operation is
essentially similar to that existing before the acquisition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted information demonstrating
that it is the successor to Sidex. With respect to the name change
itself, Mittal Steel provided the minutes to its January 10, 2005,
``Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders'' at which the name
change was approved. In addition, Mittal Steel provided a copy of the
new company registration certificate issued by the Ministry of Justice
Trade Register Office of the Galati Tribunal on February 7, 2005, the
decision of Galati Tribunal to allow the name change (notarized by a
delegated, tribunal judge), and the certificate issued by the National
Office of the Trade Registry, Romanian Ministry of Justice, which
established that Sidex would adopt the Mittal Steel name and logo. See
Request for Initiation of Changed-Circumstances Review, dated March 24,
2005, at Exhibit 1.
According to information provided in Mittal Steel's March 24, 2005,
request for a changed-circumstances review, we observed that Mittal
Steel's management, production facilities, suppliers, and customer base
were consistent with the management, production facilities, suppliers,
and customer base of Sidex.
With respect to management prior to and following the name change,
the record includes a ``Good Standing Certificate'' issued by the Trade
Registry Office of the Galati Tribunal for Mittal Steel. This document
lists the members
[[Page 25548]]
of the board of directors and their respective tenure. Id. at Exhibit
5. Based on this information, we conclude that the name change did not
affect board membership nor the identity of the board members.
Mittal Steel provided excerpts from the 15th edition of Iron and
Steel Works of the World published in 2004 which details Sidex's
production facilities. It also included a print-out from the Mittal
Steel website (dated February 23, 2005) indicating that the production
facilities have not changed location nor has the equipment used for the
production of merchandise changed following the name change from Sidex
to Mittal Steel.
Mittal Steel states in its request for initiation that it is still
part of the same corporate group to which Sidex belonged and that the
affiliated suppliers in its corporate group are the same affiliated
suppliers which Sidex used previously. Similarly, the record shows that
the relationships with unaffiliated suppliers have not been altered as
a consequence of the name change. In support of this position, Mittal
Steel provided reports identifying Mittal Steel's suppliers of raw
materials for the production of subject merchandise from September to
December 2004 (i.e., before the name change) and from January to
February 28, 2005. Id. at Exhibit 9.
Regarding its customer base, Mittal Steel stated that the
distribution channels for export and domestic sales, established by
Sidex prior to the name change, remain the same after the name change.
For example, Mittal Steel stated that the name change had no influence
on its relationship with Ispat North America, an affiliated reseller of
subject merchandise in the U.S. market. As further evidence that Mittal
Steel's customer base remained the same after the name change, Mittal
Steel attached a copy of a signed February 15, 2005, customer contract
where the company's name is amended in the contract transferring legal
rights and obligations of Sidex to Mittal Steel. Id. at Exhibit 10.
Therefore, the information provided in Mittal Steel's March 24,
2005, request for a changed-circumstances review demonstrates that no
major changes have occurred with respect to Mittal Steel's management,
production facilities, suppliers or customer base.
When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the
Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results
for a changed-circumstances review concurrently. See 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(ii). See also Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand;
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 69 FR 30878 (June 1, 2004). Based on the
information on the record, we have determined that expedition of this
changed-circumstances review is warranted. In this case, we
preliminarily find that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to
Sidex and, as such, is entitled to Sidex's cash-deposit rate with
respect to entries of subject merchandise.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 63
FR 20572 (April 27, 1998), where the Department found successorship
where the company only changed its name and did not change its
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary
results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assign
Mittal Steel the antidumping duty cash-deposit rate applicable to
Sidex.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 28 days after the date of publication of this
notice or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may
submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals
to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such
briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 21 days after the date
of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this changed-circumstances review are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Consistent
with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this
changed-circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on
which this review was initiated or within 45 days of publication of
these preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary
finding.
We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary
results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Dated: May 9, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2392 Filed 5-12-05; 8:45 am]
(BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S)