[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 77 (Friday, April 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20863-20865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-824]
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip
from India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 21, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated a changed circumstances review of polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from India in order to
determine whether Jindal Poly Films Limited is the successor-in-
interest for purposes of antidumping duties to Jindal Polyester
Limited. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip
(PET Film) from India, 69 FR 56406 (September 21, 2004). Jindal
Polyester Limited changed its name to Jindal Poly Films Limited on
April 19, 2004. We preliminarily determine that Jindal Poly Films
Limited is the successor-in-interest to Jindal Polyester Limited for
purposes of determining antidumping duty liability. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 2005.
[[Page 20864]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Pedersen or Kavita Mohan, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
2769 and (202) 482-3542, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on PET film from India in the Federal Register (67 FR 44175). On
July 29, 2004, Jindal Polyester Limited/Jindal Poly Films Limited
(Jindal) requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed
circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from
India. In its request, Jindal claimed that Jindal Poly Films Limited is
the successor-in-interest to Jindal Polyester Limited, and, as such, is
entitled to receive the same antidumping treatment accorded to Jindal
Polyester Limited. On August 25, 2004, DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film of America and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(petitioners) notified the Department that they oppose Jindal's request
for expedited action in this review and provided the Department with
information indicating the Jindal underwent changes in addition to its
name change. On September 21, 2004, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of its initiation of the instant changed
circumstances review in which it refused Jindal's request for expedited
action, noting that additional information was needed in order for the
Department to make its preliminary determination.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw,
pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded.
Excluded 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 thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number
3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review
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: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13,
1992) (Canadian Brass). While no one single factor, or combination of
factors, will necessarily prove to be dispositive, the Department will
generally consider a new company to be the successor-in-interest to its
predecessor company if its resulting operations are essentially the
same as those of its predecessor. See, e.g., Canadian Brass at 20460,
and Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Industrial Nitrocellulose From Korea, 65 FR
2115, 2116 (January 13, 2000). Therefore, if there is evidence
demonstrating that, with respect to the production and sale of subject
merchandise, a 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.
Although Jindal reported that it simply changed its name from
Jindal Polyester Limited to Jindal Poly Films Limited, the petitioners
placed documents on the record indicating that, in addition to Jindal's
name change, the company experienced a change in management,\1\ and
undertook an expansion and restructuring of its operations in
connection with its acquisition of Rexor, S.A., France (Rexor), a
French processor (not producer) of PET film. See Petitioners' August
25, 2004, letter at 3-4.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On June 29, 2004, Mr. S. Mittal, a non-executive Director,
resigned from the Board of Directors and was replaced by Mr. J.
Bansal (also a non-executive director). See Exhibit 1 of
petitioners' August 25, 2004, letter.
\2\ Although these changes occurred both before and after the
name change, we have considered the changes in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Department's questionnaires, Jindal reported
that it changed its name to Jindal Poly Films Limited in April 2004 to
reflect its increased presence in the film business (both PET film and
non-subject polypropylene (BOPP) film). This increased presence has
been manifested through the establishment of two new production lines
in India (a BOPP film (non-subject merchandise) line, which began
production on March 18, 2003, and a PET film line, which began
production on February 28, 2004), as well as Jindal's November 26,
2003, acquisition of Rexor, a subsidiary company in France that coats
and metalizes PET film.
According to Jindal, its name change has not been accompanied by
any change to its legal or corporate structure, or ownership. Jindal
stated that the name change was not part of an agreement made with
Rexor. Moreover, Jindal reported that the expansion of its production
lines has not caused it to change suppliers of the inputs used in the
production of PET film nor has it resulted in changes to its
relationships or contracts with suppliers. Further, Jindal claimed that
its increased production capacity (which did not result in the
production of new types of PET film) has had little impact on its
customer base. Although there have been some changes in Jindal's U.S.
customer base during the time period that it added the new PET film
production line, Jindal noted that the total number of its U.S.
customers has remained the same. Also, apart from acquiring a few new
home market customers, Jindal reported that there have not been any
significant changes to its Indian customer base. With respect to The
Economic Times report that Jindal plans to market its value-added
polyester products in the United States under the Rexor name (see
Petitioners' August 25, 2004, letter at Exhibit 3), Jindal noted that
these value-added products are not subject merchandise.
Further, Jindal contended that the name change did not result in
any changes in the functions, authorities, duties, or responsibilities
of any of its officers, executive board, or Board of Directors. The
changes to the Board of Directors that occurred were, according to
Jindal, in the ordinary course of business and unrelated to the name
change. Thus, Jindal contends that, other than the new production line
set up in Nashik India, there were no changes to its operations that
produced or sold subject merchandise.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Jindal did note, however, that, prior to the name change, it
created two divisions in Nashik, for accounting purposes. See
Jindal's December 7, 2004, questionnaire response at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that, with respect to the production and sale
of subject merchandise, the operations of Jindal Poly Films Limited are
essentially the same as those of Jindal Polyester Limited.\4\ Jindal's
2003-2004 Annual
[[Page 20865]]
Report notes that the company's name change is meant to reflect its
recent expansion in the film business, specifically mentioning its
acquisition of Rexor in France. See Jindal's December 6, 2004,
questionnaire response at Exhibit N-3 (page 20 of Jindal Poly Films
Limited's 2003-2004 Annual Report). However, we found no evidence of
any material change in Jindal's management structure that was
associated with the name change. We compared lists of Jindal's upper
and lower level managers before and after the acquisition of Rexor and
found the management to be substantially the same. See Jindal's January
7, 2005, questionnaire response at Exhibits 10 and 11. Furthermore,
Jindal reported that the new production line at Nashik was managed by
the same upper and lower level managers that ran its existing
production line at Nashik. See Jindal's February 8, 2005, questionnaire
response at 3. Additionally, the record indicates that there have been
no changes in Jindal's supplier relationships and no significant
changes to Jindal's customer base in the United States or India. Thus,
despite the expansion that was associated with the name change (the new
PET film production line at Nashik increased Jindal's production
capacity by more than 60 percent), the Department finds that Jindal
continued to essentially operate as it had prior to the addition of the
new production line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Consistent with Departmental practice, in reaching this
determination, we focused our analysis on Jindal's operations that
produced or sold merchandise within the scope of the antidumping
duty order on PET film from India. See Industrial Phosphoric Acid
From Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances
Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994) wherein the Department
stated ``that an inquiry into the validity of a claim of
successorship to a respondent company should focus on that company's
sales and production of the merchandise encompassed by the order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we did not find any evidence that Jindal's acquisition of
Rexor affected its operations with respect to the sale of subject
merchandise to the United States. See the Memorandum to the File from
Jeff Pedersen regarding Rexor's Impact on Jindal Poly Films Limited's
Sales Operations, dated concurrently with this notice. Also, Rexor's
descriptions of its product lines at its Web site (http://www.rexor.com/) almost exclusively concern non-subject merchandise and
the intended audience appears to be European customers. Thus, with
respect to subject merchandise, the record does not indicate that
Jindal's expansion of its film business has transformed its operations
to such an extent that Jindal Poly Films Limited should not be viewed
as a continuation of Jindal Polyester Limited for antidumping purposes.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Jindal Poly Films
Limited is the successor-in-interest for purposes of antidumping duties
to Jindal Polyester Limited and should receive the same antidumping
duty rate as Jindal Polyester Limited. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this changed circumstances review, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend shipments
of subject merchandise made by Jindal Poly Films Limited, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review
at Jindal Polyester Limited's cash deposit rate. See Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This
deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review in which Jindal Poly Films
Limited participates.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 21 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 no later than 14 days after
the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be
limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no
later than 19 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). 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 19 CFR 351.216(e), 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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216.
Dated: April 15, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-1921 Filed 4-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S