[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33230-33232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: 
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating a changed 
circumstances review (CCR) and preliminarily determining that Toray 
Advanced Materials Korea, Inc. (TAK) is the successor-in-interest to 
Toray Chemical Korea, Inc. (TCK) for the purposes of the antidumping 
duty (AD) order certain polyester staple fiber (PSF) from the Republic 
of Korea (Korea).

DATES: Applicable July 12, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1395.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On May 25, 2000, Commerce published the AD orders on PSF from Korea 
and Taiwan.\1\ On December 22, 2014, Commerce determined that Toray 
Chemical Korea was the successor-in- interest to Woongjin Chemical 
Company, Ltd. (Woongjin) and thus was entitled to make entries of 
subject merchandise at the cash deposit rate assigned to Woongjin, 2.13 
percent ad valorem.\2\ On May 23, 2019, TAK requested that, pursuant to 
section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 
CFR 351.216(b), Commerce conduct a CCR of the AD Order to determine 
that TAK is the successor-in-interest to TCK and, accordingly, to 
assign it the cash deposit rate established for TCK.\3\ In its 
submission, TAK explained that TCK, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TAK, 
merged with TAK in April 2019. TAK provided source documentation to 
demonstrate that the management responsible for PSF production remains 
largely in place after the merger, and TCK's production facilities, 
suppliers, and customers for PSF are unchanged.\4\ TAK further 
requested that Commerce combine the notice of initiation and 
preliminary results pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).\5\ We did not 
receive comments from other interested parties concerning this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of 
Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000) 
(AD Order).
    \2\ See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of 
Korea: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 76301 
(December 22, 2014).
    \3\ See TAK letter, ``Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
Republic of Korea: Changed Circumstances Review Request,'' May 23, 
2019 (CCR Request).
    \4\ Id. at 1-4.
    \5\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the AD Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain polyester staple 
fiber (PSF). PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, 
combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 
decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is 
cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). 
The merchandise subject to these orders may be coated, usually with a 
silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as 
stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, 
cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex 
(less than 3 denier) currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is 
specifically excluded from these orders. Also, specifically excluded 
from these orders are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that 
are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of 
carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from these orders. 
Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath 
that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core.
    The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable 
in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45

[[Page 33231]]

and 5503.20.00.65.\6\ Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the orders is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These HTSUS numbers have been revised to reflect changes in 
the HTSUS numbers at the suffix level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation and Preliminary Results

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), 
Commerce will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an 
interested party for a review of an AD order which shows changed 
circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In the past, 
Commerce has used CCRs to address the applicability of cash deposit 
rates after there have been changes in the name or structure of a 
respondent, such as a merger or spinoff (``successor-in-interest'' or 
``successorship'' determinations).\7\ The information submitted by TAK 
supporting its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to TCK 
demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a 
review.\8\ Therefore, in accordance with 751(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.216(d) and (e), we are initiating a CCR based on the 
information contained in TAK's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 82 FR 51605, 51606 
(November 7, 2017) (Diamond Sawblades Preliminary), unchanged in 
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review, 82 FR 60177 (December 19, 2017) (Diamond Sawblades Final).
    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.216(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of Commerce's regulations permits 
Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of a CCR and the notice of 
preliminary results if Commerce concludes that expedited action is 
warranted.\9\ In this instance, because the record contains information 
necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action 
is warranted and we have combined the notice of initiation and the 
notice of preliminary results.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Certain Pasta from 
Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 33480, 33480-41 (June 12, 2015) 
(Pasta from Italy Preliminary Results), unchanged in Certain Pasta 
from Italy: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 
48807 (August 14, 2015) (Pasta from Italy Final Results).
    \10\ See, e.g., Pasta from Italy Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 
33480-41, unchanged in Pasta from Italy Final Results, 80 FR at 
48807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this CCR, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, Commerce 
conducted a successor-in-interest analysis. In making a successor-in-
interest determination, Commerce examines several factors, including, 
but not limited to, changes in the following: (1) Management; (2) 
production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer 
base.\11\ While no single factor or combination of factors will 
necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest 
relationship, generally, Commerce will consider the new company to be 
the successor to the previous company if the new company's operation is 
not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.\12\ Thus, if the 
evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of 
the subject merchandise, the new company operates as essentially the 
same business entity as the predecessor company, Commerce may assign 
the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades Final l, supra note 6; see 
also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Initiation and 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review, 83 FR 37784 (August 2, 2018), unchanged in Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 83 FR 49909 (October 3, 2018).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.; see also, e.g., Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 77 FR 64953 (October 24, 2012), 
unchanged in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 77 FR 73619 
(December 11, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily determine 
that TAK is the successor-in-interest to TCK. In its request, TAK 
provided evidence to support its contention that it meets the criteria 
established by Commerce, and therefore, is the successor-in-interest of 
TCK pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act. First, TAK provided 
documentation indicating that the structure and management of the PSF 
operations under TAK are nearly identical the PSF structure and 
operations that existed under TCK prior to the merger of TCK into TAK, 
its parent company. Specifically, TAK provided organizational 
charts,\14\ lists of managers,\15\ and board of directors \16\ 
supporting TAK's claim that the management remained the same after the 
merger. A review of these documents shows that: (1) TAK's organization 
of its PSF operations is virtually identical to the structure of the 
PSF operations under TCK; (2) the managers currently in charge of PSF 
operations at TAK are the same individuals who were in charge of PSF 
operations at TCK; and (3) the vast majority of TAK's current 
executives and board of directors held similar positions on TAK and/or 
TCK prior to the merger. TAK also notes that the individual who managed 
the PSF division in TCK continues to manage the PSF division within 
TAK.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CCR Request at Exhibits 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C.
    \15\ Id. at Exhibit 7.
    \16\ Id. at Exhibit 8.
    \17\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, TAK provided information to support its claim that its PSF 
operations are the same as TCK's before the merger. Specifically, it 
provided a layout of the production facilities before and after the 
merger, the production process before and after the merger, and the 
production capacity for the factory before and after the merger.\18\ A 
review of these documents shows (1) the area within the plant in which 
PSF was produced by TCK prior to the merger has not changed under TAK; 
(2) the production process of PSF remains the same since the merger; 
and, (3) the total PSF production capacity has remained unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at Exhibit 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the supplier relationships and customer base 
involving the production and sales of PSF, TAK reports that these have 
remain unchanged since the merger with TCK. TAK adds that because the 
merger was only recently completed (in April 2019), the company has had 
limited time to purchase goods and services from all of its suppliers 
or to make sales to all of its customers.\19\ However, it provides 
support demonstrating that it plans to continue to use the same 
practices as TCK did prior to the merger. First, to demonstrate its 
claim regarding its supplier relationship, TAK provided a master list 
of its suppliers of materials and service providers related to the 
production of PSF for itself and for TCK prior to the merger; these 
lists are were identical.\20\ Similarly, TAK provided its current 
master PSF customer list, which is identical to TCK's customer list 
before the merger, to demonstrate that its customer base has remained 
unchanged post-merger.\21\ Further, TAK explains that it markets PSF 
products to its customers in the same way, relying on the same sales 
personnel and the same, unchanged PSF product brochures published by 
TCK previous to the merger.\22\ Finally, TAK notes that the supplier 
and customer codes used in

[[Page 33232]]

TCK' accounting system continue to be used by TAK.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 8.
    \20\ Id. at Exhibit 11.
    \21\ Id. at Exhibit 12.
    \22\ Id. at Exhibit 10.
    \23\ Id. at Exhibits 11 and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the evidence on the record discussed above, we 
preliminarily determine that TAK is the successor-in-interest to TCK, 
because the change in the business' structure (the merger of the wholly 
owned subsidiary into the parent company) was not accompanied by 
significant changes to its management and operations, production 
facilities, supplier relationships, or customer base. Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that TAK is the successor-in-interest to TCK, 
and that TAK should receive the same antidumping duty cash deposit rate 
with respect to subject merchandise.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case 
briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, 
may be filed no later than five days after the case briefs, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal 
briefs are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of 
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities.\24\ All comments are to be filed electronically via 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), available to registered 
users at https://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room 
B8024, of the main Commerce building. An electronically filed document 
must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. 
Eastern Time on the day it is due.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    \25\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results 
of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review 
was initiated, or within 45 days of the publication of these 
preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b) and 
351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: July 8, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-14862 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P