Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 21, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a changed circumstances review of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from India in order to determine whether Jindal Poly Films Limited is the successor–in-interest for purposes of antidumping duties to Jindal Polyester Limited.
April 22, 2005.
Jeffrey Pedersen or Kavita Mohan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–2769 and (202) 482–3542, respectively.
On July 1, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on PET film from India in the
The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded 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 thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
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.
Although Jindal reported that it simply changed its name from Jindal Polyester Limited to Jindal Poly Films Limited, the petitioners placed documents on the record indicating that, in addition to Jindal's name change, the company experienced a change in management,
In response to the Department's questionnaires, Jindal reported that it changed its name to Jindal Poly Films Limited in April 2004 to reflect its increased presence in the film business (both PET film and non–subject polypropylene (BOPP) film). This increased presence has been manifested through the establishment of two new production lines in India (a BOPP film (non–subject merchandise) line, which began production on March 18, 2003, and a PET film line, which began production on February 28, 2004), as well as Jindal's November 26, 2003, acquisition of Rexor, a subsidiary company in France that coats and metalizes PET film.
According to Jindal, its name change has not been accompanied by any change to its legal or corporate structure, or ownership. Jindal stated that the name change was not part of an agreement made with Rexor. Moreover, Jindal reported that the expansion of its production lines has not caused it to change suppliers of the inputs used in the production of PET film nor has it resulted in changes to its relationships or contracts with suppliers. Further, Jindal claimed that its increased production capacity (which did not result in the production of new types of PET film) has had little impact on its customer base. Although there have been some changes in Jindal's U.S. customer base during the time period that it added the new PET film production line, Jindal noted that the total number of its U.S. customers has remained the same. Also, apart from acquiring a few new home market customers, Jindal reported that there have not been any significant changes to its Indian customer base. With respect to
Further, Jindal contended that the name change did not result in any changes in the functions, authorities, duties, or responsibilities of any of its officers, executive board, or Board of Directors. The changes to the Board of Directors that occurred were, according to Jindal, in the ordinary course of business and unrelated to the name change. Thus, Jindal contends that, other than the new production line set up in Nashik India, there were no changes to its operations that produced or sold subject merchandise.
The Department finds that, with respect to the production and sale of subject merchandise, the operations of Jindal Poly Films Limited are essentially the same as those of Jindal Polyester Limited.
Further, we did not find any evidence that Jindal's acquisition of Rexor affected its operations with respect to the sale of subject merchandise to the United States.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Jindal Poly Films Limited is the successor–in-interest for purposes of antidumping duties to Jindal Polyester Limited and should receive the same antidumping duty rate as Jindal Polyester Limited. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this changed circumstances review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend shipments of subject merchandise made by Jindal Poly Films Limited, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review at Jindal Polyester Limited's cash deposit rate.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of publication of this notice.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.