Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 55497-55498 [E8-22552]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices Scope of the Review DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–810] Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a request for initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) 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 as a result, should be accorded the same treatment previously accorded Isibars with regard to the antidumping duty order on SSB from India. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. AGENCY: September 25, 2008. Cory Hervey or Devta Ohri, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1664 and (202) 482–3853, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EFFECTIVE DATE: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Background On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on SSB from India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On August 4, 2008, India Steel requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review of this order to determine that, for purposes of the antidumping law, India Steel is the successor–in-interest to Isibars. See August 4, 2008, letter from India Steel. Isibars was a producer and exporter of SSB from India. The last review that Isibars participated in covered the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. As a result of this review, Isibars received a cash deposit rate of 2.01 percent. 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). VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:50 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 214001 Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot–rolled, forged, turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled or otherwise cold–finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold–finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot–rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi– finished products, cut–to-length flat– rolled products (i.e., cut–to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat–rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. See Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Department building. See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005). Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55497 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. In this case, the Department finds that the evidence submitted showing that a name change took place, along with the additional supporting documentation concerning India Steel’s management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base (see August 4, 2008, letter from India Steel) provides sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant 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 SSB 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 in a single notice if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. As explained below, in this case, we find that the evidence provided by India Steel is sufficient to preliminarily determine that India Steel is a 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, 20462 (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); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 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

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55497-55498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22552]



[[Page 55497]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') received a request 
for initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') 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 as a result, should be accorded 
the same treatment previously accorded Isibars with regard to the 
antidumping duty order on SSB from India. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cory Hervey or Devta Ohri, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1664 and (202) 482-3853, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on SSB 
from India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form 
Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On August 4, 
2008, India Steel requested that the Department initiate a changed 
circumstances review of this order to determine that, for purposes of 
the antidumping law, India Steel is the successor-in-interest to 
Isibars. See August 4, 2008, letter from India Steel.
    Isibars was a producer and exporter of SSB from India. The last 
review that Isibars participated in covered the period February 1, 
2005, through January 31, 2006. As a result of this review, Isibars 
received a cash deposit rate of 2.01 percent. 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).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means 
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either 
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their 
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other 
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or 
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or 
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have 
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the 
rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm 
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures 
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in 
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, 
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and 
angles, shapes, and sections.
    The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.
    On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that 
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel 
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. See 
Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, ``Antidumping Duty Orders 
on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 
India: Final Scope Ruling,'' dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in 
the Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Department building. 
See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).

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. In this case, the Department finds that the evidence 
submitted showing that a name change took place, along with the 
additional supporting documentation concerning India Steel's 
management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer 
base (see August 4, 2008, letter from India Steel) provides sufficient 
evidence of changed circumstances to warrant 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 SSB 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 in a single notice if the Department 
concludes that expedited action is warranted. As explained below, in 
this case, we find that the evidence provided by India Steel is 
sufficient to preliminarily determine that India Steel is a 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, 20462 (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); 
Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Review, 59 FR

[[Page 55498]]

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 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.

    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