Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 55497 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a request for 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) 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 as a result, 

should be accorded the same treatment 

previously accorded Isibars with regard 

to the antidumping duty order on SSB 

from India. Interested parties are invited 

to comment on these preliminary 

results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cory 

Hervey or Devta Ohri, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1664 and (202) 

482–3853, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

in the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on SSB from India. See 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless 

Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan, 

60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On 

August 4, 2008, India Steel requested 

that the Department initiate a changed 

circumstances review of this order to 

determine that, for purposes of the 

antidumping law, India Steel is the 

successor–in-interest to Isibars. See 

August 4, 2008, letter from India Steel. 

Isibars was a producer and exporter of 

SSB from India. The last review that 

Isibars participated in covered the 

period February 1, 2005, through 

January 31, 2006. As a result of this 

review, Isibars received a cash deposit 

rate of 2.01 percent. See Notice of Final 

Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 

72 FR 51595 (September 10, 2007). 

Scope of the Review 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of 

stainless steel in straight lengths that 

have been either hot–rolled, forged, 

turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled or 

otherwise cold–finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. SSB includes cold–finished 

SSBs that are turned or ground in 

straight lengths, whether produced from 

hot–rolled bar or from straightened and 

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that 

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or 

other deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semi– 

finished products, cut–to-length flat– 

rolled products (i.e., cut–to-length 

rolled products which if less than 4.75 

mm in thickness have a width 

measuring at least 10 times the 

thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness having a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed 

products in coils, of any uniform solid 

cross section along their whole length, 

which do not conform to the definition 

of flat–rolled products), and angles, 

shapes, and sections. 

The SSB subject to these reviews is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 

7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 

7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 

7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

On May 23, 2005, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling that SSB 

manufactured in the United Arab 

Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod 

from India is not subject to the scope of 

this order. See Memorandum from Team 

to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from 

India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 

India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May 

23, 2005, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit in room 1117 of the main 

Department building. See also Notice of 

Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 

20, 2005). 

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. In this 

case, the Department finds that the 

evidence submitted showing that a 

name change took place, along with the 

additional supporting documentation 

concerning India Steel’s management, 

production facilities, supplier 

relationships, and customer base (see 

August 4, 2008, letter from India Steel) 

provides sufficient evidence of changed 

circumstances to warrant 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 

SSB 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 in a single notice if 

the Department concludes that 

expedited action is warranted. As 

explained below, in this case, we find 

that the evidence provided by India 

Steel is sufficient to preliminarily 

determine that India Steel is a 

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, 

20462 (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); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

55498 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 

6944 (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., Fresh and Chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 

1999). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(ii), we preliminarily 

determine that India Steel is the 

successor–in-interest to Isibars. In its 

August 4, 2008, submission, India Steel 

provided evidence supporting its claim 

to be the successor–in-interest to Isibars. 

The documentation attached to India 

Steel’s August 4, 2008, submission 

shows that the change of corporate 

name from Isibars Limited to India Steel 

Works Limited resulted in little or no 

change in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, or 

customer base. This documentation 

consists of: 

(1) the minutes of a September 29, 

2007, General Meeting showing 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, issued by the Government of 

India, 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 India 

Steel has the same organization 

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 taxpayer 

identification number (called the 

‘‘permanent account number’’ in India) 

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 sum, 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 2.01 percent 

antidumping duty cash deposit rate. See 

Notice of Final Results and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 72 FR 51595 (September 

10, 2007). 

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. 

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 sections 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. E8–22552 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

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–ininterest 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, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES