Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 45511-45513 [2011-19305]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2011 / Notices
45511
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’),
contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic
acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and
1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble
materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also
classifiable under the subheading
2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98
percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5
percent maximum aniline and 0.25
percent maximum alkali insoluble
materials.
Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate),
classifiable under the HTS subheading
2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or
crystalline material which contains 75
percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic
acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline
based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid
content, and 0.25 percent maximum
alkali insoluble materials based on the
equivalent sulfanilic acid content.
Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of these proceedings is
dispositive.
Weighted
average
margin
(percent)
Results of Reviews section of this
notice.
DATES:
Effective Date: July 29, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita or Eugene Degnan,
Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–
0414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 1, 2011, the Department
published the notice of initiation of the
sunset reviews of the antidumping duty
orders on sulfanilic acid from India and
the PRC.1 On April 7, 2011, the
Department received a notice of intent
to participate from Nation Ford
Chemical Company (‘‘NFC’’), the
domestic interested party, within the
deadline specified in section
315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s
regulations. NFC claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of
the Act, as a producer of the domesticlike product in the United States. On
April 29, 2011, the Department received
a complete substantive response from
NFC within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the
Department’s regulations. We did not
receive responses from any respondent
interested parties to these proceedings.
As a result, pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the
Department’s regulations, the
Department determined to conduct
expedited reviews of these orders.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Orders
Imports covered by the antidumping
duty orders are all grades of sulfanilic
acid, which include technical (or crude)
sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified)
sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of
sulfanilic acid.
Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic
chemical produced from the direct
sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid.
Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material
in the production of optical brighteners,
food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete
additives. The principal differences
between the grades are the undesirable
quantities of residual aniline and alkali
insoluble materials present in the
sulfanilic acid. All grades are available
as dry, free flowing powders.
Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable
under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76
FR 18163 (April 1, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in these reviews are
addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision
Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated concurrently
with this notice, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. The issues
discussed in the Decision Memorandum
include the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of dumping and the
magnitude of the margins likely to
prevail if the orders were revoked.
Parties can find a complete discussion
of all issues raised in these reviews and
the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum which is on
file in room 7046 of the main Commerce
building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/, under the
heading ‘‘July 2011.’’ The paper copy
and electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Reviews
We determine that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic
acid from India and the PRC would
likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping at the following weightedaverage percentage margins:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Manufacturers/exporters/
producers
India:
All Indian Manufacturers and
Exporters ...............................
The PRC ...................................
China National Chemicals I&E
Corporation, Hebei Branch ....
PRC–Wide Entity ......................
2 114.80
................
19.14
85.20
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return or
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.
We are issuing and publishing the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: July 25, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–19308 Filed 7–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–423–808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
2 The Department published its final affirmative
determination of sales at less than fair value with
respect to imports of sulfanilic acid from India on
January 8, 1993. See Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid from India,
58 FR 3251 (January 8, 1993). In this determination,
the Department published a weighted-average
dumping margin for all manufacturers/producers/
exporters of 114.80 percent. However, consistent
with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act, which
prohibits assessing antidumping duties on the
portion of the margin attributable to an export
subsidy, we established an estimated antidumping
duty deposit rate of 71.09 percent for duty deposit
purposes. The Department issued its antidumping
duty order on sulfanilic acid from India on March
2, 1993. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order;
Sulfanilic Acid from India, 58 FR 12025 (March 2,
1993). The Department has not conducted an
administrative review of this order since its
imposition.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
45512
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2011 / Notices
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
initiating a changed circumstances
review of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel plate in coils (‘‘SSPC’’)
from Belgium with respect to Aperam
Stainless Belgium N.V. (‘‘Aperam’’).
DATES: Effective Date: July 29, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George McMahon or Stephanie Moore,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1167 and (202)
482–3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On May 21, 1999, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium; this
order was amended in 2003.1 On June
28, 2011, the Department initiated an
administrative review of Aperam
Stainless Belgium N.V. (‘‘Aperam’’),
covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’),
May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011.
Aperam’s request for review stated that
Aperam was formerly known as
ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V.
(‘‘AMSB’’). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part 76 FR 37781 (June
28, 2011).2
1 See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy,
the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan,
64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR
11520 (March 11, 2003); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR
16117 (April 2, 2003); Notice of Correction to the
Amended Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium,
Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa,
and Taiwan, 68 FR 20114 (April 24, 2003)
(‘‘Antidumping Order’’).
2 On August 16, 2010, the Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) issued an Order modifying a
preliminary injunction in effect for entries of
subject merchandise under the Antidumping Order.
See Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the
Preliminary Injunction Order, ArcelorMittal
Stainless Belgium N.V. v United States, No. 08–434
(CIT August 16, 2010). In this Order, the CIT
modified its January 16, 2009, Order granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and
enjoined liquidation of any unliquidated entries of
SSPC from Belgium which contain merchandise
that (i) Is 4.75 mm or more in nominal thickness,
but which has an actual thickness of less than 4.75
mm, and within the dimensional tolerances
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
With respect to AMSB, the
Department determined in a prior
administrative review covering the POR
of May 1, 2007, to April 30, 2008, that
AMSB was the successor-in-interest to
Ugine & ALZ Belgium, after the merger
of Arcelor S.A. with Mittal Steel, N.V.3
Aperam is the only respondent in the
current administrative review.
On June 14, 2011, Aperam requested
that the Department initiate and
conduct an expedited changed
circumstances review to determine that,
for purposes of the antidumping law,
Aperam is the successor-in-interest to
AMSB. See June 14, 2011, letter from
Aperam to the Department.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
certain stainless steel plate in coils.
Stainless steel is an alloy steel
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or
less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more
of chromium, with or without other
elements. The subject plate products are
flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in
width and 4.75 mm or more in
thickness, in coils, and annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled. The subject plate
may also be further processed (e.g.,
cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that
it maintains the specified dimensions of
plate following such processing.
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following: (1) Plate not in coils;
(2) Plate that is not annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled; (3) Sheet and strip;
and (4) Flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) at subheadings:
7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60,
7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21,
7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51,
7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66,
7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81,
7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10,
7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,
specified under ASTM standard A480/480M, (ii)
was produced and exported by Ugine & ALZ
Belgium N.V., any of its predecessors-in-interest, as
determined by the Department, and/or any of its
successors-in-interest, as determined by the
Department, and (iii) is otherwise subject to the
antidumping duty order and countervailing duty
order on certain SSPC from Belgium. See 64 FR
27756 (May 21, 1999) and 64 FR 25288 (May 11,
1999), respectively. Because AMSB is the successorin-interest to Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V., the
modified preliminary injunction may enjoin certain
entries subject to this review.
3 See Memorandum from G. McMahon to J.
Terpstra, titled ‘‘Successor-in-Interest Analysis for
AMS Belgium,’’ dated June 1, 2009; see also
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 27097 (June 8, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80,
7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10,
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60,
7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05,
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15,
7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80,
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15,
7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise subject to these orders is
dispositive.
Initiation of Changed Circumstances
Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the
Department will conduct a changed
circumstances review upon receipt of
information concerning, or a request
from an interested party for a review of,
an antidumping duty order which
shows changed circumstances sufficient
to warrant a review of the order. In
antidumping duty changed
circumstances reviews involving a
successor-in-interest determination, the
Department typically examines several
factors including, but not limited to: (1)
Management; (2) production facilities;
(3) supplier relationships; and (4)
customer base. See Brass Sheet and
Strip from Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13,
1992) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847
(May 3, 2005) (Plate from Romania),
unchanged in Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005).
Aperam requested that the
Department conduct an expedited
changed circumstances review;
however, the Department requires
additional information before issuing
preliminary results for this review. For
example, Aperam provided statements
regarding its material and service
providers and its customer base, but did
not include lists that would allow the
Department to compare such
information before and after the
reported spin-off and name change. As
a result, the Department intends to
obtain such information prior to issuing
preliminary results in this changed
circumstances review.
Based on the information Aperam
submitted in its June 14, 2011, letter, we
find that we have received information
which shows changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant initiation of such a
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2011 / Notices
review in order to determine whether
Aperam is the successor-in-interest to
AMSB. See 19 CFR 351.216(d).
Therefore, in accordance with the
above-referenced statute and regulation,
the Department is initiating a changed
circumstances review.
We intend to issue the preliminary
results of the changed circumstances
review within 90 days from the issuance
of the instant initiation notice. We
intend to issue the final results of the
changed circumstances review within
270 days from the date of initiation of
this changed circumstance review, or
within 45 days if all parties to the
proceeding agree to the outcome of the
review. See 19 CFR 351.216(e). During
the course of this review, we will not
change the cash deposit requirements
for the subject merchandise. The cash
deposit rate will be altered, if
warranted, pursuant only to the final
results of the changed circumstances
review.
This notice of initiation is in
accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).
Dated: July 22, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–19305 Filed 7–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–403–801]
Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon
From Norway: Preliminary Results of
Full Third Sunset Review of
Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 3, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping duty (AD) order on
fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from
Norway pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). See Initiation of Five-Year
(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 FR 89 (January 3,
2011) (Sunset Initiation). On the basis of
adequate substantive responses
submitted by domestic and respondent
interested parties, the Department
determined to conduct a full sunset
review of this AD order pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(2). As a result of our
analysis, the Department preliminarily
finds that revocation of the AD order
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of a dumping.
DATES: Effective Date: July 29, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 3, 2011, the Department
initiated the third sunset review of the
AD order on fresh and chilled Atlantic
salmon from Norway pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act. See Sunset
Initiation. On January 13, 2011, the
Government of Norway (GON),
Norwegian Seafood Federation (NSF),
and Aquaculture Division of the
Norwegian Seafood Association
(ADNSA) (collectively, the
respondents), filed letters of appearance
in the review.1 On January 18, 2011,
Phoenix Salmon U.S., Inc. (Phoenix
Salmon), a domestic producer of fresh
and chilled Atlantic salmon, filed a
notice of intent to participate in the
review.2
On January 21, 2011, NSF and
ADNSA supplemented their letter of
appearance by submitting to the
Department a list of their members. On
February 2, 2011, the Department
received a substantive response from
Phoenix Salmon and a joint substantive
response from the respondents within
the deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department
received rebuttal comments from
Phoenix Salmon and the GON on
February 14, 2011. On February 25,
2011, the GON submitted a surrebuttal
to Phoenix Salmon’s rebuttal
responding to the company’s claims that
NSF and ADNSA are not interested
parties.
On March 3, 2011, Department
officials met with Phoenix Salmon, who
reiterated statements made in its
submissions regarding the interested
party status of NSF and ADNSA. See
Memorandum to the File, through
Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, from Kristen
Johnson, Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, regarding ‘‘Meeting
with Counsel for the Domestic
1 These public documents and all other public
documents and public versions of proprietary
documents with regard to this third full sunset
review are available on the public record located in
the Department’s Central Records Unit at room 7046
of the main Department of Commerce building.
2 Phoenix Salmon claimed to be the successor to
the two domestic producers who participated in the
prior sunset review—Atlantic Salmon of Maine and
Heritage Salmon Company, Inc.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45513
Interested Party’’ (March 3, 2011). On
March 4, 2011, the Department issued a
letter to NSF and ADNSA requesting
that each association identify their
members that are producers or exporters
of the subject merchandise. On March
11, 2011, NSF and ADNSA submitted
annotated membership lists, which
identify the members of each
association that are producers or
exporters of subject merchandise. On
March 16, 2011, Phoenix Salmon
submitted comments on the
membership lists submitted by NSF and
ADNSA.
On April 6, 2011, the Department
issued its adequacy determination
memorandum. The Department found
that the domestic and respondent
parties submitted adequate substantive
responses and that NSF and ADNSA
have standing as interested parties in
this review. The Department, therefore,
determined to conduct a full sunset
review of this AD order. See
Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, from Melissa Skinner,
Director, Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, Office
3, regarding ‘‘Adequacy Determination:
Third Sunset Reviews of the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders on Fresh and Chilled Atlantic
Salmon From Norway’’ (April 6, 2011).
On April 12, 2011, the Department
extended the deadline for the
preliminary and final results of this
sunset review. See Fresh and Chilled
Atlantic Salmon From Norway:
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary and Final Results of Full
Third Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Sunset Reviews, 76 FR 20312
(April 12, 2011) (Salmon Extension
Notice). The Department did not receive
comments on the adequacy
determination memorandum from any
party to this review.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is
the species Atlantic salmon (Salmo
Salar) marketed as specified herein; the
order excludes all other species of
salmon: Danube salmon, Chinook (also
called ‘‘king’’ or ‘‘quinnat’’), Coho
(‘‘silver’’), Sockeye (‘‘redfish’’ or
‘‘blueback’’), Humpback (‘‘pink’’) and
Chum (‘‘dog’’).3 Atlantic salmon is a
whole or nearly-whole fish, typically
(but not necessarily) marketed gutted,
bled, and cleaned, with the head on.
3 On August 5, 2009, the Department made a final
scope ruling determining that whole salmon steaks
are within the scope of the order. See Notice of
Scope Rulings, 75 FR 14138 (March 24, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45511-45513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19305]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-423-808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 45512]]
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 initiating a changed
circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
plate in coils (``SSPC'') from Belgium with respect to Aperam Stainless
Belgium N.V. (``Aperam'').
DATES: Effective Date: July 29, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George McMahon or Stephanie Moore, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 and (202)
482-3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 21, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from
Belgium; this order was amended in 2003.\1\ On June 28, 2011, the
Department initiated an administrative review of Aperam Stainless
Belgium N.V. (``Aperam''), covering the period of review (``POR''), May
1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. Aperam's request for review stated
that Aperam was formerly known as ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V.
(``AMSB''). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part 76 FR 37781
(June 28, 2011).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South
Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and
Taiwan, 68 FR 11520 (March 11, 2003); Notice of Amended Antidumping
Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium,
Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68
FR 16117 (April 2, 2003); Notice of Correction to the Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and
Taiwan, 68 FR 20114 (April 24, 2003) (``Antidumping Order'').
\2\ On August 16, 2010, the Court of International Trade
(``CIT'') issued an Order modifying a preliminary injunction in
effect for entries of subject merchandise under the Antidumping
Order. See Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the
Preliminary Injunction Order, ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v
United States, No. 08-434 (CIT August 16, 2010). In this Order, the
CIT modified its January 16, 2009, Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, and enjoined liquidation of any
unliquidated entries of SSPC from Belgium which contain merchandise
that (i) Is 4.75 mm or more in nominal thickness, but which has an
actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm, and within the dimensional
tolerances specified under ASTM standard A480/480M, (ii) was
produced and exported by Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V., any of its
predecessors-in-interest, as determined by the Department, and/or
any of its successors-in-interest, as determined by the Department,
and (iii) is otherwise subject to the antidumping duty order and
countervailing duty order on certain SSPC from Belgium. See 64 FR
27756 (May 21, 1999) and 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999), respectively.
Because AMSB is the successor-in-interest to Ugine & ALZ Belgium
N.V., the modified preliminary injunction may enjoin certain entries
subject to this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to AMSB, the Department determined in a prior
administrative review covering the POR of May 1, 2007, to April 30,
2008, that AMSB was the successor-in-interest to Ugine & ALZ Belgium,
after the merger of Arcelor S.A. with Mittal Steel, N.V.\3\ Aperam is
the only respondent in the current administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum from G. McMahon to J. Terpstra, titled
``Successor-in-Interest Analysis for AMS Belgium,'' dated June 1,
2009; see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
27097 (June 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 14, 2011, Aperam requested that the Department initiate and
conduct an expedited changed circumstances review to determine that,
for purposes of the antidumping law, Aperam is the successor-in-
interest to AMSB. See June 14, 2011, letter from Aperam to the
Department.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or
without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-
rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope
of this order are the following: (1) Plate not in coils; (2) Plate that
is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled; (3) Sheet and strip; and (4) Flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06,
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56,
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is
dispositive.
Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the
Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of
information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a
review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In antidumping duty
changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest
determination, the Department typically examines several factors
including, but not limited to: (1) Management; (2) production
facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See
Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) and Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005) (Plate from Romania),
unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005).
Aperam requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed
circumstances review; however, the Department requires additional
information before issuing preliminary results for this review. For
example, Aperam provided statements regarding its material and service
providers and its customer base, but did not include lists that would
allow the Department to compare such information before and after the
reported spin-off and name change. As a result, the Department intends
to obtain such information prior to issuing preliminary results in this
changed circumstances review.
Based on the information Aperam submitted in its June 14, 2011,
letter, we find that we have received information which shows changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant initiation of such a
[[Page 45513]]
review in order to determine whether Aperam is the successor-in-
interest to AMSB. See 19 CFR 351.216(d). Therefore, in accordance with
the above-referenced statute and regulation, the Department is
initiating a changed circumstances review.
We intend to issue the preliminary results of the changed
circumstances review within 90 days from the issuance of the instant
initiation notice. We intend to issue the final results of the changed
circumstances review within 270 days from the date of initiation of
this changed circumstance review, or within 45 days if all parties to
the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review. See 19 CFR
351.216(e). During the course of this review, we will not change the
cash deposit requirements for the subject merchandise. The cash deposit
rate will be altered, if warranted, pursuant only to the final results
of the changed circumstances review.
This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).
Dated: July 22, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-19305 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
