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
<![CDATA[
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: https://
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
https://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
