[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60913-60915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-046]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan

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

[[Page 60914]]


ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review.

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

SUMMARY: On July 31, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances review of the 
antidumping duty finding on polychloroprene rubber (PR) from Japan to 
determine whether Showa Denko Elastomers, K.K. (SDEL) and Showa Denko 
K.K. (SDK) are the successor-in-interest companies to Showa DDE 
Manufacturing K.K. (SDEM) and DDE Japan Kabushiki Kaisha (DDE Japan). 
See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan, 68 FR 44924 (July 31, 2003) 
(Notice of Initiation). We have preliminarily determined that the 
restructured manufacturing and marketing joint venture, SDEL and SDK, 
are the successor-in-interest companies to SDEM and DDE Japan, for 
purposes of determining antidumping liability in this proceeding. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Ronald Trentham, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group II, Office 4, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4114 or (202) 482-6320, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 6, 1973, the Treasury Department published in the 
Federal Register (38 FR 33593) the antidumping finding on PR from 
Japan. On June 17, 2003, SDEL and SDK submitted a letter stating that 
they are the successor-in-interest to SDEM and DDE Japan, and, as such, 
entitled to receive the same antidumping treatment as these companies 
have been accorded. On July 18, 2003, at the request of the Department, 
SDEL and SDK submitted additional information and documentation 
pertaining its change circumstances request.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of PR, an oil 
resistant synthetic rubber also known as polymerized chlorobutadiene or 
neoprene, currently classifiable under items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 
4003.00.00, 4462.15.21 and 4462.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.

Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    In submissions to the Department dated June 17 and July 18, 2003, 
SDEL and SDK advised the Department that on November 1, 2002, the joint 
venture of SDEM and DDE Japan was restructured. Prior to the current 
restructure, SDEM and DDE Japan were co-owned by Dupont Dow Elastomers 
L.L.C. (Dupont Dow) and SDK. See Notice of Final Changed Circumstances 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from 
Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002). In the original joint venture, SDEM 
was the manufacturing arm of joint venture producing PR while DDE Japan 
was the marketing arm of the joint venture. As part of the current 
restructuring, DuPont Dow transferred its interest in SDEM to SDK. SDK 
, in turn, transferred its interest in DDE Japan to DuPont Dow. As a 
result of these interest transfers, SDK became the sole owner of SDEM 
and DuPont Dow became the sole owner of DDE Japan. On the same date, 
SDEM was renamed SDEL while maintaining the original production 
facility. The marketing end of SDEL's business was assumed by SDK.
    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 Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 
(May 13, 1992) (Canadian Brass). 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 not materially 
dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric 
Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 
6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994) and Canadian Brass, 57 FR 20460. 
Therefore, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the 
production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company 
essentially operates as the same business entity as the former company, 
the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its 
predecessor.
    Our review of the evidence provided by SDEL and SDK indicates, 
preliminarily, that the change in ownership has not significantly 
changed the companies' personnel, operations, supplier/customer 
relationship, or production facilities. The new corporate entity of 
SDEL and SDK provided a certified copy of the official corporate 
registry showing SDEL as a successor to SDEM as of November 1, 2002, 
the effective date of the restructuring, as well as documents showing 
that since the name change, SDEL continued its production of PR in the 
same manner using the same suppliers and facilities as it did under its 
previous name of SDEM. Additionally, the corporate registry indicates 
that the majority of SDEM's management was retained by the new 
corporate entity SDEL.
    Furthermore, SDK provided certified statements from its general 
manager that certain activities undertaken by DDE Japan prior to 
November 1, 2002, (i.e., sales and marketing, technical services, order 
receiving and freight forwarding of PR) have since been performed by 
SDK. SDK also certified that it rehired key marketing personnel from 
DDE Japan. Finally, SDK provided a copy of Stock Purchase Agreement for 
DDE Japan and a copy of Offers of Employment for DDE Japan's key 
marketing employees as evidence that the marketing functions, performed 
originally by DDE Japan, have been assumed by SDK.
    In sum, SDEL and SDK have presented evidence to establish a prima 
facie case of their successorship status. The restructuring has 
precipitated minimal changes to the original structure of the SDEM and 
DDE Japan joint venture. The management, production facilities, 
supplier relationships, sales facilities and customer base are 
essentially unchanged from those of SDEM and DDE Japan. Therefore, the 
record evidence demonstrates that the new entity essentially operates 
in the same manner as the predecessor companies of SDEM and DDE Japan. 
As SDEL manufactures PR and SDK sells/distributes PR produced by SDEL 
for the newly restructured entity, we preliminarily determine that SDEL 
and SDK should be given the same antidumping duty treatment as SDEM and 
DDE Japan, i.e., zero percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate.
    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

[[Page 60915]]

25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review in 
which SDK and SDEL participate.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. 19 CFR 351.310 (c)(2003). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may 
submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii)(2003). 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs 
or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2003). Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a 
table of authorities.
    Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, 
we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no 
later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated.
    This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and section 351.221(c)(3)(i)(2003) 
of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: October 17, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-26937 Filed 10-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S