[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2048-2049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-632]
[[Page 2048]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-807]
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed-
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings From Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a request
from Awaji Materia (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (AMT), for initiation of a
changed-circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) from Thailand.
After reviewing this request, we preliminarily determine that AMT is
the successor-in-interest to Awaji Sangyo (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (AST),
and, as a result, should be accorded the same treatment previously
accorded to AST with respect to the antidumping duty order on pipe
fittings from Thailand. Interested parties are invited to comment on
these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2009.
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 July 6, 1992, the Department published an antidumping duty order
on pipe fittings from Thailand in which it stated that AST was excluded
from the order due to its de minimis margin in the less-than-fair-value
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-
Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand, 57 FR 29702 (July 6, 1992); see also
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 57 FR 21065 (May 18,
1992).\1\ On November 18, 2008, the Department received a request for a
changed-circumstances review of this order from AMT to determine if,
for purposes of the antidumping law, AMT is the successor-in-interest
to AST. On December 4, 2008, we received a letter from Weldbend
Corporation, a domestic producer of pipe fittings, in which it
expressed support for AMT's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As observed in the November 18, 2008 request from AMT,
exports of subject merchandise of AST were also the subject of a
subsequent investigation in which the International Trade Commission
concluded that the exports did not result in the material injury or
threat of material injury to the U.S. industry or in material
retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United
States. See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From
France, India, Israel, Malaysia, The Republic of Korea, Thailand,
The United Kingdom, and Venezuela, 60 FR 18611 (April 12, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order covers certain pipe fittings from Thailand.
They are defined as carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, having an
inside diameter of less than 14 inches, imported in either finished or
unfinished form. These formed or forged pipe fittings are used to join
sections in piping systems where conditions require permanent, welded
connections, as distinguished from fittings based on other fastening
methods (e.g., threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings). These imports
are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.93.30 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the
order.
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. The Department finds that the documentation that AMT
submitted with its November 18, 2008 request constitutes sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances to warrant such a review. Thus, in
accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is initiating
a changed-circumstances review to determine whether AMT is the
successor-in-interest to AST for purposes of determining antidumping
duty liability with respect to imports of pipe fittings from Thailand.
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 for the review in a single notice if
the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. As
explained below, we find that the evidence provided by AMT is
sufficient to preliminarily determine that this company is the
successor-in-interest to AST.
In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department
examines several factors including but not limited to changes in the
following: (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),
and Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20461 (May 13, 1992). While no
single factor or combination of factors will necessarily provide a
dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship,
generally the Department will 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) (Salmon from Norway), and Industrial Phosphoric
Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR
6944, 6945 (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., Salmon
from Norway, 64 FR at 9980.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(3), we preliminarily determine
that AMT is the successor-in-interest to AST. In its November 18, 2008
filing, AMT provided evidence supporting its claim to be the successor-
in-interest to AST. Specifically, it provided the following
documentation:
(1) A declaration of the executive vice president of AMT in which
the official states that the name change of the company from AST to AMT
did not result in changes in management, production, facilities,
supplier relationships or changes to the customer base;
(2) Certifications of incorporation of both AST and AMT filed with
the Thai Ministry of Commerce;
(3) Copies of tax identification cards for AST and AMT that show
the
[[Page 2049]]
companies were assigned the same taxpayer identification numbers;
(4) A statement from a Thai bank confirming the change of the
company account name from AST to AMT in August 2006;
(5) Company outlines dated before and after the name change that
demonstrate no changes in management or facilities between the two
points in time;
(6) A notice published by the European Union Commission recognizing
the name change from AST to AMT for antidumping-duty purposes; and
(7) Copies of letters AST sent to customers announcing the name
change.
In summary, AMT has presented evidence to establish a prima facie
case of its successorship status. AST's name change to AMT has not
changed the operations of the company in a meaningful way. AMT's
management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer
base are substantially unchanged from those of AST. The record evidence
demonstrates that the new entity essentially operates in the same
manner as the predecessor company. Consequently, we preliminarily
determine that AMT should be assigned the same antidumping-duty
treatment as AST, i.e., exclusion from the order. See Antidumping Duty
Order; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand, 57
FR 29702 (July 6, 1992).
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.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-632 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P