Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 4938-4940 [E9-1713]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4938
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
suspend liquidation of all entries of
CWASPP from the PRC which were
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after July 10,
2008, the date of the publication of the
Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. In accordance with
sections 703(d) of the Act, we will be
issuing instructions to CBP to
discontinue the suspension of
liquidation for countervailing duty
purposes for subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
on or after November 7, 2008, but to
continue the suspension of liquidation
of all entries from July 10, 2008 through
November 6, 2008.
We will issue a CVD order and
reinstate the suspension of liquidation
under section 706(a) of the Act if the
ITC issues a final affirmative injury
determination, and will require a cash
deposit of estimated countervailing
duties for such entries of merchandise
in the amounts indicated above. If the
ITC determines that material injury, or
threat of material injury, does not exist,
this proceeding will be terminated and
all estimated duties deposited or
securities posted as a result of the
suspension of liquidation will be
refunded or canceled.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all non–
privileged and non–proprietary
information related to this investigation.
We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
information in our files, provided the
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
such information, either publicly or
under an APO, without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
to parties subject to an administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of
the Act.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dated: January 21, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[C–489–806]
APPENDIX
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(‘‘Marsan’’) pursuant to section 751(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.216 and
351.221(c)(3), the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
initiating a changed circumstances
review of the countervailing duty
(‘‘CVD’’) order on certain pasta (‘‘Pasta’’)
from Turkey. Marsan, a producer of
pasta, claims that Gidasa Sabanci Gida
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘Gidasa’’)
changed its corporate name to Marsan
and, therefore, Marsan should be
entitled to the same cash deposit rate as
its predecessor company, Gidasa.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shelly Atkinson, Office of AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0116.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Comments and Issues in the
Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Whether the Department
Reasonably Treated China as a
Developed Country for CVD De Minimis
Purposes
Comment 2: Whether Winner HK
Should be Treated as a PRC Entity for
Purposes of Attribution
Comment 3: Whether the Total Sales
Figure Used as the Denominator in the
Preliminary Determination and Interim
Decision Memorandum is Correct
Comment 4: Whether the Department
Has the Legal Authority to Apply the
CVD Law to the PRC While
Simultaneously Treating the PRC as an
NME in Parallel Antidumping
Investigations
Comment 5: Whether the Provision of
SSC to SOEs Constitutes the Provision
of a Good by a Government Authority
Comment 6: Whether the Sale of HRS
from Privately–Held Trading Companies
Constitutes a Financial Contribution
Under the Act
Comment 7: Whether the Provision of
SSC is Specific and the Applicability of
the Department’s Use of AFA in its
Determination of De Facto Specificity
Comment 8: Whether the Department
Should Countervail the Provision of
Land
Comment 9: Whether the Department
Should Countervail FIE Tax Programs
that are Industry, Regionally, or Export/
Domestic Use Neutral
Comment 10: Whether the Department’s
Prevailing Interest Rate Methodology
Should be Used to Calculate any
Subsidy in this Case
Comment 11: Whether the Department’s
Choice of Adverse Facts Applied to the
Non–Cooperating Respondent is
Contrary to Law
Comment 12: Whether the Department’s
Methodology for Determining the All–
Others rate in its Amended Preliminary
Results is Unreasonable
[FR Doc. E9–1829 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
International Trade Administration
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Certain Pasta from Turkey
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
CVD order on Pasta from Turkey. See
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order:
Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) From Turkey, 61
FR 38546 (July 24, 1996). Since then,
the Department has completed two
administrative reviews of this CVD
order but is not currently conducting an
administrative review. See Certain Pasta
From Turkey: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 64398 (December 13,
2001); Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 52774
(September 7, 2006) (‘‘Pasta from
Turkey: Results of Administrative
Review’’). Also, with respect to Gidasa,
in July 2003, the Department
determined that Gidasa was the
successor–in-interest to Maktas
Makarnacilik ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘Maktas’’)
and that Gidasa was entitled to the cash
deposit rate assigned to Maktas in the
most recently completed CVD
administrative review. See Notice of
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews: Certain Pasta
From Turkey, 68 FR 41554 (July 14,
2003); see also Certain Pasta from
Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR
64398 (December 13, 2001).
On December 3, 2008, Marsan filed a
request for an expedited changed
circumstances review to determine
whether it is the successor–in-interest to
Gidasa, in accordance with section
751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216
for the antidumping (‘‘AD’’) and CVD
orders on pasta from Turkey. Marsan
submitted certain information in
support of its claim that it is the
successor–in-interest to Gidasa and
argued that it should be entitled to
Gidasa’s current CVD cash deposit rate
of 0.0 percent. See Marsan’s December
3, 2008 submission entitled Pasta From
Turkey: Request for Expedited Changed
Circumstances Review of AD/CVD
Orders; see also Pasta from Turkey:
Final Results of Administrative Review,
71 FR at 52775. In response to Marsan’s
request regarding the AD order, on
January 7, 2009, the Department
published its initiation of a changed
circumstances review and stated that it
will seek further information for the
preliminary determination. See Notice
of Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Certain
Pasta From Turkey, 74 FR 681 (January
7, 2009).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this review are
shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta
in packages of five pounds (or 2.27
kilograms) or less, whether or not
enriched or fortified or containing milk
or other optional ingredients such as
chopped vegetables, vegetable purees,
milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins,
coloring and flavorings, and up to two
percent egg white. The pasta covered by
this scope is typically sold in the retail
market, in fiberboard or cardboard
cartons, or polyethylene or
polypropylene bags, of varying
dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of this
review are refrigerated, frozen, or
canned pastas, as well as all forms of
egg pasta, with the exception of non–egg
dry pasta containing up to two percent
egg white.
The merchandise subject to review is
currently classifiable under item
1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
description of the merchandise subject
to the order is dispositive.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Changed Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Act, the Department will conduct a
changed circumstances review upon
receipt of a request from an interested
party, or receipt of information,
concerning a CVD order which shows
changed circumstances sufficient to
warrant a review of the order. On
December 3, 2008, Marsan submitted its
request for an expedited changed
circumstances review. With its request,
Marsan submitted certain information
related to its claim including
information describing the acquisition
of Gidasa in March 2008 by MGS
Marmara Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(‘‘MGS’’). Following the acquisition of
Gidasa, in June 2008, MGS changed
Gidasa’s name to Marsan. Based on the
information Marsan submitted, the
Department has determined that
changed circumstances sufficient to
warrant a review exist. See 19 CFR
351.216(d). Additionally, we note that
there is no concurrent administrative
review of Gidasa in which this name
change could be examined.
In the context of a changed
circumstances review of an AD order
based on a name change or a change in
the company’s ownership or structure,
the Department relies on its ‘‘successor–
in-interest’’ analysis to determine
whether the successor remains
essentially the same entity as the
predecessor so that it is appropriate to
impose the existing AD cash deposit
rate of the predecessor on the successor.
However, the AD successor–in-interest
test may not fully address whether it is
appropriate to apply the CVD cash
deposit rate of a previously examined
company to its claimed successor.
In Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from the Republic of Korea:
Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
71 FR 75937 (December 19, 2006), the
Department indicated that it intended to
further consider the issue of whether
alternative or additional successorship
criteria, other than those the Department
relies upon in an AD successor–ininterest analysis, would be more
appropriate in a successorship–type
CVD changed circumstances review
context. Moreover, the Department
stated that it anticipated issuing a
Federal Register notice inviting the
public to submit comments on the issue.
Subsequently, the Department
published Countervailing Duty Changed
Circumstances Reviews; Request for
Comment on Agency Practice, 72 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4939
3107 (January 24, 2007), in which the
Department reiterated that the AD
successor–in-interest analysis may not
be entirely relevant in the CVD context,
highlighted various considerations that
distinguish CVD changed circumstances
reviews from AD changed
circumstances reviews, and provided
the public an opportunity to comment
on whether any changes to the
Department’s practice regarding such
reviews was warranted and, if so, what
those changes should entail.
In the instant changed circumstances
review, we intend not to apply the AD
successor–in-interest methodology to
determine whether Marsan is the
successor–in-interest to Gidasa. The
Department anticipates requesting
additional information for this review
and will publish in the Federal Register
a notice of the preliminary results of the
CVD changed circumstances review, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2)
and (4), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i).
That notice will set forth the factual and
legal conclusions upon which our
preliminary results are based and a
description of any action proposed.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii),
interested parties will have an
opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results of review. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the
Department will issue the final results
of its CVD changed circumstances
review not later than 270 days after the
date on which the review is initiated.
Because the Department is not using
the standard AD successor–in-interest
methodology to examine this changed
circumstances review and the
Department will seek further
information from Marsan, the
Department has determined that it
would be inappropriate to expedite this
action by combining the preliminary
results of review with this notice of
initiation, as permitted under 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(ii). Thus, the Department
is not issuing the preliminary results of
its CVD changed circumstances review
at this time.
The current requirement for a cash
deposit of estimated countervailing
duties on all subject merchandise will
continue unless and until it is modified
pursuant to the final results of this
changed circumstances review.
This notice of initiation is in
accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the
Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(1).
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4940
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
Dated: January 16, 2009.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–1713 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free-Trade
Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel
Reviews; Request for Panel Review
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel
Review.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On January 16, 2009, Ivaco
Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco
Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire
Group 2004 L.P. (collectively, ‘‘Ivaco’’),
filed a First Request for Panel Review
with the United States Section of the
NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article
1904 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Panel Review was requested
of the Final Results of the 2006–2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review made by the International Trade
Administration, respecting Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Canada. The determination was
published in the Federal Register (73
FR 77005) on December 18, 2008. The
NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case
Number USA–CDA–2009–1904–01 to
this request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Valerie Dees, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th
and Constitution Avenue, Washington,
DC 20230. (202) 482–5432.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) established a
mechanism to replace domestic judicial
review of final determinations in
antidumping and countervailing duty
cases involving imports from a NAFTA
country with review by independent
binational panels. When a Request for
Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final
determination to determine whether it
conforms with the antidumping or
countervailing duty law of the country
that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,
which came into force on January 1,
1994, the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada, and
the Government of Mexico established
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).
These Rules were published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 1994
(59 FR 8686).
A first Request for Panel Review was
filed with the United States Section of
the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to
Article 1904 of the Agreement, on
January 16, 2009, requesting a panel
review of the determination and order
described above.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may
challenge the final determination in
whole or in part by filing a Complaint
in accordance with Rule 39 within 30
days after the filing of the first Request
for Panel Review (the deadline for filing
a Complaint is February 17, 2009);
(b) a Party, investigating authority or
interested person that does not file a
Complaint but that intends to appear in
support of any reviewable portion of the
final determination may participate in
the panel review by filing a Notice of
Appearance in accordance with Rule 40
within 45 days after the filing of the first
Request for Panel Review (the deadline
for filing a Notice of Appearance is
March 2, 2009); and
(c) the panel review shall be limited
to the allegations of error of fact or law,
including the jurisdiction of the
investigating authority, that are set out
in the Complaints filed in panel review
and the procedural and substantive
defenses raised in the panel review.
Dated: January 23, 2009.
Valerie Dees,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E9–1858 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–423–809]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of the
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: January 28, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Montoro at (202) 482–0238 or
David Layton at (202) 482–0371; AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2008, the Department
published a notice of initiation of
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium,
covering the period January 1, 2007
through December 31, 2007. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008).
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) to issue the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order for
which a review is requested and the
final results of review within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results are published. If it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend these deadlines to
a maximum of 365 days and 180 days,
respectively.
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results
Due to the complex nature of the
countervailable subsidy practices and a
merger involving the respondent
company, the Department requires
additional time to review and analyze
the information and to issue
supplemental questionnaires. Therefore,
it is not practicable to complete this
review within the originally anticipated
time limit, and the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results by 120 days
to not later than May 31, 2009, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act. However, May 31, 2009, falls on
a Sunday and it is the Department’s
long-standing practice to issue a
determination the next business day
when the statutory deadline falls on a
weekend, federal holiday, or any other
day when the Department is closed. See
Notice of Clarification: Application of
‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As
Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
Accordingly, the deadline for
completion of the preliminary results is
now no later than June 1, 2009.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4938-4940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-489-806]
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances
Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S. (``Marsan'') pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act'') and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3),
the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is initiating a changed
circumstances review of the countervailing duty (``CVD'') order on
certain pasta (``Pasta'') from Turkey. Marsan, a producer of pasta,
claims that Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (``Gidasa'')
changed its corporate name to Marsan and, therefore, Marsan should be
entitled to the same cash deposit rate as its predecessor company,
Gidasa.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Atkinson, Office of AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0116.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
the CVD order on Pasta from Turkey. See Notice of Countervailing Duty
Order: Certain Pasta (``Pasta'') From Turkey, 61 FR 38546 (July 24,
1996). Since then, the Department has completed two administrative
reviews of this CVD order but is not currently conducting an
administrative review. See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 64398 (December 13,
2001); Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 52774 (September 7, 2006) (``Pasta from
Turkey: Results of Administrative Review''). Also, with respect to
Gidasa, in July 2003, the Department determined that Gidasa was the
successor-in-interest to Maktas Makarnacilik ve Ticaret A.S.
(``Maktas'') and that Gidasa was entitled to the cash deposit rate
assigned to Maktas in the most recently completed CVD administrative
review. See Notice of
[[Page 4939]]
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 68 FR 41554
(July 14, 2003); see also Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 64398 (December 13,
2001).
On December 3, 2008, Marsan filed a request for an expedited
changed circumstances review to determine whether it is the successor-
in-interest to Gidasa, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.216 for the antidumping (``AD'') and CVD orders on pasta
from Turkey. Marsan submitted certain information in support of its
claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Gidasa and argued that it
should be entitled to Gidasa's current CVD cash deposit rate of 0.0
percent. See Marsan's December 3, 2008 submission entitled Pasta From
Turkey: Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances Review of AD/CVD
Orders; see also Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of Administrative
Review, 71 FR at 52775. In response to Marsan's request regarding the
AD order, on January 7, 2009, the Department published its initiation
of a changed circumstances review and stated that it will seek further
information for the preliminary determination. See Notice of Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta From
Turkey, 74 FR 681 (January 7, 2009).
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry
pasta in packages of five pounds (or 2.27 kilograms) or less, whether
or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional
ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten,
diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg
white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail
market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or
polypropylene bags, of varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or
canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of
non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.
The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise
subject to the order is dispositive.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will
conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from
an interested party, or receipt of information, concerning a CVD order
which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the
order. On December 3, 2008, Marsan submitted its request for an
expedited changed circumstances review. With its request, Marsan
submitted certain information related to its claim including
information describing the acquisition of Gidasa in March 2008 by MGS
Marmara Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (``MGS''). Following the
acquisition of Gidasa, in June 2008, MGS changed Gidasa's name to
Marsan. Based on the information Marsan submitted, the Department has
determined that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review
exist. See 19 CFR 351.216(d). Additionally, we note that there is no
concurrent administrative review of Gidasa in which this name change
could be examined.
In the context of a changed circumstances review of an AD order
based on a name change or a change in the company's ownership or
structure, the Department relies on its ``successor-in-interest''
analysis to determine whether the successor remains essentially the
same entity as the predecessor so that it is appropriate to impose the
existing AD cash deposit rate of the predecessor on the successor.
However, the AD successor-in-interest test may not fully address
whether it is appropriate to apply the CVD cash deposit rate of a
previously examined company to its claimed successor.
In Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of
Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances
Review, 71 FR 75937 (December 19, 2006), the Department indicated that
it intended to further consider the issue of whether alternative or
additional successorship criteria, other than those the Department
relies upon in an AD successor-in-interest analysis, would be more
appropriate in a successorship-type CVD changed circumstances review
context. Moreover, the Department stated that it anticipated issuing a
Federal Register notice inviting the public to submit comments on the
issue. Subsequently, the Department published Countervailing Duty
Changed Circumstances Reviews; Request for Comment on Agency Practice,
72 FR 3107 (January 24, 2007), in which the Department reiterated that
the AD successor-in-interest analysis may not be entirely relevant in
the CVD context, highlighted various considerations that distinguish
CVD changed circumstances reviews from AD changed circumstances
reviews, and provided the public an opportunity to comment on whether
any changes to the Department's practice regarding such reviews was
warranted and, if so, what those changes should entail.
In the instant changed circumstances review, we intend not to apply
the AD successor-in-interest methodology to determine whether Marsan is
the successor-in-interest to Gidasa. The Department anticipates
requesting additional information for this review and will publish in
the Federal Register a notice of the preliminary results of the CVD
changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2)
and (4), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). That notice will set forth the
factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are
based and a description of any action proposed. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its CVD
changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on
which the review is initiated.
Because the Department is not using the standard AD successor-in-
interest methodology to examine this changed circumstances review and
the Department will seek further information from Marsan, the
Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to expedite
this action by combining the preliminary results of review with this
notice of initiation, as permitted under 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).
Thus, the Department is not issuing the preliminary results of its CVD
changed circumstances review at this time.
The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated
countervailing duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless
and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed
circumstances review.
This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1)
of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).
[[Page 4940]]
Dated: January 16, 2009.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-1713 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
