Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India, 31156-31157 [E6-8513]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31156
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices
This notice constitutes the
antidumping duty order with respect to
certain artist canvas from the PRC
pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act.
Interested parties may contact the
Department’s Central Records Unit,
Room B–099 of the main Commerce
building, for copies of an updated list of
antidumping duty orders currently in
effect.
This order is published in accordance
with section 736(a) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.211.
Dated: May 24, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–8514 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–809]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review;
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges
From India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of
preliminary results of changed
circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
forged stainless steel flanges (flanges)
from India in which we preliminarily
determined that Hilton Metal Forging
Ltd. (HMFL) is the successor–in-interest
company to Hilton Forge. See Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges
from India, 71 FR 12177 (March 9, 2006)
(Preliminary Results). We gave
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results, but
received no comments. Therefore, the
final results do not differ from the
preliminary results.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
June 1, 2006.
Fred
Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone : (202) 482–2924 or (202)
482–0649, respectively.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:10 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Background
On November 14, 2005, Hilton Forge
requested that the Department conduct
a changed circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on flanges from
India pursuant to section 751(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.216. Hilton
Forge claimed that HMFL is the
successor–in-interest to Hilton Forge,
the latter having converted itself from a
partnership firm into a company limited
by shares, and having changed its name
to HMFL. As such, Hilton Forge argues
HMFL should be entitled to receive the
same antidumping treatment as Hilton
Forge. On January 18, 2006, and
February 3, 2006, at the request of the
Department, HMFL submitted
additional information and
documentation pertaining to this
changed circumstances request.
On March 9, 2006, the Department
published the preliminary results of
review, and invited interested parties to
comment. See Preliminary Results. We
received no comments.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain forged stainless steel flanges,
both finished and not finished,
generally manufactured to specification
ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such
as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope
includes five general types of flanges.
They are weld–neck, used for butt–weld
line connection; threaded, used for
threaded line connections; slip–on and
lap joint, used with stub–ends/butt–
weld line connections; socket weld,
used to fit pipe into a machined
recession; and blind, used to seal off a
line. The sizes of the flanges within the
scope range generally from one to six
inches; however, all sizes of the above–
described merchandise are included in
the scope. Specifically excluded from
the scope of this order are cast stainless
steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges
generally are manufactured to
specification ASTM A–351. The flanges
subject to this order are currently
classifiable under subheadings
7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
under review is dispositive.
Final Results of Review
In antidumping duty changed
circumstances reviews involving a
successor–in-interest determination, the
Department typically examines several
factors including, but not limited to,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
changes in: (1) management; (2)
production facilities; (3) supplier
relationships; and (4) customer base.
See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada:
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460,
20462 (May 13, 1992) and Certain Cut–
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania: Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005)
(unchanged in final, 70 FR 35624 (June
21, 2005) (Plate from Romania). While
no single factor or combination of
factors will necessarily be dispositive,
the Department generally will consider
the new company to be the successor to
the predecessor company if the resulting
operations are similar to those of the
predecessor company. See, e.g.,
Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel:
Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14,
1994), and Plate from Romania, 70 FR
22847. Thus, if the record 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 predecessor company, the
Department may assign the new
company the cash deposit rate of its
predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled
Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final
Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1,
1999).
We have examined the information
HMFL provided, and determined that
HMFL is the successor–in-interest to
Hilton. Hilton Forge’s name change to
HMFL and its conversion from a limited
partnership firm into a company limited
by shares have not changed the
operations of the company in a
meaningful way. HMFL’s management,
production facilities, supplier
relationships, sales facilities, and
customer base are essentially unchanged
from those of Hilton Forge. Therefore,
the record evidence demonstrates that
the new entity operates in the same
manner as the predecessor company.
Consequently, we determine that HMFL
should receive the same antidumping
duty treatment as Hilton Forge, i.e., a
0.89 percent antidumping duty cash
deposit rate.
Instructions to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP)
We will inform CBP that Hilton Forge
no longer exists as a separate corporate
entity, and that we will assign the same
company–specific number to HMFL as
we assigned to Hilton Forge. We will
also instruct CBP that it should apply to
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices
HMFL the same cash deposit rate
currently applied to Hilton Forge (i.e.,
0.89 percent).
The cash deposit determination from
this changed circumstances review will
apply to all entries of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of the final
results of this changed circumstances
review. See Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR
25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review in which HMFL
is reviewed.
Notification
This notice serves as a final reminder
to parties to administrative protective
orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of
proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(5). Failure to timely notify
the Department in writing of the return/
destruction of APO material is a
sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act,
and 19 CFR 351.216 and
351.221(c)(3)(i).
Dated: May 24, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–8513 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
review (POR) covers sales of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the period of June 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005.
We provided interested parties with
an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results of review. However,
we received no comments from
interested parties. Consequently, no
changes have been made to the dumping
margins set forth in the preliminary
results of this administrative review. For
the margins applicable to each
respondent, see the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kimberley Hunt, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–1272.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 9, 2006, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on hot–rolled steel from Japan. See
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Japan: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 12179
(March 9, 2006) (Preliminary Results).
No interested parties filed case briefs in
response to the Department’s invitation
to comment on the Preliminary Results.
Period Of Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
This review covers the period June 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005.
International Trade Administration
Scope Of The Order
[A–588–846]
Certain Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled
Carbon–Quality Steel Products from
Japan: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on Certain Hot–
Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality
Steel Products from Japan (hot–rolled
steel). This review covers two
manufacturers/exporters: JFE Steel
Corporation (JFE) and Kawasaki Steel
Corporation (Kawasaki). The period of
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:10 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
The merchandise covered by this
order consists of certain hot–rolled flat–
rolled carbon–quality steel products of a
rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch
or greater, neither clad, plated, nor
coated with metal and whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other non–metallic
substances, in coils (whether or not in
successively superimposed layers)
regardless of thickness, and in straight
lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75
mm and of a width measuring at least
10 times the thickness. Universal mill
plate (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on
four faces or in a closed box pass, of a
width exceeding 150 mm but not
exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness
of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and
without patterns in relief) of a thickness
not less than 4.0 mm is not included
within the scope of this order.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31157
Specifically included in this scope are
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized
(commonly referred to as interstitial–
free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA) steels, and the substrate for
motor lamination steels. IF steels are
recognized as low carbon steels with
micro–alloying levels of elements such
as titanium and/or niobium added to
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements.
HSLA steels are recognized as steels
with micro–alloying levels of elements
such as chromium, copper, niobium,
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
The substrate for motor lamination
steels contains micro–alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the
scope of this investigation, regardless of
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) definitions, are
products in which: (1) iron
predominates, by weight, over each of
the other contained elements; (2) the
carbon content is 2 percent or less, by
weight; and (3) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by
weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of this order
unless otherwise excluded. The
following products, by way of example,
are outside and/or specifically excluded
from the scope of this order:
• Alloy hot–rolled steel products in
which at least one of the chemical
elements exceeds those listed above
(including e.g., ASTM specifications
A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506).
• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and
higher.
• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Silico–manganese (as defined in the
HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with
a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS abrasion–resistant steels (USS AR
400, USS AR 500).
• Hot–rolled steel coil which meets the
following chemical, physical and
mechanical specifications:
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31156-31157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8513]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-809]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances
Review; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances
review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel
flanges (flanges) from India in which we preliminarily determined that
Hilton Metal Forging Ltd. (HMFL) is the successor-in-interest company
to Hilton Forge. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges
from India, 71 FR 12177 (March 9, 2006) (Preliminary Results). We gave
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary
results, but received no comments. Therefore, the final results do not
differ from the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone : (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 14, 2005, Hilton Forge requested that the Department
conduct a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on
flanges from India pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.216. Hilton Forge
claimed that HMFL is the successor-in-interest to Hilton Forge, the
latter having converted itself from a partnership firm into a company
limited by shares, and having changed its name to HMFL. As such, Hilton
Forge argues HMFL should be entitled to receive the same antidumping
treatment as Hilton Forge. On January 18, 2006, and February 3, 2006,
at the request of the Department, HMFL submitted additional information
and documentation pertaining to this changed circumstances request.
On March 9, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results
of review, and invited interested parties to comment. See Preliminary
Results. We received no comments.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless
steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured
to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316,
and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are
weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for
threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/
butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a
machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of
the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches;
however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in
the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are
manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this
order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and
7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under
review is dispositive.
Final Results of Review
In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a
successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines
several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1)
management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and
(4) customer base. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462
(May 13, 1992) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005)
(unchanged in final, 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005) (Plate from Romania).
While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be
dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to
be the successor to the predecessor company if the resulting operations
are similar to those of the predecessor company. See, e.g., Industrial
Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and Plate from Romania,
70 FR 22847. Thus, if the record 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 predecessor
company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit
rate of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon
from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).
We have examined the information HMFL provided, and determined that
HMFL is the successor-in-interest to Hilton. Hilton Forge's name change
to HMFL and its conversion from a limited partnership firm into a
company limited by shares have not changed the operations of the
company in a meaningful way. HMFL's management, production facilities,
supplier relationships, sales facilities, and customer base are
essentially unchanged from those of Hilton Forge. Therefore, the record
evidence demonstrates that the new entity operates in the same manner
as the predecessor company. Consequently, we determine that HMFL should
receive the same antidumping duty treatment as Hilton Forge, i.e., a
0.89 percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate.
Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
We will inform CBP that Hilton Forge no longer exists as a separate
corporate entity, and that we will assign the same company-specific
number to HMFL as we assigned to Hilton Forge. We will also instruct
CBP that it should apply to
[[Page 31157]]
HMFL the same cash deposit rate currently applied to Hilton Forge
(i.e., 0.89 percent).
The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances
review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review.
See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12,
2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review in which HMFL is
reviewed.
Notification
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties to administrative
protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). Failure to timely notify the
Department in writing of the return/destruction of APO material is a
sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and
351.221(c)(3)(i).
Dated: May 24, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-8513 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
