[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 97 (Monday, May 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28798-28799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11147]



[[Page 28798]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-809


Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: On March 20, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges 
(flanges) from India to determine whether India Steel Works, Ltd. 
(India Steel) is the successor-in-interest to Isibars, Ltd (Isibars). 
See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 73 FR 14959 
(March 20, 2008). We have preliminarily determined that India Steel is 
the successor-in-interest to Isibars for purposes of determining 
antidumping liability in this proceeding. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2008.

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 February 26, 2008, India Steel 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. India Steel 
claims to be the successor-in-interest to Isibars, and, as such, argues 
that it is entitled to receive the same antidumping treatment as 
Isibars. On April 16, 2008, at the request of the Department, India 
Steel submitted additional information and documentation pertaining to 
its changed circumstances request.

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 (HTS). Although the HTS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Preliminary 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: 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 
``essentially similar'' to those of the predecessor company. See, e.g., 
Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty 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).
    In its February 26, 2008, submission India Steel stated it is the 
successor company to Isibars. The Department now has on the record 
various documents that support this claim, including: (1) the minutes 
of a September 29, 2007, stockholders meeting showing the name change 
was voted upon and approved; (2) a certified copy of a ``Fresh 
Certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon Change of Name,'' dated 
October 22, 2007, issued by the government of India; (3) a list of the 
stockholders and board of directors before and after the name change, 
showing that they are identical; (4) an organizational chart before and 
after the name change showing India Steel has the same organization 
structure as did Isibars; (5) a list of suppliers and customers before 
and after the name change showing they are identical; (6) sample copies 
of letters and e-mail sent to customers announcing the name change; (7) 
documentation demonstrating that India Steel has the same taxpayer 
identification number (called the ``permanent account number'' in 
India) as did Isibars; (8) documentation demonstrating that India Steel 
maintains the same bank account as did Isibars; and (9) a certificate 
of importer and exporter codes for Isibars and India Steel issued by 
the government of India showing that the codes are identical.
    In sum, India Steel has presented evidence to establish a prima 
facie case of its successorship status. Isibars's name change to India 
Steel has not changed the operations of the company in a meaningful 
way. India Steel's management, production facilities, supplier 
relationships, and customer base are substantially unchanged from those 
of Isibars. Therefore, the record evidence demonstrates that the new 
entity essentially operates in the same manner as the predecessor 
company. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that India Steel 
should be assigned the same antidumping duty treatment as Isibars, 
i.e., a 0.00 percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate. See Certain 
Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10409 (March 5, 2004).
    The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances 
review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn

[[Page 28799]]

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 India Steel is 
reviewed.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than five 
days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are 
requested to submit with their arguments: 1) a statement of the issue; 
2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. 
Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the 
Department an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 
30 days of publication of this notice. See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, 
if requested, will be held no later than two days after the scheduled 
due date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first business day 
thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 
351.310(d).
    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.
    The current requirements for cash deposits of estimated antidumping 
duties on all subject merchandise shall remain in effect unless and 
until they are modified pursuant to the final results of changed 
circumstances review.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act, and section 
351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: May 12, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-11147 Filed 5-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S