Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Notices 61801

determining whether water is included

in the factory overhead value in the

RBIB, and thus no basis for an

adjustment. Therefore, in the final

results, we are continuing to value water

for ZWG’s factory in accordance with

the Department’s practice in the

previous segments of this case, as well

as its position in previous cases.

Comment 14: Aberrational Factor

Values.

Respondent asserts that the

Department should not use data from

the June 1996 MFTI to value trisodium

phosphate (HTS 2835.23.00), cases,

boxes, crates, and drums (HTS

4415.10.00), and pallets and load boards

(HTS 4415.20.00), because respondent

claims that the data are aberrational.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent’s assertion that the value in

the June 1996 MFTI for trisodium

phosphate, HTS 2835.23.00, is

aberrational, apparently due to the

extraordinarily low quantity reported.

Because we could not obtain more

contemporaneous data to value

trisodium phosphate, we have

continued to use the March 1996 issue

of MFTI, covering the period April 1995

through March 1996.

Respondent’s comments regarding the

issue of the valuation of pallets using

data in the June 1996 MFTI for cases,

boxes, crates, and drums (HTS

4415.10.00), and pallets and load boards

(HTS 4415.20.00), are moot because we

did not value pallets using HTS

4415.10.00 or HTS 4415.20.00 in the

final results. (See Comment 10.)

Additional Changes for the Final

Results

For the final results of this review, we

have updated most surrogate values

based on MFTI. Additionally, we have

updated the labor surrogate value using

the 1996 YLS. (See Final Analysis

Memo.)

Final Results of the Review

As a result of the comments received,

we have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

the review:

Manufacturer/

exporter

Time

period

Margin

(percent)

Zhejiang

Wanxin

Group

Co.,

Ltd .... 10/01/95–09/30/96 14.15

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

Individual differences between

Untied States price and normal value

may vary from the percentages stated

above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of these final results for all shipments of

HSLWs from the PRC entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for ZWG, which

has a separate rate, and all ZWG exports

through market-economy trading

companies, the cash deposit rate will be

the company-specific rate established in

these final results of review; (2) for all

other PRC exporters, the cash deposit

rate will be 128.63 percent, the PRC rate

established in the less-than-fair-value

investigation of this case; and (3) for

non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit rates shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34.(d)(1). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: November 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–30397 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet

and Strip From the Republic of Korea,

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation and

Preliminary Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has received

information sufficient to warrant

initiation of a changed circumstances

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,

and strip from Korea (56 FR 25669 (June

5, 1991)). On July 5, 1996, Cheil

Synthetics, Inc. (Cheil) was revoked

from the order based on three

consecutive years of no dumping. (See

Polyethtylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of

Korea; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and Notice

of Revocation in Part, 61 FR 35177 (July

5, 1996).) Based on information

provided in its September 29, 1997

letter, we preliminarily determine that

Saehan Industries, Inc. (Saehan) is the

successor firm to Cheil, and therefore,

the Department’s revocation of Cheil

applies to Saehan.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Heaney at (202) 482–4475 or

Linda Ludwig at (202) 482–3833, AD/

CVD Enforcement Office Eight, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay
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