[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31156-31157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8513]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-809]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel 
flanges (flanges) from India in which we preliminarily determined that 
Hilton Metal Forging Ltd. (HMFL) is the successor-in-interest company 
to Hilton Forge. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 
from India, 71 FR 12177 (March 9, 2006) (Preliminary Results). We gave 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary 
results, but received no comments. Therefore, the final results do not 
differ from the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone : (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 14, 2005, Hilton Forge requested that the Department 
conduct a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on 
flanges from India pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.216. Hilton Forge 
claimed that HMFL is the successor-in-interest to Hilton Forge, the 
latter having converted itself from a partnership firm into a company 
limited by shares, and having changed its name to HMFL. As such, Hilton 
Forge argues HMFL should be entitled to receive the same antidumping 
treatment as Hilton Forge. On January 18, 2006, and February 3, 2006, 
at the request of the Department, HMFL submitted additional information 
and documentation pertaining to this changed circumstances request.
    On March 9, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results 
of review, and invited interested parties to comment. See Preliminary 
Results. We received no comments.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless 
steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured 
to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, 
and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are 
weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for 
threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/
butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a 
machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of 
the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; 
however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in 
the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast 
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are 
manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this 
order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 
7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
review is dispositive.

Final Results of Review

    In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a 
successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically 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) 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) 
(unchanged in final, 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005) (Plate from Romania). 
While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be 
dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to 
be the successor to the predecessor company if the resulting operations 
are similar to those of the predecessor company. See, e.g., Industrial 
Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances 
Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and Plate from Romania, 
70 FR 22847. Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with 
respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new 
company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor 
company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit 
rate of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon 
from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).
    We have examined the information HMFL provided, and determined that 
HMFL is the successor-in-interest to Hilton. Hilton Forge's name change 
to HMFL and its conversion from a limited partnership firm into a 
company limited by shares have not changed the operations of the 
company in a meaningful way. HMFL's management, production facilities, 
supplier relationships, sales facilities, and customer base are 
essentially unchanged from those of Hilton Forge. Therefore, the record 
evidence demonstrates that the new entity operates in the same manner 
as the predecessor company. Consequently, we determine that HMFL should 
receive the same antidumping duty treatment as Hilton Forge, i.e., a 
0.89 percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate.

Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

    We will inform CBP that Hilton Forge no longer exists as a separate 
corporate entity, and that we will assign the same company-specific 
number to HMFL as we assigned to Hilton Forge. We will also instruct 
CBP that it should apply to

[[Page 31157]]

HMFL the same cash deposit rate currently applied to Hilton Forge 
(i.e., 0.89 percent).
    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 25327 (May 12, 
2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review in which HMFL is 
reviewed.

Notification

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties to administrative 
protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the 
disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). Failure to timely notify the 
Department in writing of the return/destruction of APO material is a 
sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 
351.221(c)(3)(i).

    Dated: May 24, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-8513 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S