61802 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Notices

Round Agreements Act. In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR 351

(62 FR 27296).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 29, 1997, Saehan

requested that the Department conduct

a changed circumstances administrative

review pursuant to section 751(b) of the

Tariff Act to determine whether Saehan

should properly be considered the

successor firm to Cheil and if, as such,

the revocation issued for Cheil should

apply to Saehan. Saehan also requested

the Department to publish the

preliminary results concurrently with

this notice of initiation, pursuant to 19

CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). In its request,

Saehan notified the Department that on

February 28, 1997, Cheil officially

changed its corporate name to Saehan,

and despite this change in corporate

name, the management, production

facilities, supplier relationships, and

customer base of Saehan are virtually

identical to those of the former Cheil. In

support of its claim, Saehan submitted

documentary evidence demonstrating

that Saehan maintained essentially the

same management, production facilities,

supplier, and customer relationships as

Cheil. Citing the Department’s

determinations in Sugars and Syrups

from Canada; Initiation and Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Review, 61 FR 48885 (Sept. 17, 1996)

and Industrial Phosphoric Acid from

Israel; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Changed

Circumstances Review, 58 FR 59010

(Nov. 5, 1993), Saehan claimed that the

Department should determine that it is

the successor-in-interest to Cheil.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

antidumping duty order are shipments

of all gauges of raw, pretreated, or

primed polyethylene terephthalate, film,

sheet, and strip, whether extruded or

coextruded. The films excluded from

this review are metallized films, and

other finished films that have had at

least one of their surfaces modified by

the application of a performanceenhancing resinous or inorganic layer of

more than 0.00001 inches (0.254

micrometers) thick. Roller transport

cleaning film which has at least one of

its surfaces modified by the application

of SBR latex has also been ruled as not

within the scope of the order.

PET film is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States subheading

3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this order is dispositive.

This changed circumstances

administrative review covers Saehan.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

In accordance with section 751(b) of

the Tariff Act, as amended (the Act), the

Department is initiating a changed

circumstances administrative review to

determine whether Saehan is the

successor company to Cheil. In making

such a 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., Brass Sheet and

Strip from Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992).

While no one or several of these factors

will necessarily provide a dispositive

indication, the Department will

generally consider the new company to

be the successor to the previous

company if its resulting operation is

similar to that of the predecessor. See

e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from

Israel, Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944

(February 14, 1994). Thus, if evidence

demonstrates that, with respect to the

production and sale of the subject

merchandise, the new company

operates as the same entity as the former

company, the Department will treat the

successor company the same as the

predecessor for purposes of

antidumping liability, e.g., assign the

same cash deposit rate, revocation, etc.

We have examined the information

provided by Saehan in its September 29,

1997 letter and determined that Saehan

has established a prima facie case that

it is the successor-in-interest to Cheil.

The management and organizational

structure of the former Cheil has

remained intact under Saehan, and

there have been no changes in the

production facilities, supplier

relationships, or customer base.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that Saehan has maintained the same

management, production facilities,

supplier relationships, and customer

bases as did Cheil.

Based upon the foregoing, we

preliminarily determine that the July 5,

1996 revocation issued for Cheil applies

to Saehan. Because Saehan has

presented evidence to establish a prima

facie case of its successorship status, we

find it appropriate to issue the

preliminary results in combination with

the notice of initiation in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

Interested parties may submit case

briefs and/or written comments no later

than 30 days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish the final results of this changed

circumstances review, which will

include the results of its analysis raised

in any such written comments.

This initiation of review and notice

are in accordance with sections 751(b)

of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(b)), and 19 CFR 351.216.

Dated: November 12, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–30388 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–502]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

for the antidumping order on certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand, pursuant to the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (hereinafter,

‘‘the Act’’).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Totaro or Dorothy Woster, AD/CVD

Enforcement Office 7, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone (202) 482–1398 or 482–3362,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

Act, the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. In the instant case, the

Department has determined that it is not
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Notices 61803

practicable to complete the review

within the statutory time limit (see

Memorandum to Robert S. LaRussa from

Joseph A. Spetrini, November 12, 1997).

Since it is not practicable to complete

this review within the time limits

mandated by the Act (245 days from the

last day of the anniversary month for

preliminary results, 120 additional days

for final results), in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the

Department is extending the time limit

as follows:

Product Country Review period Initiation

date

Prelim due

date

Final due

date*

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes (A–549–

502).

Thailand ....... 03/01/96–02/28/97 04/24/97 03/31/98 08/05/98

*The Department shall issue the final determination 120 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. This final due date is estimated based on publication of the preliminary notice five business days after signature.

Dated: November 12, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–30398 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–337–802]

Preliminary Negative Countervailing

Duty Determination and Alignment of

Final Countervailing Duty

Determination With Final Antidumping

Duty Determination: Fresh Atlantic

Salmon From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa

Jeong, Marian Wells or Todd Hansen,

Office of Antidumping/Countervailing

Duty Enforcement, Group 1, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–1278, 482–6309 or 482–1276,

respectively.

Preliminary Determination

The Department of Commerce (the

‘‘Department’’) preliminarily determines

that countervailable subsidies are not

being provided to producers or

exporters of fresh Atlantic salmon

(‘‘salmon’’) in Chile.

Petitioners

The petition in this investigation was

filed by the Coalition for Fair Atlantic

Salmon Trade (‘‘FAST’’) and the

following individual members of FAST:

Atlantic Salmon of Maine; Cooke

Aquaculture U.S., Inc.; DE Salmon, Inc.;

Global Aqua—USA, llc; Island

Aquaculture Corp.; Maine Coast Nordic,

Inc.; ScanAm Fish Farms; and Treats

Island Fisheries (collectively referred to

hereinafter as ‘‘petitioners’’).

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of

initiation in the Federal Register (62 FR

36772 (July 9, 1997) (‘‘Initiation

Notice’’), the following events have

occurred.

We deemed this case to be

extraordinarily complicated and on July

28, 1997, we postponed the preliminary

determination until November 10, 1997

(62 FR 40335).

On July 23, 1997, we issued a

countervailing duty questionnaire to the

Government of Chile (‘‘GOC’’). Due to

the large number of producers and

exporters of fresh Atlantic salmon in

Chile, and with the GOC’s assurance

that it could provide aggregate data for

most programs, we solicited information

from the GOC on an aggregate or

industry-wide basis, rather than from

the individual producers and exporters.

On August 1, 1997, the GOC notified us

that it lacked usage information for the

following programs: Chilean Production

Development Corporation (‘‘CORFO’’)

Export Credits and Long-Term Export

Financing, Law 18,439 Export Credit

Limits, Law 18,449 (Stamp Tax

Exemption), and Article 59 of Decree

Law 824. Therefore, on August 7, 1997,

we issued an additional questionnaire to

four producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise concerning the above four

programs as well as Chapter XVIII and

Chapter XIX. The questionnaire was

sent to the following companies:

Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda., Marine

Harvest Chile, Aguas Claras S.A., and

Pesquera Eicosal Ltda.

On August 1, 1997, petitioners

submitted comments arguing that the

Law No. 18,480 program should have

been included in the initiation. In the

Initiation Notice, the Department

declined to initiate on Law No. 18,480,

partly based on information provided

during consultations with the GOC.

Upon further review of information on

the record, we determined that our

initial rejection of petitioners’ allegation

was unwarranted. On August 21, 1997,

we decided to include certain benefits

allegedly provided under Law No.

18,480 in our investigation (see

Memorandum from team to Richard W.

Moreland, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration).

On August 25, 1997, the Department

requested that the GOC provide

information regarding rebates for

exports using domestically produced

inputs provided under Law No. 18,480.

The Department received the GOC

and company questionnaire responses

on September 15, 1997 and September

22, 1997. The Department issued

supplemental questionnaires to the GOC

and the four companies, and their

affiliates, on September 30, 1997, and

received the supplemental responses on

October 14, 1997. On October 21, 1997,

the Department issued a second

supplemental questionnaire to the GOC.

The GOC responded to this

questionnaire on October 27 and

October 29, 1997.

On November 6, 1997, we received a

request from petitioners, pursuant to 19

CFR 355.20(c), to postpone the final

determination in this investigation to

coincide with the final determination in

the antidumping duty investigation of

the fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile.

Accordingly, we are aligning the final

determination in this investigation with

the date of the final determination in the

antidumping duty investigation of the

fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile.

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation covers

fresh, farmed Atlantic salmon, whether

imported ‘‘dressed’’ or cut. Atlantic

salmon is the species Salmo salar, in the

genus Salmo of the family salmoninae.

‘‘Dressed’’ Atlantic salmon refers to

salmon that has been bled, gutted, and

cleaned. Dressed Atlantic salmon may

be imported with the head on or off;

with the tail on or off; and with the gills

in or out. All cuts of fresh Atlantic

salmon are included in the scope of the

investigation. Examples of cuts include,

but are not limited to: crosswise cuts