[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55498-55500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-808]


Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 
India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a request 
for initiation of a changed-circumstances review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel wire rods (wire rods) from India from 
India Steel Works Limited (India Steel). After reviewing this request, 
we preliminarily determine that India Steel is the successor-in-
interest to Isibars Limited (Isibars) and should therefore be accorded 
the same treatment previously accorded to Isibars with respect to the 
antidumping duty order on wire rods from India. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3931 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 1, 1993, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on wire rods from India. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). 
On August 4, 2008, the Department received a request for a changed-
circumstances review of this order from India Steel to determine if, 
for purposes of the antidumping law, India Steel is the successor-in-
interest to Isibars.
    Sales of wire rods from India produced by Isibars were last 
examined by the Department in the administrative review of the order 
covering the period December 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003. As a 
result of this review,

[[Page 55499]]

Isibars received a cash-deposit rate of 30.10 percent. See Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod From India: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 47177 (August 12, 2005) (Amended Final 
Results).

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise under review is wire rods, which are hot-rolled or 
hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons 
or other shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of alloy steels 
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent 
or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are 
only manufactured by hot-rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, 
and are of solid cross section. The majority of wire rods sold in the 
United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and pickled. 
The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
    The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 
7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise subject to the order is dispositive of whether the 
merchandise is covered by the order.

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. The Department finds that the documentation that India 
Steel submitted with its August 4, 2008, request constitutes sufficient 
evidence of changed circumstances to warrant such a review. Thus, in 
accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is initiating 
a changed-circumstances review to determine whether India Steel is the 
successor-in-interest to Isibars for purposes of determining 
antidumping duty liability with respect to imports of wire rods from 
India.
    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 for the review in a single notice if 
the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. As 
explained below, we find that the evidence provided by India Steel is 
sufficient to preliminarily determine that this company is the 
successor-in-interest to Isibars.
    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, 20461 (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) 
(Salmon from Norway); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 
1994). 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., Salmon from Norway, 64 FR at 9980.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221, we preliminarily determine that 
India Steel is the successor-in-interest to Isisbars. In its August 4, 
2008, submission, India Steel provided evidence supporting its claim to 
be the successor-in-interest to Isibars. Specifically, it provided the 
following documentation:
    (1) the minutes of the September 29, 2007, annual general meeting 
of Isibars, showing that the name change was voted upon and approved 
unanimously;
    (2) a certified copy of a ``Fresh Certificate of Incorporation 
Consequent upon Change of Name,'' dated October 22, 2007, and issued by 
the Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which shows the name change;
    (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 that India Steel has the same organizational structure as 
Isibars;
    (5) lists of suppliers and customers before and after the name 
change, indicating that they are identical;
    (6) samples of letters and e-mails sent to customers announcing the 
name change;
    (7) documentation demonstrating that India Steel has the same 
[revaps]permanent account number', or taxpayer identification number, 
as Isibars;
    (8) a detailed description of the production facilities that 
existed before and after the name change indicating that India Steel 
has the same production facilities as Isibars;
    (9) documentation demonstrating that India Steel maintains the same 
bank account as Isibars; and
    (10) certificates of importer and exporter codes for Isibars and 
India Steel, issued by the Government of India showing that the codes 
are identical before and after the name change.
    In summary, 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. 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 30.10 
percent antidumping duty cash-deposit rate. See Amended Final Results.
    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 India 
Steel is reviewed.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

[[Page 55500]]

Written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date 
of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttals to written 
comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no 
later than 21 days after the date of publication. The Department will 
issue the final results of this changed-circumstances review, which 
will include the results of its analysis raised in any such written 
comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which this review 
was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.216(e).
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) and 
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-22551 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S