[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17952-17954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6842]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-274-804]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: 
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has received 
information sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances 
review of the antidumping duty order of carbon and certain alloy steel 
wire rod (``steel wire rod'') from Trinidad and Tobago.\1\ Based on 
this information, we preliminarily determine that Arcelor Mittal Point 
Lisas Limited (``AMPL'') is the successor-in-interest to Mittal Steel 
Point Lisas Limited (``MSPL''), formerly Caribbean Ispat Limited 
(``CIL''), a respondent in the less-than-fair-value investigation and 
that, as such, AMPL is entitled to receive the same antidumping duty 
treatment accorded MSPL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) 
(``Antidumping Order'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street & 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5973 and (202) 482-3692, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on steel wire rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago. See Antidumping Order. The current scope of the merchandise 
subject to this order was published in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 
Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review,72 FR 62824 (November 7, 2007). One of the

[[Page 17953]]

companies subject to the investigation was CIL. On July 6, 2005, the 
Department determined that MSPL was the successor-in-interest to CIL. 
See Notice of Final Result of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago, 70 FR 38871 (July 6, 2005). The Department has completed 
administrative reviews covering (1) April 2002 through September 2003, 
(2) October 2003 through September 2004, (3) October 2004 through 
September 2005, and (4) October 2005 through September 2006, and is 
currently conducting an administrative review covering October 2006 
through September 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago, 70 FR 12648 (March 15, 2005); Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 69512 (November 16, 
2005); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,72 FR 9922 
(March 6, 2007); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,72 
FR 62824 (November 7, 2007); and Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for 
Revocation in Part, 72 FR 65938 (November 26, 2007), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 30, 2008, AMPL requested that the Department initiate 
and conduct an expedited changed circumstances review to determine that 
for purposes of the antidumping law, AMPL is the successor-in-interest 
to MSPL. See January 30, 2008, letter from AMPL to the Secretary of 
Commerce. AMPL claimed that counsel for petitioners\3\ in this 
proceeding indicated their consent to this request. On February 8, 
2008, AMPL provided correspondence from counsel to the petitioners 
confirming petitioners' consent to this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Nucor Connecticut Inc., Keystone 
Consolidated Industries, Inc., Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department will conduct a 
changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or 
a request from an interested party for review of, an antidumping duty 
order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review 
of the order. In this case, the Department finds that the information 
submitted by the respondent provides sufficient evidence of changed 
circumstances to warrant a review to determine whether AMPL is the 
successor-in-interest to MSPL. Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) 
of the Act, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review 
to determine whether AMPL is the successor-in-interest to MSPL for 
purposes of determining antidumping duty liability with respect to 
imports of steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago.
    Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to 
combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and 
the notice of preliminary results in a single notice if the Department 
concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this case, we find 
that the evidence provided by AMPL is sufficient to preliminarily 
determine that its change of corporate name from MSLP to AMPL did not 
affect the company's operations.
    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, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene 
Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass Sheet and Strip 
from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or 
combination of factors will necessarily provide a dispositive 
indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will 
generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous 
company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially 
dissimilar to that 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 (March 1, 1999); 
Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the 
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 former company, the Department will accord the new 
company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), we preliminarily 
determine that AMPL is the successor-in-interest to MSPL. In its 
January 30, 2008, submission AMPL provided evidence supporting its 
claim to be the successor-in-interest to MSPL. Documentation attached 
to AMPL's January 30, 2008, submission shows that the merger of Arcelor 
and Mittal Steel (MSPL's parent company) and the following name change 
to AMPL resulted in little or no change in management, production 
facility, supplier relationships, or customer base. This documentation 
consists of: (1) a press releases regarding the name change of Mittal 
Steel and Arcelor; (2) the merger proposal between Arcelor Mittal and 
Mittal Steel; (3) Form 425 filed with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission explaining the first step of the merger; (4) excerpts of 
ArcelorMittal's proxy statement concerning the merger of Mittal Steel; 
(5) a press release concerning details of the merger of AcelorMittal 
into Arcelor; (6) excerpts of ArcelorMittal's proxy statement 
concerning the merger into Arcelor; (7) a news article explaining the 
merger of ArcelorMittal into Arcelor; (8) an ArcelorMittal news release 
concerning the merger of ArcelorMittal into Arcelor; (9) a certificate 
of amendment concerning MSPL's name change to AMPL; (10) documentation 
certifying that AMPL maintains the same VAT tax ID number; (11) a 
letter from the bank confirming that AMPL maintains the same bank 
account MSPL had; (12) an organizational chart reflecting the 
organization of MSPL and AMPL; (13) certification from company 
officials at AMPL stating that neither management nor corporate 
structure of AMPL has changed because of the name change; (14) a letter 
from AMPL's lessor acknowledging that AMPL will occupy the same 
premises and continue MSPL's lease; (15) a list of suppliers before and 
after the name change; and (16) a list of customers identifying the 
same customers before and after the name change. The documentation 
described above demonstrates that there was little to no change in 
management structure, supplier relationships, production facilities, or 
customer base.
    Therefore, we determine that expedited action is warranted and we 
preliminarily find that AMPL is the successor-in-interest to MSPL and, 
thus, should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect 
to steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago as the former MSPL. Because 
we have concluded that expedited action is warranted, we are combining 
these notices of initiation and preliminary results.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no 
later than 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or

[[Page 17954]]

the first workday thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may 
be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in those 
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. All written comments shall be submitted in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the 
hearing, if one is requested, should contact the Department for the 
date and time of the hearing. The Department will publish the final 
results of this changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.216(e), including the results of its analysis of issues raised in 
any written comments.
    The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping 
duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is 
modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances 
review.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.216.

    Dated: March 27, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-6842 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S