[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