Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Notices 24273 

1 See Letter from Yelin, to the Department, 

regarding Request for Expedited Changed 

Circumstances Determination, Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from China (Case No. 

A-570-848) (March 16, 2007) (‘‘Yelin’s CCR 

Request’’). 

2 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Background 

On July 27, 2006, the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, covering the period 

December 16, 2004, through May 31, 

2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). On 

February 26, 2007, we extended the 

deadline to complete the preliminary 

results by 60 days. The preliminary 

results are currently due no later than 

May 1, 2007. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order or finding for which a review is 

requested and a final determination 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary determination is 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within these time periods, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the 245-day time 

limit for the preliminary determination 

to a maximum of 365 days and the time 

limit for the final determination to 180 

days (or 300 days if the Department 

does not extend the time limit for the 

preliminary determination) from the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Review 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

this review within the extended time 

limit. Additional time is required to 

analyze complicated issues raised by the 

parties regarding surrogate value 

selections. Therefore, the Department is 

further extending the time limit for 

completion of the preliminary results by 

60 days until no later than June 30, 

2007. Because June 30, 2007, falls on a 

Saturday, the preliminary results will be 

due by July 2, 2007, the next business 

day. We intend to issue the final results 

no later than 120 days after the 

publication of the preliminary results 

notice. This extension is in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) 

of the Act. 

Dated: April 25, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8377 Filed 5–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–893] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has received 

information sufficient to warrant 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen warmwater shrimp 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). Based on a request filed by 

Yelin Enterprise Co. Hong Kong 

(‘‘Yelin’’), the Department is initiating a 

changed circumstances review to 

determine whether Hilltop International 

(‘‘Hilltop’’) is the successor–in–interest 

to Yelin, a respondent in the original 

investigation and first administrative 

review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Christopher Riker, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

202–482–1442 or 202–482–3441, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The antidumping duty order for 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

the PRC was published on February 1, 

2005. See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005) 

(‘‘PRC Shrimp Order’’). As part of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC, 

Yelin received a separate rate of 82.27 

percent. Id. at 70 FR at 5151. Moreover, 

as part of the preliminary results of the 

first administrative review, Yelin 

preliminarily received a separate rate of 

0.00 percent. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 

Administrative Review and Preliminary 

Intent To Rescind 2004/2006 New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 10645 (March 9, 

2007). 

On March 16, 2007, Yelin filed a 

submission requesting that the 

Department conduct a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC 

to confirm that Hilltop is the successor– 

in–interest to Yelin.1 In its submission, 

Yelin provided information on the 

events leading to the transition from 

Yelin to Hilltop. Yelin also provided 

documentation relating to the change in 

name to Hilltop and documentation 

relating to the share transfer from Yelin 

to its partners to Hilltop, to carry on the 

business of Yelin. In addition, Yelin 

provided documentation relating to the 

ownership structure and management, 

organizational structure, customer base, 

accounting processes, supplier 

relationships, products, and pricing. As 

part of its March 16, 2007, submission, 

Yelin requested that the Department 

conduct an expedited review. 

Scope of Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm–raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head–on or head–off, 

shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,2

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this investigation, regardless of 

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’), 

are products which are processed from 

warmwater shrimp and prawns through 

freezing and which are sold in any 

count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild– 

caught warmwater species include, but 

are not limited to, white–leg shrimp 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24274 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Notices 

3 ‘‘Generally, in the case of an asset acquisition, 

the Department will consider the acquiring 

company to be a successor to the company covered 

by the antidumping duty order, and thus subject to 

its duty deposit rate, if the resulting operation is 

essentially similar to that existing before the 

acquisition.’’ See Canadian Brass, 57 FR at 20461. 

(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 

(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 

(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this 

investigation. In addition, food 

preparations, which are not ‘‘prepared 

meals,’’ that contain more than 20 

percent by weight of shrimp or prawn 

are also included in the scope of this 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell–on or peeled 

(HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp 

sauce; (7) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (8) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (9) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed–from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer 

of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 

percent purity has been applied; (3) 

with the entire surface of the shrimp 

flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with 

the flour; (4) with the non–shrimp 

content of the end product constituting 

between four and 10 percent of the 

product’s total weight after being 

dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) 

that is subjected to individually quick 

frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately 

after application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par–fried. 

The products covered by this 

investigation are currently classified 

under the following HTS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this investigation is dispositive. 

Initiation of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

the Department will conduct a changed 

circumstances review upon receipt of 

information concerning, or a request 

from an interested party for a review of, 

an antidumping duty order, which 

shows changed circumstances sufficient 

to warrant a review of the order. 

Additionally, section 751(b)(4) of the 

Act states that the Department shall not 

conduct a review less than 24 months 

after the date of publication of the 

determination, in the absence of good 

cause. As noted above, Yelin and 

Hilltop filed their request for a changed 

circumstances review on March 16, 

2007, a little over 24 months after the 

publication of the amended final 

determination and order. See PRC 

Shrimp Order. 

In a changed circumstances review 

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 Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from 

Romania: Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005). 

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 if the resulting 

operations are essentially the same as 

those of the predecessor company. See, 

e.g., Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

from India, 71 FR 327 (January 4, 2006). 

Thus, if the record 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). 

Based on the information provided in 

its submission, Yelin has provided 

sufficient evidence to warrant a review 

to determine if Hilltop is the successorin-interest to Yelin. Therefore, pursuant 

to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.216(b), we are initiating a 

changed circumstances review. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, 

and 19 CFR 351.216, we will conduct a 

changed circumstances review upon 

receipt of information concerning, or a 

request from an interested party for a 

review of, an antidumping duty finding 

or order that shows changed 

circumstances sufficient to warrant a 

review of the order. The information 

submitted by Yelin stating the change in 

ownership and change in the 

respondent entity’s legal name 

demonstrates changed circumstances 

sufficient to warrant a review. See 19 

CFR 351.216(d). 

As noted above in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section of this notice, in its request for 

a changed circumstances review, Yelin 

stated that it underwent a change in 

ownership. Yelin was renamed Hilltop 

International, and subsequent to the 

name change, the share capital of Yelin 

was transferred to its two original 

partners, and reinvested in Hilltop by 

one original and one new shareholder. 

The company conducted business under 

both names of Yelin and Hilltop, until 

July 2006, although Yelin was not 

formally dissolved until December 2006. 

In determining whether one company 

is the successor-in-interest to another 

for purposes of applying the 

antidumping duty law, 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) 

(‘‘Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan’’) 

(citing Brass Sheet and Strip from 

Canada: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 

20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) 

(‘‘Canadian Brass’’)).3 While no single 

factor or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Notices 24275 

be the successor-in-interest to the 

previous company if the resulting 

operation with regard to the subject 

merchandise is not materially dissimilar 

to that of its predecessor. See, e.g., 

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994); and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice 

from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 

2006) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at Comment 3. 

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 duty 

treatment as its predecessor. 

Beginning with management, Yelin 

reported that there has been no change 

in the company’s management or 

management structure after becoming 

Hilltop. See Yelin’s CCR Request at 5 

and Exhibit 4. We find that the 

management structure has remained 

unchanged. 

Second, we looked at the operational 

structure of Hilltop. Yelin explained 

that there have been no material 

changes to its operations or the way it 

sells subject merchandise. Additionally, 

Yelin provided a sales documentation 

flowchart and a flow of goods/payment 

chart, which demonstrates how 

products are ordered and sold, and 

stated that these processes are identical 

between Yelin and Hilltop. See Yelin’s 

CCR Request at 6 and Exhibit 5. We find 

that Yelin’s operational structure has 

not changed as a result of becoming 

Hilltop. 

Third, we reviewed the supplier 

relationships of Yelin and Hilltop. Yelin 

stated that the two affiliated producers, 

Yangjiang City Hoitat Quick–Frozen 

Seafood Co., Ltd. and Fuqing Yihua 

Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., which supplied 

Yelin with all subject merchandise, 

continue to supply Hilltop with the 

subject merchandise, and have done so 

since the publication of the 

antidumping duty order. Yelin noted 

that there have also been no substantial 

changes to either producer’s product 

lines, production output, or capacity. 

See Yelin’s CCR Request at 7. For non– 

subject merchandise that is sold by 

Yelin and Hilltop, Yelin states that there 

have been no changes in the list of 

unaffiliated suppliers. 

Fourth, we reviewed the customer 

base of both Yelin and Hilltop. Yelin 

explained that Yelin and subsequently, 

Hilltop, has only one customer, Ocean 

Duke, which is invoiced through 

Taiwanese affiliates. See Yelin’s CCR 

Request at 7 and Exhibit 5. 

In summary, Yelin reported that its 

conversion from Yelin to Hilltop did not 

meaningfully affect the supplier 

relationships, customer base, 

management, marketing or sale of 

products and services. Moreover, there 

have been no material changes to 

Yelin’s operations or the way it 

produces and sells subject merchandise 

resulting in the conversion from Yelin 

to Hilltop. 

Based on Yelin’s evidence of the 

change in ownership and absent any 

other record evidence that would 

contradict Yelin’s statements, we 

preliminarily determine that Hilltop 

should receive the same antidumping 

duty treatment with respect to certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC 

as Yelin. If the above preliminary results 

are affirmed in the Department’s final 

results, the cash deposit rate most 

recently calculated for Yelin will apply 

to all entries of subject merchandise by 

Hilltop, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review. See, e.g., Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). 

This cash deposit rate, if imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs no later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 

days after the case briefs, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Any hearing, 

if requested, will normally be held two 

days after rebuttal briefs are due, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department will issue its final 

results of review within 270 days after 

the date on which the changed 

circumstances review is initiated, or 

within 45 days if all parties to the 

proceeding agree to the outcome of the 

review, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.216(e), and will publish these 

results in the Federal Register. 

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. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 of 

the Department’s regulations. 

Dated: April 25, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8386 Filed 5–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–835] 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

Japan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Rescind 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on oil country 

tubular goods (OCTG) from Japan in 

response to a request by United States 

Steel Corporation, one of the petitioners 

in the original investigation (Petitioner). 

Petitioner requested administrative 

reviews of JFE Steel Corporation (JFE), 

Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon), 

NKK Tubes (NKK) and Sumitomo Metal 

Industries, Ltd. (SMI). This review 

covers sales of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the period of 

August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006. 

We preliminarily determine that all 

four companies had no reviewable sales 

of subject merchandise to the United 

States during the period of review 

(POR). Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that the review of these four 

companies should be rescinded in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See ‘‘Intent to Rescind the 

Administrative Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun 

Jack Zhao or Dana Mermelstein, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1396 or (202) 482– 

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB