97-30388. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the Republic of Korea, Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 61801-61802]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-30388]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    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 On July 5, 1996, Cheil Synthetics, Inc. (Cheil) was revoked 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
    
    [[Page 61802]]
    
    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 performance-enhancing 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
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
11/19/1997
Published:
11/19/1997
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
Document Number:
97-30388
Dates:
November 19, 1997.
Pages:
61801-61802 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-580-807
PDF File:
97-30388.pdf