[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11982-11984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5515]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-807]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the 
Republic of Korea, Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of initiation and preliminary results of changed 
circumstances antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received 
information sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from Korea (56 FR 25669 (June 5, 
1991)). On July 5, 1996, the order was

[[Page 11983]]

revoked, in part, with respect to Cheil Synthetics, Inc. (Cheil) based 
on three consecutive years of no dumping. (See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Notice of 
Revocation in Part, 61 FR 35177 (July 5, 1996).) On January 26, 1998, 
the Department determined that Saehan Industries, Inc. (Saehan) was the 
successor-in-interest to Cheil, and that the Department's partial 
revocation with respect to Cheil applied to Saehan (63 FR 3703). On 
January 5, 2000, Toray Saehan Inc. (TSI) requested that the Department 
determine that TSI is the successor to Saehan, based upon TSI assuming 
Saehan's PET film business. Based on the information provided in TSI's 
January 5, 2000, letter and supplemental documentation provided on 
February 14, 2000, we preliminarily determine that TSI is the successor 
firm to Saehan. If these preliminary results are confirmed in the final 
results of review, the Department's application of the July 5, 1996, 
partial revocation of the order with respect to Saehan, as the 
successor-in-interest to Cheil, will apply to TSI.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney at (202) 482-4475 or 
Robert James at (202) 482-0649, AD/CVD Enforcement Office Eight, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations 
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 4, 2000, TSI requested that the Department conduct a 
changed circumstances administrative review pursuant to section 751(b) 
of the Act to determine whether TSI should properly be considered the 
successor firm to Saehan and if, as such, the revocation that is 
applicable to Saehan should apply to TSI. TSI also requested the 
Department to publish the preliminary results concurrently with this 
notice of initiation, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). In its 
request, TSI notified the Department that it was established on October 
15, 1999, and commenced operations on December 1, 1999. TSI is a joint 
venture between Saehan and Toray Industries, Inc. of Japan. TSI 
indicated that the management, production facilities, supplier 
relationships, and customers base of TSI are virtually identical to 
those of Saehan, the company which the Department has determined to be 
the successor to Cheil. On February 4, 2000, the Department requested 
that TSI provide documentary evidence supporting its successor-in-
interest claim. On February 14, 2000, TSI submitted documentary 
evidence demonstrating that TSI maintained essentially the same 
management, production facilities, suppliers, and customer 
relationships as TSI. (See TSI February 14, 2000, Response to the 
Department's Request for Additional Information.) Citing the 
Department's determinations in Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 
58 FR 59010 (Nov. 5, 1993), Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon 
Steel Products from the United Kingdom, 64 FR 53994, 53955 (Oct. 5, 
1999) and Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada, 57 FR 5128, 5129 (February 
12, 1992), TSI claimed that the Department should determine that it is 
the successor-in-interest to Saehan, and that the revocation applicable 
to Saehan should apply to TSI. On January 20, 2000, we received a 
letter from E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company and Mitsubishi Polyester 
Films, L.L.C., the petitioners in this case. Petitioners took no 
position concerning TSI's contention that it is the successor company 
to Saehan. Petitioners contend, however, that if the Department 
determines that TSI is the successor to Saehan, it should require TSI 
to fully comply with the conditions of the partial revocation 
applicable to Saehan.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order are 
shipments of all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene 
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextrued. 
The films excluded from this antidumping duty order are metallized 
films, and other finished films that have had at least one of their 
surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing 
resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 
micrometers) thick. Roller transport cleaning film which has at least 
one of its surfaces modified by the application of 0.5 micrometers of 
SBR latex has also been ruled as not within the scope of the order.
    PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description 
of the scope of this order is dispositive.
    This changed circumstances administrative review covers TSI.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circmstances 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is 
initiating a changed circumstances administrative review to determine 
whether TSI is the successor company to Saehan. In making such a 
determination, the Department examines several factors including, but 
not limited to, changes in (1) management, (2) production facilities, 
(3) supplier relationships, and (4) customers base. See e.g., Brass 
Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992). While no one or 
several of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive 
indication, the Department will generally consider the new company to 
be the successor to the previous company if its resulting operation is 
similar to that of the predecessor. See e.g., Industrial Phosphoric 
Acid from Israel, Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 
6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if evidence demonstrates that, 
with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the 
new company operates as the same entity as the former company, the 
Department will treat the successor company the same as the predecessor 
for purposes of antidumping liability, e.g., assign the same cash 
deposit rate, revocation, etc. (See id.)
    We examined the information provided by TSI in its January 5, and 
February 14, 2000, letters and have determined that TSI has established 
a prima facie case that it is the successor-in-interest to Saehan, 
which the Department has determined to be the successor-in-interest to 
Cheil. A majority of the senior managers involved in the day-to-day 
production and sales operation of TSI are the same as those that 
managed Saehan. Therefore, the management and organizational structure 
of Saehan has remained intact under TSI. In addition, there have been 
no changes in the production facilities, inputs and

[[Page 11984]]

supplier relationships, or customer base. Because we find that TSI has 
maintained the same management, production facilities, supplier 
relationships, and customer bases as Saehan, we preliminarily determine 
that TSI operates as essentially the same business entity as Saehan 
with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise. 
Based upon the foregoing, we preliminary determine that the July 5, 
1996, partial revocation issued with respect to Cheil, and applied to 
Saehan, Cheil's successor company, applies to TSI as Saehan's 
successor-in-interest.
    Because TSI has presented evidence to establish a prima facie case 
of its successorship status, we find it appropriate to issue the 
preliminary results in combination with the notice of initiation in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). We agree with petitioners 
that TSI must fully comply with the terms of the revocation applicable 
to Saehan; therefore, we have requested and received written 
confirmation from TSI that it will adhere to the terms of the 
revocation applicable to Cheil, and applied to Saehan, Cheil's 
successor-in-interest. (See TSI February 14, 2000, Response to the 
Department's Request for Additional Information, at Appendix F).
    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no 
later than 5 days after the deadline for case briefs. The Department 
will publish the final results of this changed circumstances review, 
which will include the results of its analysis to issues raised in any 
such written comments, no later than four months following the date of 
publication of this notice. This initiation of review and notice are in 
accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 
1675(b)), and 19 CFR 351.216.

    Dated: March 1, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-5515 Filed 3-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M