Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 55498-55500 [E8-22551]

Download as PDF mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 55498 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 6944 (February 14, 1994). 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). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), we preliminarily determine that India Steel is the successor–in-interest to Isibars. In its August 4, 2008, submission, India Steel provided evidence supporting its claim to be the successor–in-interest to Isibars. The documentation attached to India Steel’s August 4, 2008, submission shows that the change of corporate name from Isibars Limited to India Steel Works Limited resulted in little or no change in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, or customer base. This documentation consists of: (1) the minutes of a September 29, 2007, General Meeting showing the name change was voted upon and approved unanimously; (2) a certified copy of a ‘‘Fresh Certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon Change of Name,’’ dated October 22, 2007, issued by the Government of India, which shows the name change; (3) a list of the stockholders and board of directors before and after the name change, showing that they are identical; (4) an organizational chart before and after the name change showing India Steel has the same organization structure as Isibars; (5) lists of suppliers and customers before and after the name change indicating that they are identical; (6) samples of letters and e mails sent to customers announcing the name change; (7) documentation demonstrating that India Steel has the same taxpayer identification number (called the ‘‘permanent account number’’ in India) as Isibars; (8) a detailed description of the production facilities that existed before and after the name change indicating that India Steel has the same production facilities as Isibars; (9) documentation demonstrating that India Steel maintains the same bank account as Isibars; and (10) certificates of importer and exporter codes for Isibars and India Steel, issued by the Government of India, showing that the codes are VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:50 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 214001 identical before and after the name change. In sum, India Steel has presented evidence to establish a prima facie case of its successorship status. Isibars’s name change to India Steel has not changed the operations of the company in a meaningful way. India Steel’s management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base are substantially unchanged from those of Isibars. The record evidence demonstrates that the new entity essentially operates in the same manner as the predecessor company. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that India Steel should be assigned the same antidumping duty treatment as Isibars, i.e., a 2.01 percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate. See Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 72 FR 51595 (September 10, 2007). 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 India Steel is reviewed. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no later than 21 days after the date of publication. The Department will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review, which will include the results of its analysis raised in any such written comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, and 351.221. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: September 18, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–22552 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–808] Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a request for initiation of a changed–circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods (wire rods) from India from India Steel Works Limited (India Steel). After reviewing this request, we preliminarily determine that India Steel is the successor–ininterest to Isibars Limited (Isibars) and should therefore be accorded the same treatment previously accorded to Isibars with respect to the antidumping duty order on wire rods from India. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3931 and (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On December 1, 1993, the Department published an antidumping duty order on wire rods from India. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). On August 4, 2008, the Department received a request for a changed– circumstances review of this order from India Steel to determine if, for purposes of the antidumping law, India Steel is the successor–in-interest to Isibars. Sales of wire rods from India produced by Isibars were last examined by the Department in the administrative review of the order covering the period December 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003. As a result of this review, E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices Isibars received a cash–deposit rate of 30.10 percent. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 47177 (August 12, 2005) (Amended Final Results). mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Scope of the Review The merchandise under review is wire rods, which are hot–rolled or hot– rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot–rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of wire rods sold in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter. The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive of whether the merchandise is covered by the order. Initiation and Preliminary Results 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 review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The Department finds that the documentation that India Steel submitted with its August 4, 2008, request constitutes sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant such a review. Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is initiating a changed– circumstances review to determine whether India Steel is the successor–ininterest to Isibars for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability with respect to imports of wire rods from India. Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a changed– circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results for the review in a VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:50 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 214001 single notice if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. As explained below, we find that the evidence provided by India Steel is sufficient to preliminarily determine that this company is the successor–in-interest to Isibars. In making a successor–in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20461 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor–in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company’s resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that 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 (March 1, 1999) (Salmon from Norway); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994). 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., Salmon from Norway, 64 FR at 9980. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221, we preliminarily determine that India Steel is the successor–in-interest to Isisbars. In its August 4, 2008, submission, India Steel provided evidence supporting its claim to be the successor–in-interest to Isibars. Specifically, it provided the following documentation: (1) the minutes of the September 29, 2007, annual general meeting of Isibars, showing that the name change was voted upon and approved unanimously; (2) a certified copy of a ‘‘Fresh Certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon Change of Name,’’ dated October 22, 2007, and issued by the Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which shows the name change; PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55499 (3) a list of the stockholders and board of directors before and after the name change, showing that they are identical; (4) an organizational chart before and after the name change, showing that India Steel has the same organizational structure as Isibars; (5) lists of suppliers and customers before and after the name change, indicating that they are identical; (6) samples of letters and e–mails sent to customers announcing the name change; (7) documentation demonstrating that India Steel has the same 1permanent account number’, or taxpayer identification number, as Isibars; (8) a detailed description of the production facilities that existed before and after the name change indicating that India Steel has the same production facilities as Isibars; (9) documentation demonstrating that India Steel maintains the same bank account as Isibars; and (10) certificates of importer and exporter codes for Isibars and India Steel, issued by the Government of India showing that the codes are identical before and after the name change. In summary, India Steel has presented evidence to establish a prima facie case of its successorship status. Isibars’s name change to India Steel has not changed the operations of the company in a meaningful way. India Steel’s management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base are substantially unchanged from those of Isibars. The record evidence demonstrates that the new entity essentially operates in the same manner as the predecessor company. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that India Steel should be assigned the same antidumping duty treatment as Isibars, i.e., a 30.10 percent antidumping duty cash–deposit rate. See Amended Final Results. 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 India Steel is reviewed. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 55500 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices Written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no later than 21 days after the date of publication. The Department will issue the final results of this changed–circumstances review, which will include the results of its analysis raised in any such written comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221. Dated: September 18, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–22551 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Solicitation of Applications for Allocation of Tariff Rate Quotas on the Imports of Certain Cotton Shirting Fabric to Persons Who Cut and Sew Men’s and Boys’ Cotton Shirts in the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. ACTION: The Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is soliciting applications for an allocation of the 2009 tariff rate quotas on certain cotton woven fabric to persons who cut and sew men’s and boys’ cotton shirts in the United States. AGENCY: The Department hereby solicits applications from persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who cut and sew men’s and boys’ cotton shirts in the United States for an allocation of the 2009 tariff rate quotas on certain cotton woven fabric. Interested persons must submit an application on the form provided to the address listed below by October 27, 2008. The Department will cause to be published in the Federal Register its determination to allocate the 2009 tariff rate quotas, will notify applicants of their respective allocation, and will issue licenses to eligible applicants within 60 days of that date. DATES: To be considered, applications must be received or postmarked by 5 p.m. on October 27, 2008. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:50 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 214001 Applications must be submitted to the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 3100, United States Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230 (telephone: (202) 482-3400). Application forms may be obtained from that office (via facsimile or mail) or from the following Internet address: http:// web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/cottontrq.nsf/ TRQApp. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES: Background On December 9, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (HR 6406/HR 6111) (‘‘the Act’’). Section 406(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to fairly allocate tariff rate quotas on the import of certain cotton woven fabrics through December 31, 2009. Section 406 (b)(1) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue licenses to eligible manufacturers under headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, specifying the restrictions under each such license on the quantity of cotton woven fabrics that may be entered each year on behalf of the manufacturer. The Act created an annual tariff rate quota providing for temporary reductions through December 31, 2009 in the import duties of cotton woven fabrics suitable for making cotton shirts (new Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’) headings 9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 9902.52.19). The reduction in duty is limited to 85 percent of the total square meter equivalents of all imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton used by manufacturers in cutting and sewing men’s and boys’ cotton shirts in the United States and purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year 2000. The Act requires that the tariff rate quotas be allocated to persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who, during calendar year 2000, were manufacturers cutting and sewing men’s and boys’ cotton shirts in the United States from imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton of the kind described in HTS 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2000. On July 10, 2008, the Department published a final rule establishing procedures for allocating the tariff rate quota. See Imports of Certain Cotton Shirting Fabric: Implementation of Tariff Rate Quota Established Under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, 73 FR 39585 (July 10, 2008), 15 CFR 336. In order to be eligible for an allocation, an applicant must submit an application on the form provided at http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/cotton.nsf/ TRQApp to the address listed above by 5 p.m. on October 27, 2008 in compliance with the requirements of 15 CFR 336. Any business confidential information that is marked business confidential will be kept confidential and protected from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. Dated: September 22, 2008. R. Matthew Priest, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel. [FR Doc. E8–22576 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Announcement of Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Revised Management Plan Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Approval and Availability of the Final Revised Management Plan for the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce has approved the revised management plan for the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. The Padilla Bay Reserve was designated in 1980 pursuant to Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1461. The reserve has been operating under a management plan approved in 1980. Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 921.33(c), a state must revise their management plan every five years. The submission of this plan brings the reserve into compliance with this E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55498-55500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22551]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-808]


Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 
India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a request 
for initiation of a changed-circumstances review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel wire rods (wire rods) from India from 
India Steel Works Limited (India Steel). After reviewing this request, 
we preliminarily determine that India Steel is the successor-in-
interest to Isibars Limited (Isibars) and should therefore be accorded 
the same treatment previously accorded to Isibars with respect to the 
antidumping duty order on wire rods from India. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3931 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 1, 1993, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on wire rods from India. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). 
On August 4, 2008, the Department received a request for a changed-
circumstances review of this order from India Steel to determine if, 
for purposes of the antidumping law, India Steel is the successor-in-
interest to Isibars.
    Sales of wire rods from India produced by Isibars were last 
examined by the Department in the administrative review of the order 
covering the period December 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003. As a 
result of this review,

[[Page 55499]]

Isibars received a cash-deposit rate of 30.10 percent. See Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod From India: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 47177 (August 12, 2005) (Amended Final 
Results).

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise under review is wire rods, which are hot-rolled or 
hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons 
or other shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of alloy steels 
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent 
or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are 
only manufactured by hot-rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, 
and are of solid cross section. The majority of wire rods sold in the 
United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and pickled. 
The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
    The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 
7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise subject to the order is dispositive of whether the 
merchandise is covered by the order.

Initiation and Preliminary Results 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 review of, an antidumping duty 
order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review 
of the order. The Department finds that the documentation that India 
Steel submitted with its August 4, 2008, request constitutes sufficient 
evidence of changed circumstances to warrant such a review. Thus, in 
accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is initiating 
a changed-circumstances review to determine whether India Steel is the 
successor-in-interest to Isibars for purposes of determining 
antidumping duty liability with respect to imports of wire rods from 
India.
    Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to 
combine the notice of initiation of a changed-circumstances review and 
the notice of preliminary results for the review in a single notice if 
the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. As 
explained below, we find that the evidence provided by India Steel is 
sufficient to preliminarily determine that this company is the 
successor-in-interest to Isibars.
    In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department 
examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) 
management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and 
(4) customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene 
Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass Sheet and Strip 
from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
57 FR 20460, 20461 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or 
combination of factors will necessarily provide a dispositive 
indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will 
generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous 
company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially 
dissimilar to that 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 (March 1, 1999) 
(Salmon from Norway); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 
1994). 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., Salmon from Norway, 64 FR at 9980.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221, we preliminarily determine that 
India Steel is the successor-in-interest to Isisbars. In its August 4, 
2008, submission, India Steel provided evidence supporting its claim to 
be the successor-in-interest to Isibars. Specifically, it provided the 
following documentation:
    (1) the minutes of the September 29, 2007, annual general meeting 
of Isibars, showing that the name change was voted upon and approved 
unanimously;
    (2) a certified copy of a ``Fresh Certificate of Incorporation 
Consequent upon Change of Name,'' dated October 22, 2007, and issued by 
the Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which shows the name change;
    (3) a list of the stockholders and board of directors before and 
after the name change, showing that they are identical;
    (4) an organizational chart before and after the name change, 
showing that India Steel has the same organizational structure as 
Isibars;
    (5) lists of suppliers and customers before and after the name 
change, indicating that they are identical;
    (6) samples of letters and e-mails sent to customers announcing the 
name change;
    (7) documentation demonstrating that India Steel has the same 
[revaps]permanent account number', or taxpayer identification number, 
as Isibars;
    (8) a detailed description of the production facilities that 
existed before and after the name change indicating that India Steel 
has the same production facilities as Isibars;
    (9) documentation demonstrating that India Steel maintains the same 
bank account as Isibars; and
    (10) certificates of importer and exporter codes for Isibars and 
India Steel, issued by the Government of India showing that the codes 
are identical before and after the name change.
    In summary, India Steel has presented evidence to establish a prima 
facie case of its successorship status. Isibars's name change to India 
Steel has not changed the operations of the company in a meaningful 
way. India Steel's management, production facilities, supplier 
relationships, and customer base are substantially unchanged from those 
of Isibars. The record evidence demonstrates that the new entity 
essentially operates in the same manner as the predecessor company. 
Consequently, we preliminarily determine that India Steel should be 
assigned the same antidumping duty treatment as Isibars, i.e., a 30.10 
percent antidumping duty cash-deposit rate. See Amended Final Results.
    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 India 
Steel is reviewed.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

[[Page 55500]]

Written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date 
of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttals to written 
comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no 
later than 21 days after the date of publication. The Department will 
issue the final results of this changed-circumstances review, which 
will include the results of its analysis raised in any such written 
comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which this review 
was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.216(e).
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) and 
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-22551 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S