[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10959-10967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4616]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[A-475-801]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty 
Order

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Import Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
reviews and revocation in part of an antidumping duty order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 28, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other 
than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) from Italy. The 
classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these reviews are ball 
bearings and parts thereof and cylindrical roller bearings and parts 
thereof. The reviews cover three manufacturers/exporters. The review 
period is May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993.

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes, including corrections of certain inadvertent programming and 
clerical errors, in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final 
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average 
dumping margins for the reviewed firms for each class or kind of 
merchandise are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of 
Review.''

    The Department also is revoking the antidumping duty order on 
cylindrical roller bearings from Italy with respect to SKF.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The appropriate case analyst, for the 
various respondent firms listed below, at the Office of Antidumping 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, Import Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733. Charles Riggle 
(Meter), Jacqueline Arrowsmith (SKF), Michael Rausher (FAG), or Michael 
Rill.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 28, 1994, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of its administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered 
roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) from Italy (59 FR 9463). We 
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary 
results.

    At the request of certain interested parties, we held a public 
hearing on general issues pertaining to the reviews of the orders 
covering AFBs from all countries on March 28, 1994.

Revocation In Part

    In accordance with Sec. 353.25(a)(2) of the Department's 
regulations (19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)), the Department is revoking the 
antidumping duty order covering cylindrical roller bearings from Italy 
with respect to SKF.

    SKF has submitted, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(b), a request 
for revocation of the order with respect to its sales of the 
merchandise in question. SKF has also demonstrated three consecutive 
years of sales at not less than foreign market value (FMV) and has 
submitted the required certifications. It has agreed in writing to its 
immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any producer or 
reseller is subject to the order, if the Department concludes under 19 
CFR 353.22(f) that the firm, subsequent to the revocation, sold the 
merchandise at less than FMV. Furthermore, it is not likely that SKF 
will sell the subject merchandise at less than FMV in the future. 
Therefore, the Department is revoking the order on cylindrical roller 
bearings from Italy with respect to SKF.

Scope of Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews are AFBs and constitute the 
following ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: ball bearings and parts 
thereof (BBs) and cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof (CRBs). 
For a detailed description of the products covered under these classes 
or kinds of merchandise, including a compilation of all pertinent scope 
determinations, see the ``Scope Appendix'' to ``Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, 
Germany, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial 
Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Orders,'' which is published in this issue of the 
Federal Register. [[Page 10960]] 

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market

    The Department disregarded sales below cost for the following firms 
and classes or kinds of merchandise:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Class or kind of   
        Country                  Company                merchandise     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy..................  FAG....................  BBs.                  
                         SKF....................  BBs.                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made the 
following changes in these final results.
     Where applicable, certain programming and clerical errors 
in our preliminary results have been corrected. Any alleged programming 
or clerical errors with which we do not agree are discussed in the 
relevant sections of the Issues Appendix.
     Pursuant to the decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL 
Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (CAFC 
1994) (Ad Hoc Comm.), we have allowed a deduction for pre-sale inland 
freight in the calculation of foreign market value only as an indirect 
selling expense under 19 CFR 353.56(b), except where such expenses have 
been shown to be directly related to sales.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the country-specific case and rebuttal briefs 
by parties to these administrative reviews are addressed in the 
``Issues Appendix'' which is appended to this notice of final results. 
General issues pertaining to these and all other reviews of the orders 
covering AFBs from various countries may be found in the ``Issues 
Appendix'' to ``Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Japan, Singapore, 
Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders,'' which is 
published in this issue of the Federal Register.

Final Results of Reviews

    We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins to 
exist for the period May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Company                           BBs      CRBs 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG...................................................     2.74    (\1\)
Meter.................................................     6.02    (\1\)
SKF...................................................     3.79    0.00 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No U.S. sales during the review period.                              

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for each exporter, we divided 
the total dumping margins for each exporter by the total net USP value 
for that exporter's sales for each relevant class or kind during the 
review period under each order.
    In order to derive a single deposit rate for each class or kind of 
merchandise for each respondent (i.e., each exporter or manufacturer 
included in these reviews), we weight-averaged the purchase price (PP) 
and exporter's sales price (ESP) deposit rates (using the USP of PP 
sales and ESP sales, respectively, as the weighting factors). To 
accomplish this where we sampled ESP sales, we first calculated the 
total dumping margins for all ESP sales during the review period by 
multiplying the sample ESP margins by the ratio of total weeks in the 
review period to sample weeks. We then calculated a total net USP value 
for all ESP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample 
ESP total net value by the same ratio. We then divided the combined 
total dumping margins for both PP and ESP sales by the combined total 
USP value for both PP and ESP sales to obtain the deposit rate.
    We will direct Customs to collect the resulting percentage deposit 
rate against the entered Customs value of each of the exporter's 
entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice.
    Entries of parts incorporated into finished bearings before sales 
to an unrelated customer in the United States will receive the 
exporter's deposit rate for the appropriate class or kind of 
merchandise.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative 
review for all shipments of AFBs entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the 
reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except that for firms 
whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.50 percent, and 
therefore de minimis, the Department shall not require a deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties; (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 less-than-fair-value (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 
for the relevant class or kind and country made effective by the final 
results of review published on July 26, 1993 (see Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an 
Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729, July 26, 1993). 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.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because sampling 
and other simplification methods prevent entry-by-entry assessments, we 
will calculate wherever possible an exporter/importer-specific 
assessment rate for each class or kind of antifriction bearings.

1. Purchase Price Sales

    With respect to PP sales for these final results, we divided the 
total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between FMV and 
USP) for each importer by the total number of units sold to that 
importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting unit dollar 
amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that importer's 
entries under the relevant order during the review period. Although 
this will result in assessing different percentage margins for 
individual entries, the total antidumping duties collected for each 
importer under each order for the review period will be almost exactly 
equal to the total dumping margins.

2. Exporter's Sales Price Sales

    For ESP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total 
dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of 
those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to 
assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered Customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries 
under the relevant order during the review period. While the Department 
is aware that the entered value of sales during the period of review 
(POR) is not necessarily equal to the entered value of entries during 
the [[Page 10961]] POR, use of entered value of sales as the basis of 
the assessment rate permits the Department to collect a reasonable 
approximation of the antidumping duties which would have been 
determined if the Department had reviewed those sales of merchandise 
actually entered during the POR.
    In the case of companies which did not report entered value of 
sales, we calculated a proxy for entered value of sales, based on the 
price information available and appropriate adjustments (e.g., 
insurance, freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. profit, and any 
other items, as appropriate, on a company-specific basis).
    For calculation of the ESP assessment rate, entries for which 
liquidation was suspended, but which ultimately fell outside the scope 
of the orders through operation of the ``Roller Chain'' rule, are 
included in the assessment rate denominator to avoid over-collecting. 
(The ``Roller Chain'' rule excludes from the collection of antidumping 
duties bearings which were imported by a related party and further 
processed, and which comprise less than one percent of the finished 
product sold to the first unrelated customer in the United States. See 
the section on Further Manufacturing and the ``Roller Chain'' Rule in 
the Issues Appendix to ``Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Japan, 
Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Orders,'' which is published in this issue of the Federal Register.)
    This notice also serves as a final 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.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to 
comply is a violation of the APO.
    These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: February 1, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Issues Appendix

     Abbreviations
     Comments and Response

Company Abbreviations

FAG-Italy--FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG Bearings Corp.
Federal-Mogul--Federal-Mogul Corporation
Meter--Meter S.p.A.
SKF--Italy--SKF Industrie; RIV-SKF Officina de Villar Perosa; SKF 
Cuscinetti Speciali; SKF Cuscinetti; RFT
Torrington--The Torrington Company

Other Abbreviations

COP--Cost of Production
COM--Cost of Manufacturing
CV--Constructed Value
ESP--Exporter's Sales Price
FMV--Foreign Market Value
HM--Home Market
POR--Period of Review
PP--Purchase Price
USP--United States Price

AFBs I--Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 31692 (July 11, 1991)
AFBs II--Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360 (June 24, 1992)
AFBs III--Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 
1993)

Comments and Responses

    Comment 1: Meter noted in its Section B questionnaire response that 
it did not incur any warranty expense during the POR, yet the 
Department improperly deducted warranty expenses.
    Federal-Mogul responds that, while Meter claimed to have incurred 
no warranty expenses during this POR, Meter's historical U.S. warranty 
experience suggests that the absence of warranty expenses is 
improbable. Given the fact that Meter claimed to have incurred such 
expenses in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and the first four months of 1992, 
as well as after the POR, Federal-Mogul urges the Department to resort 
to extra-period warranty expenses as BIA. Furthermore, Federal-Mogul 
argues that the assignment and use of U.S. warranty expenses as an 
adjustment to CV appears to represent a reasonable application of BIA 
for purposes of quantifying a known, but unreported selling expense 
directly related to Meter's U.S. sales.
    Department's Position: The adjustment for warranty expenses 
included in our preliminary calculation was a clerical error. Meter 
reported no warranty expenses on U.S. sales during this POR, and there 
is no evidence that such expenses were incurred during the POR. 
Therefore, we have not imputed warranty expenses and have not deducted 
these expenses for the final results.
    Comment 2: Federal-Mogul notes that Meter limited its reported 
direct selling expense (DSE) for CV to its imputed credit expense, 
which Meter calculated by applying to the COM a percentage factor based 
on its short-term interest rate and the average number of days from 
shipment to payment. Federal-Mogul claims that this methodology 
understates the expense because the percentage factor should be 
multiplied by the sale price, i.e., the value on which credit would be 
extended in the HM. Federal-Mogul adds that by understating this 
portion of the general expense element of CV, it also understates the 
profit element, which Meter quantified as eight percent of materials, 
labor and general expenses. Federal-Mogul argues that the Department 
should increase Meter's reported DSE by the ratio of Meter's total 
sales to its cost of goods sold (COGS). The revised DSE should then be 
combined with the revised G&A expense amounts and the other elements of 
Meter's general expenses for CV, and Meter's statutory profit should 
also be recalculated accordingly.
    Department's Position: We agree with Federal-Mogul that Meter's 
methodology for calculating its imputed credit expense for CV was 
flawed, and that the percentage factor should be multiplied by the sale 
price. In the absence of HM sale prices, we calculated a ratio of 
Meter's total sales to its COGS from Meter's 1992 financial statements, 
and multiplied that ratio by Meter's reported DSE. We used the revised 
DSE to recalculate G&A expenses and Meter's profit.
    Comment 3: Federal-Mogul argues that in quantifying its reported 
G&A expenses for CV, Meter netted out negative expense amounts for 
``Net Gain on Foreign Exchange'' and ``Customs Reimbursement.'' These 
amounts are attributable only to purchases by foreign 
[[Page 10962]] customers and merchandise exported by Meter. Since the 
statute requires that the general expenses included in CV be those 
``usually reflected in sales which are made by producers in the country 
of exportation,'' no reduction in Meter's G&A expenses may be made for 
gains on foreign exchange or for customs reimbursement.
    Meter argues that reported G&A expenses were taken directly from 
its audited financial statements and allocated based on cost of sales. 
Meter contends that it is standard Department practice not to eliminate 
certain expenses from G&A that are unrelated to subject merchandise or 
a particular market. Instead, the Department treats G&A as general 
expenses of the company as a whole.
    Department's Position: We agree in part with Federal-Mogul. Meter's 
``Foreign Exchange Gain or Loss'' relates to trade accounts receivable 
on export sales transactions. At verification we found that the 
``Customs Reimbursement'' related to returned merchandise. Accordingly 
both of the above items are directly related to the company's sales 
revenues, not G&A expenses, and therefore were excluded from the G&A 
calculation.
    Comment 4: Federal-Mogul argues that Meter understated its factory 
overhead cost for CV as outlined in the cost verification report. 
Therefore, the Department must adjust Meter's submitted fixed overhead 
costs in order to accurately compute CV for subject merchandise.
    Meter argues that the methodology it used to report factory 
overhead expenses was the same methodology the Department directed 
Meter to use in the second review. The Department should not penalize 
Meter for using an incorrect allocation methodology which the 
Department suggested in the first place. Therefore, resorting to BIA, 
as suggested by Federal-Mogul, would be unreasonable.
    Department's Position: It was not Meter's fixed overhead costs but 
rather Meter's submitted variable overhead costs that were understated. 
Variable costs were understated due to the fact that Meter 
inappropriately allocated these costs on the basis of total hours 
incurred to produce all subject merchandise rather than the hours 
incurred to produce only the U.S. merchandise. Therefore, we adjusted 
Meter's submitted variable overhead costs in order to appropriately 
capture all costs.
    Comment 5: Federal-Mogul notes that during the POR, Meter relocated 
its production facilities. Federal-Mogul contends that Meter should 
have submitted separate manufacturing costs for each facility that 
produced subject merchandise during the POR. Petitioner argues that 
since Meter did not submit facility-specific manufacturing costs, the 
Department should reject submitted weighted-average grinding and 
assembly labor rates and, as BIA, use the higher of the grinding and 
assembly rates experienced at each facility.
    Meter argues that the Department did not ask for separate CV data 
for its labor rates in the old and new facilities. Furthermore, Meter 
argues that it complied with the Department's regulations in submitting 
weighted-average costs to account for different production facilities 
being used in the same POR.
    Department's Position: We agree with Meter. It is our policy that 
if a respondent produces subject merchandise at more than one facility, 
the reported COM should be the weighted-average manufacturing costs 
from all facilities. The costs reported by Meter properly reflect the 
costs of both facilities.
    Comment 6: Federal-Mogul contests Meter's claim that each of 
Meter's model numbers reported in the company's HM database represents 
a unique product. According to Federal-Mogul, certain models in Meter's 
HM database are reported to be in different families, but the models 
are identical in all family criteria, and therefore, these models 
should be in the same family. In addition, Federal-Mogul states that 
two other HM models vary insignificantly from reported U.S. models in 
one criterion. For these reasons, Federal-Mogul argues, the Department 
should not accept Meter's claim that there are no HM matches for any 
U.S. sales.
    Meter claims that it correctly utilized the matching methodology 
prescribed by the Department and such methodology accurately reflects 
Meter's business and production processes.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Federal-Mogul. When we 
reviewed Meter's family designations we found two U.S. models with 
identical family characteristics that had been assigned different 
family designations. Likewise, we found two HM models which should have 
been given the same family designation but were not. However, in no 
instance were any HM models identical or similar to U.S. models based 
on our criteria for determining such or similar merchandise. Therefore, 
these errors did not affect these results.
    We also disagree with Federal-Mogul's argument that 
``insignificant'' variations in family matching characteristics, 
between HM and U.S. models, should have been disregarded. The U.S. and 
HM models in question were not identical in all characteristics. 
Furthermore, we consider a bearing sold in the HM to be similar to a 
U.S. model when the eight characteristics outlined in our questionnaire 
are identical. Because these eight characteristics were not identical 
for these bearings, we do not consider these bearings to be identical 
or similar matches.
    Comment 7: FAG-Italy contends that the Department's assessment rate 
methodology is flawed, and states that the Department acted contrary to 
law in basing assessment rates on the Customs entered values of those 
sales reviewed by the Department for the POR, because the sales 
actually reviewed by the Department for the POR may have involved 
merchandise entered before the POR. Instead, FAG-Italy claims that the 
Department should base assessment rates on the Customs entered values 
of merchandise actually entered during the POR, as submitted by 
respondent. FAG-Italy maintains that the Department should determine 
assessment rates by dividing total antidumping duties due (calculated 
as the difference between statutory FMV and statutory USP for the sales 
reported for the POR) by the entered values of the merchandise actually 
entered during the POR (not by the entered values of the merchandise 
actually sold during the POR). FAG-Italy argues that the Department's 
current methodology can lead to a substantial overcollection of dumping 
duties.
    Both Torrington and Federal-Mogul argue that the Department's 
methodology is valid. Torrington notes that the Department concluded 
that the current methodology is reasonable and that it constitutes an 
appropriate use of the Department's discretion to implement sampling 
and averaging techniques as provided for in section 777A of the Tariff 
Act. See AFBs I at 31694. Torrington states that since the U.S. sales 
used to calculate the dumping margins are only a sample of the total 
U.S. sales during the POR, application of FAG-Italy's proposed 
methodology would lead to substantial undercollection of antidumping 
duties, unless the Department adjusts that methodology to take into 
account all U.S. sales during the POR.
    Torrington also states that both the Department's current 
methodology and FAG-Italy's proposed methodology are deficient in that 
neither method ``ties entries to sales.'' Torrington proposes two 
methods for dealing with the problem of reviewed sales that do not 
match to particular entries during the POR. First, Torrington suggests 
that the Department review entries rather than sales. Torrington points 
out that this [[Page 10963]] method is not ideal because it could place 
the Department in the position of reviewing entries made during the POR 
that contained merchandise that was sold after the POR. Second, 
Torrington proposes that the Department require respondents to submit 
adequate information to trace each entry directly to the sale in the 
United States. Torrington observes that at present this method would be 
impossible because the administrative record in this review does not 
permit tracing each sale to the entry.
    Federal-Mogul states that the Department's methodology is logical 
because it establishes a link between the values calculated on the 
basis of the sales analyzed and the actual assessment values over time 
and, therefore, avoids the distortions that FAG's alternative would 
engender.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the FAG-Italy. As stated in 
AFBs III (at 39737), section 751 of the Tariff Act requires that the 
Department calculate the amount by which the FMV exceeds the USP and 
assess antidumping duties on the basis of that amount. However, there 
is nothing in the statute that dictates how the actual assessment rate 
is to be determined from that amount.
    In accordance with section 751, we calculated the difference 
between FMV and USP (the dumping margin) for all reported U.S. sales. 
For PP sales we have calculated assessment rates based on the total of 
these differences for each importer divided by the total number of 
units sold to that importer. Therefore, each importer is only liable 
for the duties related to its entries. In ESP cases, we generally 
cannot tie sales to specific entries. In addition, the calculation of 
specific antidumping duties for every entry made during the POR is 
impossible where dumping margins have been based on sampling, even if 
all sales could be tied to specific entries. Hence, for ESP sales, in 
order to obtain an accurate assessment of antidumping duties on all 
entries during the POR, we have expressed the difference between FMV 
and USP as a percentage of the entered value of the examined sales for 
each exporter/importer (ad valorem rates). We will direct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties by applying that 
percentage to the entered value of each of that importer's entries of 
subject merchandise under the relevant order during the POR.
    This approach is equivalent to dividing the aggregate dumping 
margins, i.e., the difference between statutory FMV and statutory USP 
for all sales reviewed, by the aggregate USP value of those sales and 
adjusting the result by the average difference between USP and entered 
value for those sales. While we are aware that the entered value of 
sales during the POR is not necessarily equal to the entered value of 
entries during the POR, use of entered value of sales as the basis of 
the assessment rate permits the Department to collect a reasonable 
approximation of the antidumping duties that would have been determined 
if we had reviewed those sales of merchandise actually entered during 
the POR.
    Comment 8: Federal-Mogul argues that the Department should disallow 
any additional credit expenses attributed to late payments made by SKF-
Italy's HM customers. Citing Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 824 
F. Supp. 223 (1993), Federal-Mogul argues that, since COS adjustments 
are only allowed for those factors which affect price or value, 
additional credit expenses incurred from a purchaser's unexpected 
failure to pay within the agreed-upon period cannot affect the price 
which was set specifically in contemplation of payment being made at 
the end of the agreed-upon credit period. While Federal-Mogul 
acknowledges that SKF-Italy submitted an upward adjustment to FMV which 
reflects interest revenue collected from customers due to late 
payments, it asserts that this does not properly offset the late 
payment credit expenses since the interest revenue was calculated using 
an allocation while the additional credit expenses are transaction 
specific.
    SKF-Italy contends that its credit expense calculations, which are 
based on the actual payment date, are consistent with Departmental 
policy. SKF-Italy cites the Department's position in Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review; Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and 
Tube Products from Turkey, 55 FR 42230, 42231 (1990), and Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain Tapered Journal 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Italy, 49 FR 2278, 2279-80 
(1984), to support its position. SKF-Italy states that interest revenue 
is a separate COS which has been verified and accepted by the 
Department in each of the three prior administrative reviews.
    Department's Position: The Department disagrees with Federal-Mogul. 
Consistent with Departmental policy, we adjust for credit expenses 
based on sale-specific reporting of actual shipment and payment dates. 
See AFBs I at 31724. This policy recognizes the fact that all customers 
do not always pay according to the agreed terms of payment and that 
respondent is aware of this fact when setting its price. Therefore, it 
would be inappropriate to make a COS adjustment for credit based 
entirely on the agreed terms of payment, since it would not take into 
account all of the circumstances surrounding a sale.
    Comment 9: Torrington contends that, in the recalculation of COP 
for SKF-Italy, the Department inadvertently excluded research and 
development (R&D) expenses.
    According to SKF-Italy, R&D expenses were included in the 
recalculated general and administrative (G&A) expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree with SKF-Italy that its R&D 
expenses were included in the revised G&A expenses included in the 
recalculation of COP.
    Comment 10: Torrington argues that the Department should reject 
FAG-Italy's cost data because FAG-Italy provided costs for only 
completed bearings and not for the individual material elements as 
required by the questionnaire.
    FAG-Italy argues that its cost responses were accurate and 
acceptable as reported because its model-specific COPs and CVs were 
correctly reported in accordance with Departmental precedent.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. We have accepted 
FAG-Italy's cost data in this format for this review. Also, petitioners 
have provided no basis for the Department to reject FAG-Italy's cost 
responses.
    Comment 11: Torrington argues that the Department's decision to 
treat SKF-Italy's early payment cash discounts as a direct expense is 
inconsistent with Departmental practice and is an error as a matter of 
law. Torrington notes that verification of SKF-Italy's cash discounts 
revealed that, for at least one sale examined, certain discounts did 
not fall within the range of discounts SKF submitted in its original 
response describing its early payment cash discount program. Torrington 
contends that the Department's practice is to require that discounts be 
part of a respondents standard business practice and not intended to 
avoid potential antidumping duty liability. Torrington argues that if 
the discounts offered in the HM are not made pursuant to specified 
terms contemplated at the time of sale, they should be disallowed 
because they could be designed to reduce the HM price and dumping 
margins found. Torrington asserts that, based on the findings at 
verification, the Department should reject SKF-Italy's HM cash 
discounts offered on the basis of terms of payment since they cannot be 
deemed reliable. At the very least, Torrington maintains, the 
Department [[Page 10964]] should eliminate any discounts granted to 
customers which are greater than the range of discounts described by 
SKF-Italy in its original response.
    SKF-Italy maintains that the Department satisfactorily verified 
that customers received discounts as specified in the payment terms set 
forth in SKF-Italy's invoices. According to SKF-Italy, Torrington's 
statements pertain to the Department's verification of one of its sales 
traces. SKF-Italy asserts that a complete examination of this sale 
reveals that, consistent with its reporting methodology, SKF-Italy did 
not claim a cash discount for this HM transaction. Accordingly, SKF-
Italy asserts that Torrington's discussion of this issue is pointless. 
Furthermore, SKF-Italy contends that Torrington is incorrect in arguing 
that only cash discounts granted according to specified terms 
contemplated at the date of sale are allowed. SKF-Italy claims that by 
reporting only actual cash discounts in both the HM and the United 
States, it has remained consistent with Departmental practice as 
outlined in the questionnaire.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner that discounts 
should be part of a respondent's standard business practice and are not 
intended to avoid potential antidumping duty liability. However, our HM 
verification findings do not support petitioner's conclusions that SKF-
Italy's reported cash discounts were not made pursuant to the discount 
program outlined in its response.
    While verifying SKF-Italy's HM sales response, we found one sale in 
which SKF-Italy had booked the difference between the amount due and 
the amount paid by the customer as a cash discount. This occurred 
despite the fact that, pursuant to SKF-Italy's cash discount program, 
the customer did not qualify for a cash discount. However, in 
accordance with its reporting methodology for its discount program, 
SKF-Italy did not claim a cash discount on this sale in the response 
submitted to the Department. Our further examination of SKF-Italy's 
cash discounts confirmed that SKF-Italy's reported cash discounts were 
made pursuant to the terms listed on the sales invoice. Furthermore, we 
examined SKF-Italy's entire HM sales listing and found no cash 
discounts that exceeded the discount program outlined in the response. 
Therefore, we have accepted SKF-Italy's cash discounts for these final 
results.
    Comment 12: Torrington argues that the Department's preliminary 
decision to deny FAG-Italy an adjustment for 1993 HM rebates based on 
the fact that FAG-Italy failed to report either actual or estimated 
1993 U.S. corporate rebates is insufficient. Torrington argues that 
FAG-Italy's failure to report 1993 corporate rebates is a fundamental 
deficiency which calls for the application of a ``second-tier'' BIA to 
those U.S. transactions in which FAG-Italy failed to properly report a 
corporate rebate. Torrington contends that the Department's preliminary 
response may reward FAG-Italy for its failure to report 1993 U.S. 
corporate rebates if the HM rebates denied do not apply to the same 
types of sales as those found in the U.S. market or are not of the same 
magnitude as the U.S. corporate rebates which went unreported. 
Torrington argues that, according to FAG-Italy's responses, the 
discount program in the HM more closely resembles U.S. corporate 
rebates than the HM rebates denied by the Department. Finally, 
Torrington asserts that when deciding what BIA approach to use for the 
final results, the Department should also consider the fact the FAG 
never clearly stated in its responses that it had not reported 
estimated 1993 corporate rebates.
    FAG-Italy asserts that its rebates were accurately reported given 
the nature of the rebate programs in each market and that the use of 
BIA is unwarranted. The companies reported estimated 1993 rebates 
differently for the HM and U.S. markets because clear differences exist 
between their HM and U.S. rebate programs. Therefore, the Department 
erred in denying rebate adjustments in the HM on 1993 sales in order to 
remain consistent with FAG-US' methodology of not reporting 1993 
rebates.
    Department's Position: We agree with Torrington that disallowing an 
adjustment for FAG-Italy's estimated 1993 HM rebates is not the most 
appropriate means to account for respondent's failure to report 
estimated 1993 U.S. rebates. Accordingly, as BIA for these final 
results we used the highest 1992 U.S. corporate rebate rate to 
calculate corporate rebates for 1993 U.S. sales to customers that 
received rebates in 1992. We also made adjustments to FMV for estimated 
1993 HM rebates as reported by respondents.
    Comment 13: Torrington notes that changes to FAG-Italy's packing 
labor and material expense factors outlined in the analysis memo were 
not included in the margin program used to calculate the preliminary 
results. In addition, Torrington contends that the exchange rate factor 
was applied twice to the adjustment for marine insurance.
    FAG-Italy contends that the preliminary computer program does 
contain the appropriate adjustment factors for its U.S. packing labor 
and material expenses. Additionally, FAG-Italy notes that the double 
application of the exchange rate to the adjustment for marine insurance 
was necessary to correct a conversion error committed by FAG-Italy in 
its computer response.
    Department's Position: We agree with FAG-Italy. We included in the 
margin program the necessary corrections to FAG-Italy's packing 
expenses. In addition, we intentionally applied the exchange rate to 
the marine insurance adjustment twice to compensate for an exchange 
rate error committed in FAG-Italy's submitted data.
    Comment 14: Federal-Mogul asserts that the Department should 
consider the expenses associated with a bonded warehouse maintained by 
SKF-Italy to accommodate sales to one U.S. customer as movement 
expenses and remove the expenses directly from the U.S. price. Federal-
Mogul disagrees with the position taken by the Department in earlier 
reviews that characterized SKF-Italy's bonded warehouse expenses as 
indirect selling expenses because they were incurred prior to the date 
of sale. Federal-Mogul maintains that according to the CIT decision in 
Nihon Cement Co., Ltd. v. United States, 17 CIT______, Slip Op. 93-80 
at 40 (1993), these warehousing expenses should be considered movement 
expenses because the subject merchandise is merely residing in the 
warehouse incident to bringing them from Italy to SKF-Italy's U.S. 
customer. Citing Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago (48 FR 
43206, 43208), and NTN Bearing Corporation of America v. United States, 
14 CIT 623, 747 F. Supp. 726 (1990), Federal-Mogul argues that since 
the pre-sale warehousing expenses are directly related to sales to the 
one customer served by the warehouse they qualify as movement expenses 
and should be removed directly from the U.S. price.
    SKF-Italy notes that the Department rejected a similar argument in 
a prior review (see AFBs II at 28398) and contends that no valid reason 
has been presented to support a different result. SKF-Italy maintains 
that according to the CIT's definition of warehousing expense in the 
Nihon Cement case cited by Federal-Mogul (``expenses associated with 
putting aside merchandise in a structure or room for use when 
needed''), the expenses associated with SKF's FTZ bonded warehouse 
constitute warehousing expenses and not movement expenses. SKF-Italy 
further argues that the number of customers served by a warehouse does 
not in any way transform the expenses into movement expenses. 
[[Page 10965]] 
    Department's Position: We disagree with Federal-Mogul. SKF-Italy's 
decision to position its merchandise in an SKF warehouse in close 
proximity to a customer does not necessarily indicate that the 
warehousing expense is directly related to sales. Unlike the situation 
in Carbon Steel Wire Rod, where merchandise was shipped pursuant to 
specific orders, the record indicates that SKF-Italy stores its 
merchandise in the bonded warehouse in anticipation of future sales. 
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Brass Sheet 
and Strip from the Republic of Korea, 51 FR 40833 (November 10, 1986). 
Although SKF-Italy sells to only one customer from its bonded 
warehouse, the warehousing expenses are incurred prior to date of sale 
and regardless of whether the anticipated sales are made. As a result, 
the warehousing expenses are not directly related to individual sales, 
and the warehousing costs are properly classified as an indirect 
expense. Therefore, in accordance with our decision in AFBs II (at 
28398), we have determined that SKF-Italy's bonded warehousing expenses 
are properly treated as indirect selling expenses (see also Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, 52 FR 30700 
(August 17, 1990); NTN Bearing Corp. of America, American NTN Bearing 
Manufacturing Corp., and NTN Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd. v. U.S. and Timken 
Co., 747 F. Supp. 726 (CIT 1990)).
    Comment 15: SKF-Italy argues that the Department eliminated a 
number of HM transactions based on the erroneous conclusion that such 
transactions reflected preferential prices to related parties. SKF-
Italy asserts that there is no direct or indirect ownership or control 
between the companies, and that the relationship between the parties 
noted by the Department at verification has no influence on price. SKF-
Italy also states that the Department's comparison of average prices is 
insufficient to test the arm's-length nature of the transactions 
because the Department included companies with no common ownership 
interests and companies with ownership interests of less than 20 
percent, did not individually analyze the companies involved, and did 
not consider the relative quantities involved.
    Torrington maintains that the Department will use sales to related 
parties as a basis for FMV only if it is satisfied that the price is 
comparable to the price at which the producer or reseller sold such or 
similar merchandise to unrelated parties, and that the only valid 
criterion in this determination is price. Torrington argues that there 
is a regulatory presumption that related-party sales should be excluded 
in a calculation of FMV. Federal-Mogul and Torrington state that the 
burden is on the respondent, not the Department, to overcome this 
presumption by demonstrating affirmatively that related-party 
transaction prices are comparable to prices to unrelated parties.
    Torrington also asserts that SKF-Italy has failed to submit any 
data demonstrating that its prices to related and unrelated parties are 
comparable and thus has not met its burden. Torrington and Federal-
Mogul further point out that SKF-Italy has provided no evidence on the 
record regarding any particular related-party sales or the price 
comparability of its related-party sales.
    Department's Position: We disagree with SKF-Italy. 19 CFR 353.45 
provides that the Department ordinarily will include related-party 
sales in the calculation of FMV only if it is satisfied that the sales 
were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., that the prices of such sales 
are comparable to the prices at which the seller sold such or similar 
merchandise to unrelated parties. For purposes of applying this 
provision, section 353.45 also refers to section 771(13) of the Tariff 
Act for the definition of related parties. We preliminarily determined 
that SKF-Italy made HM sales to customers related to them as described 
in section 771(13)(D) of the Tariff Act. Accordingly, we conducted an 
analysis to determine whether these sales were made at arm's-length 
prices. Because we determined that these sales were not made at arm's-
length prices, we excluded them from our calculations of FMV.
    On reexamination of the evidence on the record, however, we 
determined that one of these HM customers in fact did not meet the 
definition of a related party as specified in section 771(13) of the 
Tariff Act. Therefore, for these final results we retained sales to 
this customer SKF-Italy in calculating FMVs and did not include these 
sales in our arm's-length analysis for related-party sales.
    In determining whether prices to related parties are in fact arm's-
length prices, we rely on a comparison of average unrelated-party 
prices for each model to average related-party prices for the same 
models. When average prices to unrelated parties are predominantly 
higher than average prices to related parties for the class or kind of 
merchandise, we disregard sales to related parties for that class or 
kind. Because SKF has provided no evidence to refute our findings that 
the average prices of certain models sold to related parties are not 
comparable to the average prices of these models sold to unrelated 
parties, other than reference to statements by company personnel at 
verification that these companies were not related, we have continued 
to exclude these sales for the final results. See SKF Sverige AB 
Verification Report, February 23, 1994, and Rhone Poulenc Inc. v. 
United States, 899 F. 2d 1185 (Fed Cir. 1990).
    Comment 16: FAG-Italy contends that the Department improperly used 
zero-priced U.S. sample and prototype sales in the calculation of USP 
because such sales are not made in the ordinary course of trade and are 
therefore similar to the type of sales the statute permits the 
Department to exclude in the HM. Additionally, FAG-Italy claims the 
Department is not required to review each and every U.S. sale.
    Alternatively, FAG-Italy argues that if the Department compares the 
U.S. zero-price sample sales to HM sales in which value was received, 
the Department should make a COS adjustment to account for the 
different circumstances under which the sales were made. FAG-Italy 
argues that the Department should adjust FMV in the amount of the 
expenses directly associated with the U.S. sample sale and suggests 
reducing FMV by the amount of the COP of the U.S. sample sale.
    SKF-Italy contends that the Department should have excluded from 
its margin analysis, as outside the ordinary course of trade, two 
Italian prototype products sold into the U.S. market. SKF-Italy claims 
that, based on the commercial, sales and cost data provided in response 
to the Department's questionnaire, SKF-Italy's claim for exclusion 
should be allowed.
    Federal-Mogul and Torrington contend that, in order to assure the 
validity of the Department's sample, the Department must not drop these 
U.S. sample and prototype sales from its analysis. Federal-Mogul and 
Torrington further maintain that the arguments regarding the ordinary 
course of trade are completely irrelevant because the ordinary course 
of trade provision applies only to the calculation of FMV, not USP. 
Petitioners claim that section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act (19 USC 
1675(a)(2)(A)) requires the Department to calculate the amount of duty 
payable on ``each entry of merchandise'' into the United States. 
Torrington states that this provision should be compared with section 
773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act (19 USC 1677b(a)(1)(A)), which requires 
[[Page 10966]] FMV to be calculated on the basis of sales in the 
``ordinary course of trade.''
    Federal-Mogul also rejects the idea of a COS adjustment, arguing 
that the cost to produce the merchandise cannot reasonably be used to 
quantify any difference between a sample sale and a sale with a price 
because the cost to produce the merchandise remains the same whether 
the producer sells it at a profit, sells it at a dumped price, or gives 
it away.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with Federal-Mogul and 
Torrington. As set forth in AFBs II (at 28395), other than for 
sampling, there is neither a statutory nor a regulatory basis for 
excluding any U.S. sales from review. The Department must examine all 
U.S. sales within the POR. See Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review; Color Television Receivers From the Republic of 
Korea, 56 FR 12701, 12709 (March 27, 1991).
    Although we have made COS adjustments as required by section 773 of 
the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 353.56, we disagree with FAG-Italy's argument 
that a further COS adjustment should be made if the U.S. sample sales 
are not excluded from the analysis. This adjustment is not warranted 
under sections 772 and 773 of the Tariff Act. FAG-Italy's argument that 
a COS adjustment should be made when a zero-price U.S. sale is compared 
either to HM sales in which value was received or to CV, which includes 
profit, suggests that a COS adjustment should be made because of the 
marked difference in the prices of the U.S. sale ($0) and the 
comparable HM sale. However, differences in prices do not constitute a 
bona fide difference in the circumstances of sale.
    Furthermore, it would clearly be contrary to the purpose of the 
dumping law to make a COS adjustment in order to compensate for price 
discrimination. Moreover, we do not deduct expenses directly related to 
U.S. sales from FMV either in PP or ESP comparisons. In making COS 
adjustments in PP comparisons, U.S. selling expenses are added to FMV, 
while in ESP comparisons U.S. selling expenses are neither added to nor 
deducted from FMV; they are deducted from USP. Finally, regarding FAG-
Italy's argument that we should use the COP of U.S. merchandise 
(SAMPCOPE) as the basis for such an adjustment, the difmer methodology 
accounts for appropriate differences in merchandise.
    Comment 17: Federal-Mogul asserts that the Department should reject 
SKF-Italy's claim for an upward adjustment to USP for duty drawback. 
First, Federal-Mogul argues that the record contains no evidence that 
SKF-Italy's claimed duty drawback relates to actual import duties paid 
on the contents of exported merchandise. Specifically, Federal-Mogul 
contends that SKF-Italy has provided no evidence to substantiate a link 
between the amount of import duties paid and the amount of duty 
drawback claimed, and that the amount of claimed duty drawback exceeds 
the amount of import duties that SKF-Italy actually paid. In this 
context, Federal-Mogul further contends that SKF-Italy's claimed duty 
drawback adjustment includes not only refunded import duties, but also 
refunded internal taxes, which are not properly included in a duty 
drawback adjustment.
    Furthermore, Federal-Mogul argues that the Department should not 
accept this claim even under its authority to adjust USP for rebated or 
uncollected taxes. According to Federal-Mogul, 19 USC 1677a(d)(1)(C) 
permits an adjustment to USP only for taxes imposed directly upon the 
merchandise. Federal-Mogul asserts, however, that SKF-Italy's claimed 
adjustment includes amounts for taxes imposed both directly and 
indirectly upon the exported merchandise. Therefore, Federal-Mogul 
concludes that SKF-Italy does not qualify for any upward adjustment to 
USP even if its ``duty drawback'' is considered to be a refund of taxes 
by reason of exportation.
    SKF-Italy claims that the duty drawback adjustment it submitted in 
this review remains consistent with its submissions in the previous 
three administrative reviews and the LTFV investigation. Additionally, 
SKF-Italy notes that the Department verified its duty drawback 
adjustment methodology in the second review. According to SKF-Italy, 
the Department should continue to reject Federal-Mogul's argument since 
it lacks any persuasive reasoning which would make the Department 
conclude that its reasoning in prior reviews is not applicable for 
these final results.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Federal-Mogul. As discussed 
in response to the previous comment, we apply a two-pronged test to 
determine whether to grant a respondent's claimed adjustment to USP for 
duty drawback. We applied this test in addressing the issue of SKF-
Italy's claimed duty drawback adjustment in AFBs II. In that review, we 
verified SKF-Italy's duty drawback adjustment and, based on those 
verification findings, accepted the adjustment for the final results 
(see AFBs II at 28420). Thus, we previously have determined that under 
the Italian duty drawback system, a sufficient link exists between the 
amount of duties paid and the amount of duty drawback claimed. We again 
accepted SKF-Italy's reported duty drawback adjustment in AFBs III. 
Because SKF-Italy used the same method to report duty drawback in this 
review as it did in the previous reviews, and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we conclude that SKF-Italy's duty drawback 
claim for this review satisfies both prongs of our test.
    Further, Federal-Mogul's assertion that SKF-Italy's duty drawback 
claim includes amounts for indirect taxes is unsubstantiated. Although 
Federal-Mogul cited the Italian duty drawback statute in support of its 
assertion, it provided no specific evidence that SKF-Italy's duty 
drawback claim included any indirect taxes. Therefore, consistent with 
AFBs I, AFBs II and AFBs III, we have accepted SKF-Italy's duty 
drawback adjustment for these final results.
    Comment 18: FAG-Italy requests that the Department exclude from the 
final margin calculations U.S. sales to related customers which they 
inadvertently reported. FAG-Italy identified the sales in question and 
noted that information already on the record supports its position that 
these sales are to related U.S. customers and therefore should not be 
included in the Department's final margin calculations.
    Torrington contends that such revisions are allowable only where 
the underlying data have been verified and the changes are small. Since 
the modifications have not been verified, Torrington opposes the 
modifications requested by FAG-Italy.
    Department's Position: The customer codes already submitted on the 
record by FAG-Italy support the position that these sales were made to 
related U.S. customers. While the specific sales in question were not 
examined at verification, we did verify randomly-chosen sales made by 
FAG-Italy and found no discrepancies which would undermine our 
confidence in the accuracy of the reported customer codes. We also note 
that FAG-Italy properly reported all subject resales made by related 
customers in the U.S. during the POR.
    We note that the CIT has upheld the Department's authority to 
permit corrections to a respondent's submission where the error is 
obvious from the record, and the Department can determine that the new 
information is correct. See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 798 F. Supp. 721 
(CIT 1992). Adopting Torrington's argument would amount to a rule that 
such corrections can never be made after verification. This is clearly 
[[Page 10967]] inconsistent with our practice and the holdings of the 
CIT.
    FAG-Italy's errors were obvious from the record once brought to our 
attention. It is in accordance with our longstanding practice to 
exclude U.S. sales to related customers in favor of resales by such 
customers to unrelated parties. Therefore, we have removed FAG-Italy's 
sales to related U.S. customers from the margin calculations for these 
final results.
    Comment 19: Torrington asserts that the Department should deny SKF-
Italy's request to revoke the antidumping duty order regarding CRBs. 
Torrington notes that revocation is permissible only if the requesting 
company is unlikely to sell below FMV in the future. Torrington 
contends the circumstances indicate that this is doubtful, since SKF-
Italy is part of a larger multinational organization which has 
preliminarily received dumping margins for CRBs in other countries. 
Furthermore, Torrington contends that the minuscule amount of CRBs sold 
in the U.S. market by SKF-Italy during the POR is not sufficient to 
show a pattern of continued fair pricing and may even indicate a 
fictitious market.
    SKF responds that Torrington has presented no legal basis on which 
to deny revocation. SKF argues that since neither the antidumping law 
nor the Department's regulations mandate a different standard for 
revocation for multinational corporations, Torrington's argument 
concerning SKF's multinational activity for purposes of revocation is 
irrelevant.
    SKF-Italy also contends that even if SKF-Italy's sales could be 
considered minimal, there is nothing in the Department's regulations to 
indicate that minimal sales in a given year would preclude revocation. 
Moreover, SKF-Italy argues that since the level of sales at issue in 
this review is significantly greater than the quantity of sales upon 
which the Department made its initial LTFV determination, and upon 
which the order was based, it should be considered an acceptable level 
on which to base revocation.
    Department's Position: Under 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(i), the Department 
may revoke an order in part if it finds sales at not less than FMV for 
a period of at least three consecutive years. The results in this 
review, combined with the results in the two prior reviews, satisfies 
this requirement for SKF-Italy in the antidumping duty proceeding for 
CRBs. Additionally, the respondent has agreed, pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.25(a)(2)(iii), to the immediate reinstatement of the order if 
circumstances develop indicating that it has resumed dumping the 
subject merchandise. Furthermore, the record, including our 
verification findings, in the past three reviews does not indicate that 
SKF-Italy's U.S. market for CRBs is fictitious. We also find that 
Torrington's argument fails to make the case that SKF-Italy is likely 
to sell below FMV in the future merely because SKF is a multinational 
corporation. Torrington's argument merely points to a possibility of 
evasion by SKF-Italy in the future, and does not present any evidence 
that SKF-Italy is likely to engage in such behavior. If we find 
evidence of evasion, we will take appropriate action. Finally, since 
Torrington has made no other arguments indicating that SKF-Italy is 
likely to resume dumping, we are satisfied that the respondent is not 
likely to sell the merchandise in the future at less than FMV, and we 
agree with respondent that the requirements for revocation have been 
met.
[FR Doc. 95-4616 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P