Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review, 52930-52931 [2010-21577]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52930-52931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-838]


Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 751(b) 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 conducting a changed-circumstances 
review of the antidumping duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 
from India to determine whether Meghmani Pigments (Meghmani) is the 
successor-in-interest to Alpanil Industries (Alpanil) for determining 
antidumping duty liability. Because Meghmani did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, we have preliminarily determined that the 
use of facts available is appropriate to find that Meghmani is the 
successor-in-interest to Alpanil. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: August 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerrold Freeman or Richard Rimlinger, 
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-
0180 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 11, 2009, the Department was notified by Alpanil that, 
on April 9, 2009, Alpanil's name was officially changed to Meghmani 
Pigments. In addition to a brief narrative explaining that there was no 
change in company ownership, management, production, office or factory 
location, employees, customers, or suppliers, a copy of ``Form G'' from 
the Gujurat State Registar of Firms was attached to demonstrate a 
record of all corporate changes for Alpanil/Meghmani since the 
incorporation of Alpanil in 1992. This attachment indicates that 
Alpanil's name change to Meghmani was recorded on April 9, 2009.
    On March 9, 2010, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, 19 
CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), we published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty changed-
circumstances review. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 
10759 (March 9, 2010) (Initiation). In this notice we indicated that we 
would conduct the changed-circumstances review in the context of the 
administrative review of the order covering the period December 1, 
2008, through November 30, 2009.
    On April 5, 2010, Meghmani withdrew its request for a review of its 
sales of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order for the 
2008/09 period in a timely manner. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), we rescinded the 2008/09 review with respect to CVP 23 
from India produced and/or exported by Meghmani. See Carbazole Violet 
Pigment 23 from India: Rescission of Administrative Review, 75 FR 25209 
(May 7, 2010). In the notice we indicated that, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.216(e), we intend to ``issue final results of the changed-
circumstances review within 270 days after the date on which we 
initiated the changed-circumstances review.'' See 75 FR at 25210.
    On June 3, 2010, we sent a questionnaire to Meghmani requesting 
further information on the nature of the name change and whether 
additional changes had occurred. Although we granted Meghmani an 
extension of the deadline to respond, Meghmani did not respond to our 
questionnaire. Instead, on July 6, 2010, Meghmani notified the 
Department that it will not participate in the changed-circumstances 
review. Meghmani did not provide any reasons for its decision to 
withdraw its participation from the changed-circumstances review.
    Since the initiation of the review, no other interested party has 
submitted comments.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is carbazole violet pigment 23 
identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-
1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3',2'-m] \1\ 
triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethyl-5, 15-dihydro-, and 
molecular formula of 
C34H22Cl2N4O2. 
The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form (e.g., 
dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of 
presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g., pigment 
dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included 
within the scope of the order. The merchandise subject to the order is 
classifiable under subheading 3204.17.90.40 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 scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The bracketed section of the product description, [3,2-
b:3',2'-m], is not business-proprietary information. In this case, 
the brackets are simply part of the chemical nomenclature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    For the reason discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available is appropriate for the preliminary results of 
the changed-circumstances review with respect to Meghmani.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes 
a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i)

[[Page 52931]]

of the Act, the Department shall use facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination.
    Because Meghmani did not respond to our June 3, 2010, 
questionnaire, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, we 
must rely entirely on facts available.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In selecting among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of 
the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party 
has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with a request for information, the Department may use an 
inference adverse to the interests of that party. In addition, the 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994), reprinted 
in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 (SAA), establishes that the Department may 
employ an adverse inference ``to ensure that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA also instructs the 
Department to consider, in employing adverse inferences, ``the extent 
to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' Id. 
Moreover, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
    We find that, by failing completely to respond to our questionnaire 
in the changed-circumstances review concerning its name change, 
Meghmani withheld requested information and thus failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability and, therefore, we may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of Meghmani.

C. Selection of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies an adverse inference because a 
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act 
authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the 
petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and 
the SAA at 870.
    Because we are making an adverse inference with regard to Meghmani 
based on the most recent information at our disposal, we preliminarily 
find that Meghmani is the successor-in-interest to Alpanil. In making 
the adverse inference, we have relied on the information placed on the 
record by Meghmani to determine that Meghmani is the successor-in-
interest to Alpanil. See section 776(b) of the Act.\2\ If we were to 
find that Meghmani is not the successor-in-interest to Alpanil, that 
would ensure that Meghmani would ``obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate'' because the all-others rate of 27.48 percent for 
the antidumping duty order would apply to Meghmani which is 
significantly lower than Alpanil's current rate of 58.90 percent. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that Meghmani is the successor-
in-interest to Alpanil and will assign to Meghmani the same treatment 
as Alpanil with respect to the antidumping duty proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the information upon which we are relying was 
obtained in the course of the review and is not secondary 
information, corrobation of this information is not necessary. See 
section 776(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 
15 days after the date of publication of this notice of preliminary 
results of changed-circumstances review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 
Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, limited to the issues raised 
in the case briefs, may be submitted not later than five days after the 
time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. Parties who submit 
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to 
submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the 
arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
in a hearing if a hearing is requested must submit a written request to 
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 15 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Such 
requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
(3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will 
be limited to those discussed in the case briefs. If requested, any 
hearing will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission 
of rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the 
final results of this changed-circumstances review, including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs or at 
the hearing if requested.
    As indicated in the Initiation, during the course of this changed-
circumstances review we will not change any cash-deposit requirements 
on entries of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order unless 
a change is determined to be warranted pursuant to the final results of 
this changed-circumstances review.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results and notice 
in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.216.

    Dated: August 23, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-21577 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P