[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4505]
[Federal Register: February 28, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-559-801, A-401-801 A-
549-801, A-412-801]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden,
Thailand, and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, and Notice of Intent To Revoke Orders (in Part)
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative reviews, partial termination of administrative reviews,
and notice of intent to revoke order (in part).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce has conducted administrative reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered
roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. The classes or
kinds of merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings,
cylindrical roller bearings, and spherical plain bearings. The reviews
cover 38 manufacturers/exporters and the period May 1, 1992, through
April 30, 1993 (the POR). Although we initiated reviews for nine other
manufacturers/exporters, we are terminating the reviews because the
requests for these reviews were withdrawn in a timely manner. As a
result of these reviews, the Department has preliminarily determined
the weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms to range
from 0.37 percent to 132.25 percent for BBs, from zero to 51.82 percent
for CRBs, and from zero to 92.00 percent for SPBs.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The appropriate case analyst, for the
various respondent firms listed below, at the Office of Antidumping
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-4733.
France
Jacqueline Arrowsmith (SNR), Kris Campbell (SNFA), Joseph Hanley (SKF,
Rollix Defontaine), David Levy (Hoesch Rothe Erde), Philip Marchal
(Franke & Heydrich), or Michael Rill.
Germany
Kris Campbell (FAG), Joseph Hanley (Rollix Defontaine), David Levy (NTN
Kugellagerfabrik, INA, Hoesch Rothe Erde), Philip Marchal (SKF, Franke
& Heydrich), Charles Riggle (Fichtel & Sachs, GMN), or Michael Rill.
Italy
Charles Riggle (Meter), Joseph Hanley (SKF, FAG), or Michael Rill.
Japan
Carlo Cavagna (Honda, Nachi), William Czajkowski (Takeshita), Michael
Diminich (NSK), J. David Dirstine (Koyo), Joseph Fargo (Nankai Seiko),
David Levy (NTN), Michael Panfeld (IKS, NPBS), or Richard Rimlinger.
Singapore
Joanna Schlesinger (NMB/Pelmec), or Richard Rimlinger.
Sweden
Philip Marchal (SKF), or Michael Rill.
Thailand
Joanna Schlesinger (NMB/Pelmec), or Richard Rimlinger.
United Kingdom
Jacqueline Arrowsmith (RHP/NSK), Kris Campbell (Barden/FAG), or Michael
Rill.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty
orders on ball bearings (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings (CRBs) and
spherical plain bearings (SPBs) and parts thereof from France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom.
Specifically, these orders cover BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from France,
Germany, and Japan; BBs and CRBs from Italy, Sweden, and the U.K.; and
BBs from Singapore and Thailand. On June 28, 1993, in accordance with
19 CFR 353.22(c)(1993), we initiated administrative reviews of those
orders for the period May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993 (58 FR
34563). The Department is now conducting these administrative reviews
in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Tariff Act). These reviews cover the following firms and classes
or kinds of merchandise:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of firm Class or kind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franke & Heydrich KG.................... BBs
Hoesch Rothe Erde AG.................... BBs
Rollix Defontaine, S.A.................. BBs
SKF Compagnie d'Applications Mecaniques, BBs, CRBs, SPBs
S.A. (SKF).
SNFA.................................... BBs, CRBs
SNR Roulements (SNR).................... BBs, CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA BBs, CRBs, SPBs
(FAG).
Fichtel & Sachs AG...................... BBs
Franke & Heydrich KG.................... BBs
Georg Mueller Nurnberg, AG (GMN)........ BBs
Hoesch Rothe Erde AG.................... BBs
INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (INA)....... BBs, CRBs
NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH BBs,
(NTN).
Rollix Defontaine, S.A.................. BBs
SKF GmbH................................ BBs, CRBs, SPBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italia S.p.A........................ BBs, CRBs
Meter, S.p.A............................ BBs, CRBs
SKF Industrie S.p.A..................... BBs, CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Bearing Corp.................... BBs, CRBs, SPBs
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.................... BBs, CRBs, SPBs
Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd.................. BBs
Koyo Seiko Co........................... BBs, CRBs, SPBs
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.................... BBs, CRBs
Nankai Seiko Co......................... BBs
Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd. BBs
(NPBS).
NSK Ltd................................. BBs, CRBs, SPBs
NTN Corp................................ BBs, CRBs, SPBs
Takeshita Seiko Co., Ltd................ BBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec Ind. (Pte.) BBs
Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Sverige............................. BBs, CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thailand
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Thai Ltd./Pelmec Thai Ltd. (NMB/ BBs
Pelmec).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corp. (U.K.) Ltd./FAG (U.K.) Ltd. BBs, CRBs
(Barden/FAG).
RHP Bearings/NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd. BBs, CRBs
(RHP/NSK).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the publication of our initiation notice, we received
timely withdrawals of review requests for INA (France), SNECMA (France
and Italy), Asahi Seiko (Japan), Fujino Iron Works (Japan), Tottori
Yamakei Bearing Seisakusho (Japan), and Revolvo (U.K.). Because there
were no other requests for review of these companies from any other
interested parties, we are terminating the reviews with respect to
these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).
On January 13, 1994, GMN also requested that the Department allow
GMN to withdraw its request for review and terminate the review of the
order on BBs from Germany with respect to GMN. Although its request to
withdraw was submitted well after the deadline for doing so, GMN
claimed that the circumstances of the firm's bankruptcy rendered it
unable to proceed further with the review. After giving careful
consideration to GMN's circumstances, we find that it would be
inappropriate to terminate the review. GMN's request to terminate the
review was submitted during the verification process, which is an
advanced stage of the review process, and at a point at which it had
become clear that the company would be unable to complete verification
successfully. Furthermore, a domestic interested party objected to
termination of the review at that stage. Therefore, we are not
terminating the review of GMN.
In addition, we initiated reviews for SST Bearing Corp. (SST), and
Peer International (Peer) with respect to subject merchandise from
Japan. SST informed us that it neither produced AFBs in Japan nor
exported Japanese-produced bearings to the United States. Peer informed
us that although it is a reseller of Japanese-made bearings, all of its
suppliers had knowledge at the time of sale that the merchandise was
destined for the United States. Consequently, Peer is not a reseller as
defined in 19 CFR 353.2(s) because its sales cannot be used to
calculate the U.S. price. Therefore, we are preliminarily terminating
the reviews with respect to SST and Peer. If we obtain any information
that contradicts these companies' assertions, we will complete the
reviews with respect to these companies.
Best Information Available
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we have
preliminarily determined that the use of best information available
(BIA) is appropriate for certain firms. The Department's regulations
provide that we may take into account whether a party refuses to
provide information in determining what is the best information
available (19 CFR 353.37(b)). For purposes of these reviews and in
accordance with past Commerce practice, we have used the most adverse
BIA--generally the highest rate for any company for the class or kind
of merchandise from the same country from this or any prior segment of
the proceeding, including the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation--whenever a company refused to cooperate with the
Department or otherwise significantly impeded the proceeding. When a
company substantially cooperated with our requests for information, but
failed to provide all information requested in a timely manner or in
the form requested, we used as BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate
(including the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from the same country from either the
LTFV investigation or a prior administrative review; or (2) the highest
calculated rate in this review for any firm for the class or kind of
merchandise from the same country (see Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping
Duty Order, 58 FR 39728 (July 26, 1993)).
Because Franke & Heydrich, General Bearing Corp., and SNFA failed
to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we have used the highest
rate ever found for each relevant class or kind of merchandise and
country of origin. Also, because GMN had substantially cooperated with
our requests for information, but was unable to complete verification,
we used as BIA its highest previous rate, in this case the rate from
the LTFV investigation.
Intent to Revoke
The following firms have submitted requests, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.25(b), to revoke the orders covering the indicated merchandise:
Spherical plain bearings from France--SKF
Ball bearings from Germany--NTN Kugellagerfabrik and GMN
Cylindrical roller bearings from Italy--SKF
Spherical plain bearings from Japan--NTN and Honda
Ball bearings from Japan--Honda
Cylindrical roller bearings from Japan--Honda
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), these requests were
accompanied by certifications from the firms that they had not sold the
relevant class or kind of merchandise at less than fair value for a
three-year period including this review period, and will not do so in
the future. Each of these firms also agreed to its immediate
reinstatement in the relevant antidumping orders, as long as it is
subject to those orders, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR
353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation, it sold the subject
merchandise at less than fair value.
In the two prior reviews of these orders, we determined that SPBs
from France sold by SKF, BBs from Germany sold by NTN Kugellagerfabrik
and GMN, CRBs from Italy sold by SKF, and BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from
Japan sold by Honda were not sold at less than fair value. In this
review, we preliminarily determine that these firms, with the exception
of NTN Germany and GMN, have not sold these products at less than fair
value, which will satisfy the three-year period of no sales at less
than fair value, if these preliminary findings are affirmed in our
final results. Therefore, we intend to revoke the orders with respect
to the following firms and merchandise:
Spherical plain bearings from France--SKF
Cylindrical roller bearings from Italy--SKF
Spherical plain bearings from Japan--Honda
Ball bearings from Japan--Honda
Cylindrical roller bearings from Japan--Honda
With respect to SPBs from Japan sold by NTN and BBs from Germany
sold by NTN and GMN, we have not established that there has been a
three-year period of sales at not less than fair value. The final
results of the previous administrative review indicated the existence
of dumping margins on NTN's sales of SPBs from Japan (see Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an
Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729, July 26, 1993). In addition, we
preliminarily determine in this review that there are dumping margins
on NTN's sales of BBs from Germany. Therefore, we do not intend to
revoke the orders on SPBs from Japan with respect to NTN or on BBs from
Germany with respect to NTN.
Concerning GMN, as BIA, (see ``Best Information Available'' section
above), we have preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist on
GMN's sales of BBs from Germany during the 1992-93 review period.
Furthermore, on February 10, 1994, the company withdrew its request for
revocation. Therefore, we do not intend to revoke the order on BBs from
Germany with respect to GMN.
Scope of Reviews
The products covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings
(other than tapered roller bearings), and parts thereof (AFBs), and
constitute the following ``class or kinds'' of merchandise:
1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all
antifriction bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports
of these products are classified under the following categories:
antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings
(including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or
mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) subheadings: 4016.93.10, 4016.9350,
8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8708.70.6060, 8708.93.6000, 8708.99.3100,
8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.5800, 8708.99.8015, 8708.99.8080.
2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products
include all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling
element. Imports of these products are classified under the following
categories: antifriction rollers, all cylindrical roller bearings
(including split cylindrical roller bearings) and parts thereof, and
housed or mounted cylindrical roller bearing units and parts thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS
subheadings: 4016.93.10, 4016.9350, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.6530,
8482.99.6560, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.8080.
3. Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products
include all spherical plain bearings that employ a spherically shaped
sliding element.
Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS
subheadings: 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,
8485.90.00, 8708.99.50.
The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether
the bearing is covered by the order. The HTS item numbers are provided
for convenience and Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain
dispositive.
United States Price
In calculating United States price (USP), the Department used
purchase price (PP) or exporter's sales price (ESP), as defined in
section 772 of the Tariff Act, as appropriate.
Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred
during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in
calculating individual margins for all of these transactions, we
sampled sales to calculate USP, in accordance with section 777A of the
Tariff Act. When a firm made more than 2,000 ESP sales transactions to
the United States for a particular class or kind of merchandise, we
reviewed ESP sales which occurred during sample weeks. We selected one
week from each two-month period in the review period, for a total of
six weeks, and analyzed each transaction made in those six weeks. The
sample weeks included May 31-June 6, 1992; July 26-August 1, 1992;
October 18-24, 1992; November 22-28, 1992; February 14-20, 1993; and
April 18-24, 1993. We reviewed all PP sales transactions during the POR
because there were few PP sales.
United States price was based on the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or
delivered price to unrelated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the
United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, from PP and ESP for
movement expenses, discounts and rebates.
We made additional deductions from ESP for direct selling expenses,
indirect selling expenses, and repacking in the United States.
We made an addition to USP for value-added taxes (VAT) in
accordance with section 772(d)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act. In making our
adjustment for VAT, we followed the instructions of the United States
Court of International Trade (CIT) in Federal Mogul Corp. and The
Torrington Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 93-194 (CIT October 7, 1993).
The Department added to USP the result of multiplying the foreign
market tax rate by the price of the United States merchandise at the
same point in the chain of commerce that the foreign market tax was
applied to foreign market sales. The Department also adjusted the tax
amount calculated for USP and the amount of tax included in foreign
market value (FMV). We deducted the portions of the foreign market tax
and the USP tax that are the result of expenses that are included in
the foreign market price used to calculate foreign market tax and in
the United States price used to calculate the USP tax. Because these
expenses are later deducted to calculate FMV and USP, these adjustments
are necessary to prevent our new methodology for calculating the USP
tax from creating dumping margins where no margins would exist if no
taxes were levied upon foreign market sales.
With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the
United States, e.g., parts of bearings that were imported and further
processed into finished bearings by U.S. affiliates of foreign
exporters, prior to sale to unrelated U.S. customers, we deducted any
increased value in accordance with section 772(e)(3) of the Tariff Act.
Those bearings otherwise subject to the order that are incorporated
into nonbearing products, which collectively comprise less than one
percent of the value of the finished products sold to unrelated
customers in the United States, are not subject to the assessment of
antidumping duties. In Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from Japan (48
FR 51801; November 14, 1983), roller chain, which was subject to an
antidumping duty order, was imported by a related party and
incorporated into finished motorcycles. The finished motorcycles were
the first articles of commerce sold by the subject producer to
unrelated purchasers in the United States. Because the roller chain did
not constitute a significant percentage of the value of the completed
product, the Department found that a USP could not reasonably be
determined for the roller chain. The Department, therefore, did not
assess dumping duties on these transactions. We have applied this same
principle to these reviews.
Foreign Market Value
The home market was viable for all companies and all classes or
kinds of merchandise. The Department used home market prices or
constructed value (CV), as defined in section 773 of the Tariff Act, as
appropriate, to calculate foreign market value (FMV).
Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred
during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in
examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate FMV,
in accordance with section 777A of the Tariff Act. When a firm had more
than 2,000 home market sales transactions for a particular class or
kind of merchandise, we used sales from sample months that corresponded
to the sample weeks selected for U.S. sales sampling plus one
contemporaneous month prior to the POR and one following the POR. The
sample months included March, June, July, October, and November of
1992, and February, April, and June of 1993.
In general, the Department relies on monthly weighted-average
prices in the calculation of FMV in administrative reviews. Because of
the significant volume of home market sales involved in these reviews,
we examined whether it was appropriate to average, in accordance with
section 777A of the Tariff Act, all of each respondent's home market
sales on an annual basis. In this case, the use of POR weighted-average
prices results in significant time and resource savings for the
Department. To determine whether a POR weighted-average price was
representative of the transactions under consideration, we performed a
three-step test.
We first compared each monthly weighted-average home market price
for each model with the weighted-average POR price of that model. We
calculated the proportion of each model's sales whose POR weighted-
average price did not vary meaningfully (i.e., was within plus or minus
10 percent) from the monthly weighted-average prices. We did this for
each model within each class or kind of merchandise. We then compared
the volume of sales of all models within each class or kind of
merchandise whose POR weighted-average price did not vary meaningfully
from the monthly weighted-average price with the total volume of sales
of that class or kind of merchandise. If the POR weighted-average price
of at least 90 percent of sales in each class or kind of merchandise
did not vary meaningfully from the monthly weighted-average price, we
considered the POR weighted-average prices to be representative of the
transactions under consideration. Finally, we tested whether there was
any correlation between fluctuations in price and time for the home
market sales. Where the correlation coefficient was less than 0.05
(where a coefficient approaching 1.0 means a direct relation between
price and time, i.e., that prices consistently rise from month to
month, and a coefficient approaching zero means no relation between
prices and time), we concluded that there was no significant relation
between price and time. We calculated a weighted-average POR FMV only
for those classes or kinds that satisfied our three-step test for the
factors of price, volume, and time.
We compared U.S. sales with sales of such or similar merchandise in
the home market. We considered all non-identical products within a
bearing family to be equally similar. As defined in the questionnaire,
a bearing family consists of all bearings within a class or kind of
merchandise that are the same in the following physical
characteristics: load direction, bearing design, number of rows of
rolling elements, precision rating, dynamic load rating, and outer
diameter, inner diameter, and width.
Home market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or
delivered prices to related or unrelated purchasers in the home market.
Where applicable, we made adjustments for movement expenses,
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, and differences in packing. We also
made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance
with 19 CFR 353.56. For comparisons to PP sales, we deducted home
market direct selling expenses and added U.S. direct selling expenses.
For comparisons to ESP sales, we deducted home market direct selling
expenses. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in PP and ESP
calculations and to offset U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted in
ESP calculations, but not exceeding the amount of the indirect U.S.
expenses. For comparisons to both ESP and PP sales, we adjusted for VAT
using the methodology detailed in the ``United States Price'' section
of this notice.
We used sales to related customers only where we determined such
sales were made at arm's length, i.e., at prices comparable to prices
at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unrelated customers.
Where we found home market sales below the cost of production in
the previous administrative review period, we concluded that reasonable
grounds exist to believe or suspect that home market sales during the
POR were made at prices below the cost of production, and we therefore
initiated cost investigations.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in determining
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the cost of
production, we examined whether such sales were made in substantial
quantities over an extended period of time. When less than 10 percent
of the home market sales of a particular model were at prices below the
cost of production, we found that substantial quantities of such sales
were not made and did not disregard any sales of that model. When 10
percent or more, but not more than 90 percent, of the home market sales
of a particular model were determined to be below cost, we determined
that substantial quantities of such sales were made and excluded the
below-cost home market sales from our calculation of FMV provided that
these below-cost sales were made over an extended period of time. When
more than 90 percent of the home market sales of a particular model
were made below cost over an extended period of time, we disregarded
all home market sales of that model from our calculation of FMV and
went to CV.
To determine if sales below cost had been made over an extended
period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below
cost had occurred for a particular model to the number of months in
which the model was sold. If the model was sold in three or fewer
months, we did not find that below-cost sales were made over an
extended period of time unless there were sales below cost of that
model in each month. If a model was sold in more than three months, we
did not find that below-cost sales were made over an extended period of
time unless there were sales below cost in at least three of the months
in which the model was sold.
Since none of the respondents has submitted information indicating
that any of its sales below cost were at prices which would have
permitted ``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in
the normal course of trade,'' within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)
of the Tariff Act, we were unable to conclude that the costs of
production of such sales were recovered within a reasonable period. As
a result, we disregarded below-cost sales when the conditions described
above were met.
Home market sales of obsolete merchandise and distress sales were
not disregarded in our cost analysis unless there was documented
information on the record demonstrating that such sales were outside
the ordinary course of trade.
With respect to FAG Germany, we disregarded certain sales reported
by the company in its home market database. The disregarded sales
pertain to two unrelated German resellers of FAG bearings. Although FAG
reported that it did not know whether these resellers sold its bearings
in Germany or abroad, we preliminarily determine, based on the
following information obtained at verification, that FAG, at a minimum,
should have known that the two resellers would export its bearings.
At verification, we found that FAG referred, both orally and in its
records, to these resellers as ``indirect exporters.'' We learned that
one FAG subsidiary sold to one of these resellers from its export price
list, rather than from its domestic price list. Finally, we contacted
one of the resellers independently and were told that it only sells in
export markets and that its suppliers were aware of this.
During verification, we inquired of other German producers/
exporters about potential sales to ``indirect exporters.'' We did not
obtain conclusive evidence that reported home market sales were in fact
export sales. However, if we obtain additional information indicating
that other producers reported home market sales that we ultimately
conclude were export sales, we will delete these sales from their home
market databases.
In accordance with section 773(a)(2) of the Tariff Act, we used
constructed value as the basis for FMV when there were no usable sales
of such or similar merchandise for comparison.
We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff
Act. We included the cost of materials, fabrication, general expenses,
profit and packing. To calculate CV we used: (1) actual general
expenses, or the statutory minimum of 10 percent of materials and
fabrication, whichever was greater; (2) actual profit or the statutory
minimum of 8 percent of materials, fabrication costs and general
expenses, whichever was greater; and (3) packing costs for merchandise
exported to the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments
to CV in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56, for differences in
circumstances of sale. For comparisons to PP sales, we deducted home
market direct selling expenses and added U.S. direct selling expenses.
For comparisons to ESP sales, we deducted home market direct selling
expenses. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in PP and ESP
calculations. For comparisons involving ESP transactions, we made
further deductions for constructed value for indirect selling expenses
in the home market, capped by the indirect selling expenses incurred on
ESP sales in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the
weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period May 1,
1992 through April 30, 1993 to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company BBs CRBs SPBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France:
Franke & Heydrich.......................... 66.42 (\2\) (\2\)
Hoesch Rothe Erde.......................... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\)
Rollix Defontaine.......................... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\)
SKF........................................ 3.12 (\1\) 0.00
SNFA....................................... 66.42 18.37 (\2\)
SNR........................................ 3.31 2.58 (\2\)
Germany:
FAG........................................ 17.46 14.24 17.54
Fichtel & Sachs............................ 11.71 (\2\) (\2\)
Franke & Heydrich.......................... 132.25 (\2\) (\2\)
GMN........................................ 35.43 (\2\) (\2\)
Hoesch Rothe Erde.......................... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\)
INA........................................ 29.81 9.14 (\2\)
NTN........................................ 9.06 (\1\) (\1\)
Rollix Defontaine.......................... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\)
3SKF....................................... 28.41 27.45 60.23
Italy:
FAG........................................ 3.08 (\1\)
Meter...................................... 1.22 (\1\)
SKF........................................ 3.71 0.00
Japan:
General Bearing............................ 106.61 51.82 92.00
Honda...................................... 0.37 0.01 0.01
IKS........................................ 27.96 (\2\) (\2\)
Koyo....................................... 12.19 5.34 (1)
Nachi...................................... 28.27 4.33 (\2\)
Nankai Seiko............................... 1.08 (\2\) (\2\)
NPBS....................................... 18.32 (\2\) (\2\)
NSK........................................ 27.17 20.42 (\1\)
NTN........................................ 5.09 2.34 0.01
Takeshita.................................. 14.58 (\2\) (\2\)
Singapore:
NMB/Pelmec................................. 4.84
Sweden:
SKF........................................ 16.00 1.85
Thailand:
NMB/Pelmec................................. 0.37
United Kindgom:
Barden/FAG................................. 4.86 8.22
RHP/NSK.................................... 16.01 18.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1No U.S. sales during the review period.
2No review requested.
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this
notice. A general issues hearing, if requested, and any hearings
regarding issues related solely to specific countries, if requested,
will be held in accordance with the following schedule and at the
indicated locations in the main Commerce building:
Italy--March 28, 1994; 9:00 am; room 1617-M-4
General Issues--March 28, 1994; 1:00 pm; room 4830
Thailand--March 29, 1994; 9:00 am; room 1617-M-1
Singapore--March 29, 1994; 10:30 am; room 1617-M-1
Germany--March 29, 1994; 2:00 pm; room 1617-M-4
Japan--March 30, 1994; 9:00 am; room 1617-M-1
United Kingdom--March 30, 1994; 2:00 pm; room 1617-M-1
France--March 31, 1994; 9:00 am; room 1617-M-4
Sweden--March 31, 1994; 1:00 pm; room 1617-M-4
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective briefs or written comments, and rebuttal briefs or rebuttals
to written comments. Briefs or written comments from interested
parties, and rebuttal briefs or rebuttals to written comments, limited
to the issues raised in the respective case briefs and comments, may be
submitted not later than the dates shown below for general issues and
the respective country-specific cases. The Department will subsequently
publish the final results of these administrative reviews, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written
comments or hearings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefs/comments
Case due Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues...................... Mar. 16, 1994... Mar. 23, 1994
Italy............................... Mar. 16, 1994... Mar. 23, 1994
Thailand............................ Mar. 17, 1994... Mar. 24, 1994
Singapore........................... Mar. 17, 1994... Mar. 24, 1994
Germany............................. Mar. 17, 1994... Mar. 24, 1994
Japan............................... Mar. 18, 1994... Mar. 25, 1994
U.K................................. Mar. 18, 1994... Mar. 25, 1994
France.............................. Mar. 21, 1994... Mar. 28, 1994
Sweden.............................. Mar. 21, 1994... Mar. 28, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because sampling
prevents calculation of duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we will
calculate an importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate for each
class or kind of merchandise based on the ratio of the total value of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the
POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those
duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that
particular importer made during the POR. (This is equivalent to
dividing the total value of antidumping duties, which are calculated by
taking the difference between statutory FMV and statutory USP, by the
total statutory USP value of the sales compared, and adjusting the
result by the average difference between USP and customs value for all
merchandise examined during the POR.)
Where we do not have entered customs value to calculate an ad
valorem rate, we will calculate an average per-unit dollar amount of
antidumping duty based on all sales examined during the POR. We will
instruct the Customs Service to assess this average amount on all units
included in each entry made by the particular importer during the POR.
The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions
directly to the Customs Service upon completion of these reviews.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the
reviewed companies will be those rates established in the final results
of these reviews; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies
not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others''
rate made effective by the final results of the most recent
administrative reviews of the orders (see Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping
Duty Order, 58 FR 39729, July 26, 1993). As noted in those previous
final results, these rates are the ``all others'' rates from the
relevant LTFV investigations. These deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the
next administrative reviews.
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 C.F.R.
353.22(c)(5)).
Dated: February 18, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-4505 Filed 2-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P