[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22349-22354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11160]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices
[[Page 22349]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-6-04, A-588-054]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,
Termination in Part, and Intent To Revoke in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative reviews, termination in part, and intent to revoke in
part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner and one respondent,
the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on Tapered Roller
Bearings (TRBs) and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan
(A-588-604), and of the finding on TRS, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Corportae Thereof, from Japan (A-588-054). The review of
the A-588-054 finding covers 3 manufacturers/exporters of the subject
merchandise and 10 resellers/exporters of the subject merchandise to
the United States during the period October 1, 1992 through September
30, 1993. Of these, two firms reported no shipments of the subject
merchandise during the review period. The review of the A-588-604 order
covers 5 manufacturers/exporters, 10 resellers/exporters, and 18
forging producers, and the period October 1, 1992 through September 30,
1993. Of these, five firms reported no shipments of the subject
merchandise during the review period.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference
between the United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Valerie Turoscy or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 18, 1976, the Treasury Department published in the
Federal Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping finding on TRBs from
Japan, and on October 6, 1987, the Department published the antidumping
duty order on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On October 18, 1993 (58 FR
53709), the Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request
an Administrative Review'' for both TRB cases. The petitioner, the
Timken Co. (Timken), and one respondent requested administrative
reviews. We initiated the A-588-054 and A-588-604 administrative
reviews for the period October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993, on
November 17, 1993 (58 FR 60600). The Department has now conducted these
reviews for all firms except Koyo Seiko Company, Ltd. (Koyo), in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Tariff Act). We will publish our preliminary results for this period
with respect to Koyo at a later date.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the A-588-054 finding are sales or entries of
TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter when assembled, including
inner race or cone assemblies and outer races or cups, sold either as a
unit or separately. This merchandise is classified under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30.
Imports covered by the A-588-604 order include TRBs and parts
thereof, finished and unfinished, which are flange, take-up cartridge,
and hanger units incorporating TRBs, and tapered roller housings
(except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without
spindles, whether or not for automotive use. Products subject to the A-
588-054 finding are not included within the scope of this order, except
for those manufactured by NTN Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd. (NTN). This
merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers
8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8482.20.20, 8483.20.80, 8482.91.00, 8484.30.80,
8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 8483.90.60. These HTS item numbers and
those for the A-588-054 finding are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
On February 2, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register its final scope determination regarding Koyo's rough forgings
(60 FR 6519). Because we determined that these forgings were within the
scope of the A-588-604 order on TRBs from Japan, we have considered
such forgings within the scope of the A-588-604 order for these
preliminary review results.
The period of review (POR) for the order and the finding is October
1, 1992 through September 30, 1993. These reviews cover TRB sales by
four TRB manufacturers/exporters (NSK Ltd. (NSK), NTN, Nachi-Fujikoshi
Corporation (Nachi), and Maekawa Bearing Mfg., Co., Ltd. (Maekawa)),
and 10 resellers/exporters (Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda), Fuji Heavy
Industries, Ltd. (Fuji), Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Kawasaki),
Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. (Yamaha), Sumitomo Corporation (Sumitomo),
Itochu Co., Ltd. (Itochu), Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. (Suzuki), Nigata
Converter Co., Ltd. (Nigata), Toyosha Co., Ltd. (Toyosha), and MC
International (MC Int'l)). These reviews also cover U.S. sales of
forgings by NTN and 18 other firms originally identified as Japanese
forging producers (Daido Steel Co., Ltd., Asakawa Screw Co., Ltd., Fuse
Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., Ichiyanagi Tekko, Isshi
Nut Industries, Kawada Tekko, Kinki Maruseo Nut Kogyo Kumiai, Kitazawa
Valve Co., Ltd. (Kitz Corp.), Nittetsu Bolten (Nittetsu), Shiga Bolt,
Shinko Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, Sumikin [[Page 22350]] Seiatsu, Toyo
Valve Co., Unytite Fastener Mfg., Co., Ltd. (Unytite Kogyo), Gotoh Nut
Seisakusho, and Kawada Tekkosho). We are terminating our review for 14
of these 18 firms as described below.
Best Information Available (BIA)
Total BIA
For the purposes of these preliminary results, in accordance with
section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, for several firms we applied a rate
based on BIA. We determined the rate to use as BIA according to the
``two-tiered'' BIA methodology outlined in Antifriction Bearings (Other
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et. al.;
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, Partial
Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of
Antidumping Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900, 10907 (February 28, 1995) (AFBs).
Based on this methodology we used BIA as follows:
1. When a company refused to provide the information requested in
the form required, or otherwise significantly impeded these
proceedings, we used as total BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate
found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the
same country of origin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation
or prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in this
review for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the
same country of origin.
2. When a company substantially cooperated with our requests for
information including, in some cases, verification, but failed to
provide complete or accurate information in a timely manner or in the
form required or was unable to substantiate it, we used as total BIA
the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to that firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation or
a prior administrative review (or, if the firm had never before been
investigated or reviewed, the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation), or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for
any firm for the class or kind of merchandise from the same country of
origin. See AFBs and Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States,
Court No. 94-1112 (June 30, 1994, CAFC).
Thus, for first-tier (non-cooperative) BIA in these reviews we have
used for the A-588-604 review the highest calculated rate for any firm
in the history of the order (i.e., 40.37 percent, the rate for NSK in
the 1988-89 A-588-604 review), and for the A-588-054 review we have
used the highest calculated rate for any firm in the history of the A-
588-054 finding (i.e., 47.63 percent, the rate for Koyo in the 1987-88
A-588-054 review). Listed below is a company-by-company summary of the
total BIA used in these reviews.
A. First-Tier (Non-Cooperative) BIA
(i) Yamaha, Toyosha, Nigata, and Suzuki: None of these firms
responded to our questionnaire in either the A-588-054 or the A-588-604
review. Therefore, based on the above criteria, as first-tier BIA for
each of these firms in the A-588-604 review, we used 40.37 percent, and
for each of these firms in the A-588-054 review, we used 47.63 percent.
(ii) Nachi: Since Nachi did not respond to our questionnaire in the
A-588-604 review, we applied to Nachi a first-tier BIA rate of 40.37
percent in that review.
(iii) Ichiyanagi Tekko, Nittetsu, and Sumikin Seiatsu: These three
forgoing producers, which are involved only in the A-588-604 review,
did not respond to our questionnaire. As a result, for each firm we
used a first-tier BIA rate of 40.37 percent.
B. Second-Tier (Cooperative) BIA
Because Kawasaki submitted a majority of its information in an
untimely manner and because its timely submitted information was an
inadequate basis for analysis, we used a total BIA rate for Kawasaki
for both reviews. However, because Kawasaki was not uncooperative, in
that it supplied the Department with substantive responses to our
questionnaires, we used a second-tier BIA rate. Because the highest
rate for Kawasaki in any previous A-588-054 review was zero (0.0)
percent and Kawasaki was not party to the LTFV investigation, we have
used the highest calculated rate for any firm from this A-588-054
review as total BIA for Kawasaki (NSK's 11.67 percent). Because
Kawasaki has never before been party to an A-588-604 review or the A-
588-604 LTFV investigation, we have used, as cooperative BIA for
Kawasaki in the A-588-604 review, the A-588-604 ``all others'' rate
from the LTFV investigation of 36.52 percent.
No Shipments
Resellers
Three resellers, Honda, Fuji, and MC In'tl, made no shipments of A-
588-604 subject merchandise during the review period. Furthermore, none
of these three firms was a party to the A-588-604 LTFV investigation or
any prior reviews of the A-588-604 case. Because their shipments have
never been reviewed individually, we have not assigned an individual
rate to any of these firms for the A-588-604 review. If any of these
firms begin shipping subject merchandise at some future date, the
entries will receive deposit rates attributable to the manufacturer(s)
of the subject merchandise.
Manufacturers
Because Nachi and Maekawa did not make any shipments of merchandise
subject to the A-588-054 case during the review period, their
calculated rates from the last period in which they made shipments will
continue to apply to A-588-054 merchandise (18.07 percent for Nachi and
zero (0) percent for Maekawa). Maekawa also made no shipments of
merchandise subject to the A-588-604 case during the review period. We
have not assigned an individual rate to Maekawa, which was not a party
to the LTFV investigation or any prior review of the A-588-604 case. If
Maekawa, a manufacturer, were to begin shipping at some future date,
the entries would receive the A-588-604 LTFV ``all others'' rate of
36.52 percent.
Concerning those firms described in Timken's initiation request as
possible forging producers, only one of the 18 firms, Daido Steel Co.,
Ltd. (Daido), reported that it actually produced forgings used in the
manufacture of TRBs. However, Daido also indicated that it did not sell
these forgings to the United States, but rather only sold such
merchandise to companies in Japan. Because this firm had no U.S.
shipments of this merchandise during the review period and has never
been involved in an A-588-604 review or the LTFV investigation, we have
not assigned an individual rate to Daido for the A-588-604 reveiw. If
Daido were to begin shipping at some future date, the entries would
receive the A-588-604 LTFV ``all others'' rate of 36.52 percent.
Termination in Part
Twelve of the 18 producers with forging operations reported that
they did not produce the forgings which have been found to be within
the scope of the order, but rather only produced non-scope merchandise
such as nuts, bolts, and valves. As a result, because these firms do
not produce or sell subject merchandise, we are terminating the A-588-
604 review for the following 12 firms: Asakawa Screw Co., Ltd., Fuse
Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., Isshi Nut Industries,
Kawada Tekko, Kinki Maruseo Nut Kogyo Kumiai, Kitz Corp., Shiga Bolt,
Shinko [[Page 22351]] Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, Toyo Valve Co., and
Unytite Kogyo.
We initiated reviews (58 FR 60600) of two other supposed forging
producers, Kawada Tekkosho and Gotoh Nut Seisakusho. We are also
terminating the A-588-604 review of these two firms because Kawada
Tekkosho is not a separate firm but simply another name for Kawada
Tekko, and, as indicated in a December 1, 1993, letter from the
petitioner, Gotoh Nut Seisakusho is no longer in business.
Our termination of the A-588-604 review for these 14 firms does not
constitute a revocation of these firms from the order. If any of the
above 14 firms ever becomes a manufacturer/exporter of TRBs or forgings
used in the production of TRBs, its sales to the United States will be
subject to the order.
Resellers/Shippers
Of the 11 resellers covered by these reviews, we have determined
that Sumitomo and Itochu are mere shippers of the subject merchandise
and do not warrant their own margins. Itochu and Sumitomo contract with
larger Japanese companies/suppliers to ship TRBs from the suppliers to
the suppliers' U.S. subsidiaries. Because these supplies knew at the
time of sale to Itochu and Sumitomo that these TRBs were destined for
the United States, and because Itochu and Sumitomo had no influence
over the sales prices or quantities of these shipments, we have
determined that the suppliers' rates, and not unique Sumitomo or Itochu
rates, should be applied for cash deposit and appraisement purposes.
See Antifriction bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
parts thereof from Germany, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 56 FR 31692, 31747 (July 11, 1991).
USP
The Department used exporter's sales price (ESP) for NSK, NTN,
Honda, Fuji, and MC Int'l, and purchase price, as defined in section
772 of the Tariff Act, for NTN's sales to Caterpillar and certain of
Fuji's sales to calculate USP. ESP was based on the packed, delivered
price to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made
adjustments, where applicable, for foreign pre-sale inland freight,
foreign inland freight, air freight, ocean freight, marine insurance,
export inspection fees, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight,
U.S. duty, commissions to unrelated parties, U.S. credit, discounts,
rebates, sales allowances, billing adjustments, technical service
expenses, warranties, packing expenses incurred in the United States,
and indirect selling expenses (which include inventory carrying costs,
warehouse transfer expenses, advertising, other U.S.-incurred selling
expenses, and export selling expenses). For NTN, we also adjusted ESP
for value added in further manufacturing, including an allocation of
profit earned on U.S. sales.
NTN`s and Fuji's purchase price sales were based on the sales price
to the unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made adjustments to
purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign pre-sale inland freight,
foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, brokerage and
handling, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, export inspection fees, and
rebates,
We also adjusted USP (purchase price and ESP) for taxes in
accordance with our practice as outlined in Silicomanganese from
Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994 (Silicomanganese).
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
FMV
Because the home market was viable for NTN, NSK, Honda, and Fuji,
we compared U.S. sales with sales of such or similar merchandise in the
home market.
In general, the Department relies on monthly weighted-average
prices in the calculation of FMV. In consideration of the significant
volume of home market sales involved in these reviews, consistent with
section 777A of the Tariff Act, we used an average of respondents' home
market sales for each review period. To determine whether an annual
average was representative of the transactions under consideration, we
performed the following three-step test (see AFBs). First, we compared
the annual weighted-average home market price for each model with each
of its 12 monthly weighted-average prices for each review period. We
calculated the proportion of each model's sales for which the annual
weighted-average price did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent
from the monthly weighted-average prices. Second, we compared the
volume of sales of all models for which annual weighted-average prices
did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent from the monthly
weighted-average prices with the total volume of sales of TRBs. If the
annual weighted-average price of at least 90 percent of the sales of
TRBs for a given firm did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent
from the monthly weighted-average price, we considered the annual
weighted-average price to be representative of the transactions under
consideration for that firm. Third, we tested whether there was any
correlation between fluctuations in price and time for each model.
Where the correlation coefficient was less than 0.05 (where a
coefficient approaching 1.0 indicates a direct relation between price
and time), we concluded that there was no significant relation between
price and time. Because the annual weighted-average prices for TRBs
sold by NSK, Fuji, MC Int'l and NTN in each case during the review
period did not vary meaningfully from the monthly weighted-average
prices of sales, and because there was no correlation between price and
time, we considered the annual weighted-average prices for each review
period to be representative of the transactions under consideration.
Therefore, we calculated a single FMV for each model sold by NSK, MC
Int'l, and NTN on an annual weighted-average basis.
Because Honda sold all its TRBs to all its customers in the home
market according to a single price list (which changed only once during
the review period), it was unnecessary for us to calculate a single FMV
for each model sold by Honda on an annual weighted-average basis.
Based on petitioner's allegations and the Department's previous
determinations of sales made below the cost of production (COP), in
accordance with section 773(b) on the Tariff Act, we determined that
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that, for this
review period, NTN and NSK made sales of subject merchandise in the
home market at prices less than the COP. As a result, we investigated
whether NTN or NSK sold such or similar merchandise in the home market
at prices below the COP. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c) we
calculated COP for NTN and NSK as the sum of reported materials, labor,
factory overhead, and general expenses, and compared COP to home market
prices, net of price adjustments and discounts.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in determining
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we
examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices
which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time
in the normal course of trade.
In accordance with our normal practice, for each model for which
less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the
POR were [[Page 22352]] made at prices below the COP, we included all
sales of the model in the computation of FMV. For each model for which
10 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales
during the POR were priced below the merchandise's COP, we excluded
form the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were priced
below the merchandise's COP, provided that these below-cost sales were
made over an extended period of time. For each model for which 90
percent or more of the home market sales during the POR were priced
below the COP and were made over an extended period of time, we
disregarded all sales of that model in our calculation and, in
accordance with section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the
constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, for
example, Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, to
determine whether sales below cost had been made over an extended
period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below
cost occurred for a particular model to the number of months in which
that model was sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months,
we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost
sales of that model in each month sold. If a model was sold in three or
more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were
sales below cost in at least three of the months in which the model was
sold. We used CV as the basis for FMV when an insufficient number of
home market sales were made at prices above COP. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December 8, 1993).
In the case of NTN and NSK, we compared each firm's individual home
market prices with annual COPs. We tested each firm's home market
prices on a model-specific basis and found, for each firm, (1) Models
where more than 90 percent of the home market sales were made at below-
COP prices and were made over an extended period of time, (2) other
models where between 10 and 90 percent of home market sales were made
at below-COP prices and over an extended period of time, and (3) yet
other models where less than 10 percent of home market sales were made
at below-COP prices. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from Korea, 56 FR 16306 (April 22, 1991).
Because NTN and NSK provided no indication that their below-cost
sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the
``between 10 and 90 percent'' categories were at prices that would
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time and in
the normal course of trade, we disregarded those sales of models within
the ``10 to 90 percent'' category which were made below cost over an
extended period of time. In addition, as a result of our COP test for
home market sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent''
category, we based FMV on CV for all U.S. sales for which there were
insufficient sales of the comparison home market model at or above COP.
Finally, where we found, for certain of NTN's and NSK's models, home
market sales for which less than 10 percent were made at below-COP
prices, we used all home market sales of these models in our
comparisons.
We used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were
insufficient sales of the comparison home market model at or above COP,
and for those U.S. sales for which there was no sale of such or similar
merchandise in the home market. We calculated CV in accordance with
section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We included the cost of materials,
labor, and factory overhead in our calculations. Where the actual
selling, general, and administrative expense (SG&A) were less than the
statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of manufacture (COM), we
calculated SG&A as 10 percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were
less than the statutory minimum of 8 percent of the COM plus SG&A, we
calculated profit as 8 percent of the sum of COM plus SG&A. Based on
our verification of NSK's cost response, we adjusted NSK's reported COP
and CV to reflect the actual COP of related-party inputs.
In accordance with section 773 of the Tariff Act, for those U.S.
models for which we were able to find a home market such or similar
match that had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on
the packed, F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered prices to related
purchasers (where an arm's-length relationship was demonstrated) and
unrelated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments, where
applicable, for post-sale inland freight, and for home market direct
expenses such as credit, commissions, and warranties. We also made
adjustments for discounts, rebates and differences in physical
characteristics. In addition, for comparison to ESP sales, we adjusted
FMV for indirect selling expenses (which include advertising, inventory
carrying costs, pre-sale inland freight, and other selling expenses) in
the home market, limiting the home market indirect selling expense
deductions by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the
United States. In situations where a U.S. sale with no commission was
compared to a home market sale with a commission, the Department
limited the deduction from FMV for home market indirect selling
expenses by the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses less the home
market commission amount, rather than the entire amount of U.S.
indirect expenses. In cases where a commission was granted on the U.S.
sale only, we increased the amount classified as U.S. indirect selling
expenses by the amount of the U.S. commission for comparison to home
market indirect selling expenses. The deduction from FMV for home
market indirect selling expenses was limited by the amount of the
enhanced U.S. indirect selling expenses. We also adjusted FMV for the
Japanese consumption tax in accordance with our decision in
Silicomanganese, and, after decucting home market packing, we added to
FMV packing expenses incurred in Japan for U.S. sales.
For comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of
the Tariff Act, we added to FMV, where applicable, U.S. packing,
credit, and direct advertising. We adjusted FMV for the Japanese
consumption tax in accordance with our decision in Silicomanganese, and
for comparison to both ESP and purchase price sales, NTN requested and
received a level-of-trade adjustment to FMV based on certain home
market indirect expenses.
Because MC Int'l did not sell TRBs in the home market during the
review period, but rather only exported TRBs to the United States and
other third-country markets, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of
the Tariff Act, we determined that, for MC Int'l, the home market was
not viable. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.48, for MC Int'l we based
FMV on third-country sales.
In selecting the appropriate third-country market to use for
comparison purposes, we first determined which third-country markets
had adequate volumes of sales within the meaning of 19 CFR
353.49(b)(1). We determined that the volume of sales to a third-country
market was adequate if the quantity of sales of such or similar
merchandise equalled or exceeded five percent of the quantity of sales
in the United States. We then selected the third-country market with
the largest volume of sales, and with an [[Page 22353]] organization
and development most like that of the United States, as the most
appropriate market for comparison, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.49(b)(2) and 19 CFR 353.49(b)(3). Therefore, for MC Int'l's sales
of TRBs to the first unrelated customer in the United States, we based
FMV on MC Int'l's sales in Germany. In addition, we applied to MC
Int'l's German sales the identical price stability test described above
and because the annual weighted-average prices for TRBs sold by MC
Int'l in Germany did not vary meaningfully from the monthly weighted-
average prices of sales, and because there was no correlation between
price and time, we considered the annual weighted-average German prices
to be representative of the transactions under consideration.
Therefore, we calculated a single FMV for each model sold by MC Int'l
in Germany on an annual weighted-average basis.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Intent To Revoke
As a result of these preliminary results, we intend to revoke the
A-588-054 finding with respect to Honda. Based on the fact that we
found no margins for Honda's sales for the periods from January 1977
through July 1980, on September 1, 1981, we published in the Federal
Register (46 FR 43864) our tentative determination to revoke the A-588-
054 finding with respect to Honda. Based on the fact that Honda's
margin was again zero (0.0) percent for the period from August 1, 1980
through September 1, 1981 (the ``gap period''), on May 14, 1984, we
published in the Federal Register (49 FR 20356) our intent to revoke
Honda from the finding. However, the 1980-81 preliminary results for
Honda and the accompanying intent to revoke have no official standing.
This is due to events surrounding the 1984 change in the law which
required the Department to conduct administrative reviews upon request.
On August 30, 1985, we sent letters to all interested TRB parties
asking them to indicate the periods and companies for which the
Department had not issued final results of review so that parties could
request a review. Because we had not yet published a final results
notice for Honda for the 1980-81 period, this period was included in
our letters. In our August 13, 1985, Federal Register publication of
our transition provisions concerning administrative reviews upon
request, we explicitly stated that if preliminary results were
completed, but a request for review was not received, we would not
issue final results and the preliminary results would have no force or
effect. (See Antidumping and Countervailing Duties; Administrative
Reviews on Request; Transition Provisions, 50 FR 32557 (August 13,
1985).) Because we did not receive a request to review Honda for the
1980-81 period, we did not issue final results, we did not finalize
Honda's revocation, and the May 14, 1984, preliminary results and
intent to revoke have no official standing.
In November 1992, when we initiated these 1992-93 reviews, Honda
requested final revocation from the A-588-054 finding. However, given
the above-described events, we are unable to issue a final revocation
at this time. Rather, we must return to the intent to revoke stage of
the A-588-054 proceeding. While the intent to revoke notice normally
covers the ``gap period,'' it has been the Department's policy in
similar situations where revocation proceedings were begun, but never
finalized and a significant backlog exists, to conduct an ``update''
review of the most recent one-year period, in lieu of the ``gap
period'' (see Television Receivers, Monochrome and Color, from Japan;
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 55 FR 35916
(September 4, 1990), and Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from Japan;
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Determination
Not to Revoke in Part, 56 FR 50093 (October 3, 1991)). We have
determined that this review constitutes such an update review.
We have reviewed and verified Honda for the 1992-93 period and have
preliminarily found no margin for Honda for the period October 1, 1992
through September 30, 1993. Because Honda made no sales of merchandise
covered by the A-588-054 finding at LTFV for at least three consecutive
years (January 1977 through September 1981) and because there is no
evidence on the record to indicate the likelihood of Honda's resumption
of sales at LTFV in the future, we intend to revoke Honda from the A-
588-054 finding in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act and
19 CFR 353.25. If Honda's margin does not change for our final results
of this review, we will proceed with Honda's final revocation in our
final results notice. As provided for in section 353.25(2)(iii) of the
Department's regulations, Honda has agreed in writing to an immediate
suspension of liquidation and reinstatement in the finding if
circumstances develop which indicate that TRBs and certain components
thereof exported by Honda and thereafter imported into the United
States are being sold at less than fair value. If this finding is
revoked with respect to Honda, the revocation will apply to entries of
TRBs and certain components thereof subject to the A-588-054 case
exported by Honda, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after September 1, 1981, the date of the original tentative
revocation, and for which liquidation remains suspended.
On May 14, 1984, the Department also published in the Federal
Register (49 FR 20356) the tentative determination to revoke the A-588-
054 finding with respect to Fuji, Kawasaki, Yamaha, and Suzuki.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(a), revocation of a finding or order is
discretionary on the part of the Secretary. Because, for these
preliminary results, we have determined margins for each of these firms
for the A-588-054 review (whether calculated or the result of BIA), we
have determined that they do not meet the requirement in 19 CFR
353.25(a)(ii) that they are unlikely to sell merchandise in the future
at less than FMV. Therefore, we will not consider further revocation
proceedings for any of these firms at this time.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily
determine that the following margins exist for the period October 1,
1992 through September 30, 1993:
For the A-588-054 Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter Margin(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp........................................ \1\18.07
NSK Ltd..................................................... 11.67
Fuji........................................................ 1.81
Honda....................................................... 0
Kawasaki.................................................... 11.67
Yamaha...................................................... 47.63
MC Int'l.................................................... 0.45
Maekawa..................................................... \1\0
Toyosha..................................................... 47.63
Nigata...................................................... 47.63
Suzuki...................................................... 47.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last
relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/
sales.
For the A-588-604 Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter Margin(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTN.......................................................... 14.06
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp......................................... 40.37
NSK Ltd...................................................... 10.39
Fuji......................................................... (\2\)
Honda........................................................ (\2\)
Kawasaki..................................................... 36.52
[[Page 22354]]
Yamaha....................................................... 40.37
MC Int'l..................................................... (\2\)
Maekawa...................................................... (\2\)
Toyosha...................................................... 40.37
Nigata....................................................... 40.37
Suzuki....................................................... 40.37
Daido........................................................ (\2\)
Ichiyanagi Tekko............................................. 40.37
Nittetsu Bolten.............................................. 40.37
Sumikin Seiatsu.............................................. 40.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no rate
from any segment of this proceeding.
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after
the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of these administrative reviews including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages
stated above.
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 for by
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. A cash deposit of estimated
antidumping duties shall be required on shipments of TRBs from Japan as
follows:
(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 these reviews, a prior
review, or the original LTFV investigations, 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) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate for the A-588-054 case will be 18.07 percent and 36.52
percent for the A-588-604 case (see Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan,
58 FR 51,058, 51,061 (September 30, 1993)).
All U.S. sales by each respondent will be subject to one deposit
rate according to the proceeding.
The cash deposit rate has been determined on the basis of the
selling price to the first unrelated customer in the United States. For
appraisement purposes, where information is available, the Department
will use the entered value of the merchandise to determine the
appraisement rate.
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 this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: April 27, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-11160 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M