[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39933-39937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-559-802]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof (AFBs) From Singapore; Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting two
administrative reviews of the
[[Page 39934]]
countervailing duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered
roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) from Singapore. We
preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be zero for the Minebea
group of companies (Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (Pelmec), NMB
Singapore Ltd. (NMB), and Minebea Co., Ltd. Singapore Branch (MSB)) and
9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies for the periods January
1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993, through
December 31, 1993. If the final results remain the same as these
preliminary results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as indicated above.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Melanie Brown,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 3, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
(54 FR 19125) the countervailing duty orders on AFBs from Singapore. On
April 28, 1993, and May 4, 1994, the Department published in the
Federal Register notices of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review'' (58 FR 25802 and 59 FR 23051-52) of these countervailing duty
orders. We received a timely request for review for the period January
1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, from the petitioner, the Torrington
Company. We also received timely requests for review for the period
January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, from both the petitioner,
the Torrington Company, and the Minebea group of companies, which
accounts for most of the exports of subject merchandise from Singapore
to the United States (see section on Best Information Available,
below).
We initiated the 1992 and 1993 reviews on June 25, 1993 (58 FR
34414) and June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30770), respectively. We conducted
verifications of the questionnaire responses for both the 1992 and 1993
reviews. The 1992 review covers three related manufacturers/exporters
of the subject merchandise and 16 programs; the 1993 review covers the
same manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise and 17
programs.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and
to the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as
they existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of Reviews
Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of antifriction
bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. The
subject merchandise covers five separate classes or kinds of
merchandise, each of which is described in detail in Appendix A to this
notice. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule item numbers listed in Appendix
A are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
descriptions remain dispositive.
On October 30, 1992, the Department received a request for a scope
determination from Sundstrand Pacific (Sundstrand). Specifically,
Sundstrand asked the Department to find its part number 742973, an
outer-race of the cylindrical roller bearing, not within the scopes of
the countervailing duty orders. The request was subsequently evaluated
in accordance with section 355.29(i)(1) of the Department's
regulations. On February 4, 1993, the Department determined that the
product in question was within the scope of the order on cylindrical
roller bearings (58 FR 27542, 27543; May 10, 1993). Because the product
descriptions detailed in Sundstrand's request for a scope determination
were dispositive as to whether part number 742973 was within the scope
of the order on cylindrical roller bearings, the Department did not
initiate a formal scope inquiry. Accordingly, the U.S. Customs Service
has been instructed to continue to suspend liquidation of part 742973
exported by Sundstrand.
Best Information Available
During the investigation, Sundstrand, an exporter of the subject
merchandise which was identified by the Government of Singapore (GOS),
refused to participate, and consequently received a rate based entirely
on best information available (BIA)(see Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determinations and Countervailing Duty Orders:
Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
thereof from Singapore (54 FR 19125, 19126; May 3, 1989)). Section
776(c) of the Act requires the Department to use BIA ``whenever a party
or any other person refuses or is unable to produce information
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise
significantly impedes an investigation * * *'' See also 19 CFR
Sec. 355.37. In determining what rate to use as BIA, the Department
follows a two-tiered methodology. The Department assigns lower rates to
those respondents who cooperate in an administrative review (tier two)
and rates based on more adverse assumptions for respondents who do not
cooperate in the review, or who significantly impede the proceeding
(tier one). Cf. Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F. 2d
1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 28 F. 3d 1188, cert. denied, 1995 U.S.
Lexis 100 (1995) (Allied-Signal).
In these reviews, only the three related Minebea companies, which
account for the majority of Singaporean exports to the United States of
the subject merchandise, responded to the Department's questionnaires.
Sundstrand did not respond to our questionnaires. Furthermore, during
the course of the 1992 verification of the GOS questionnaire response,
we examined a list of companies which exported subject merchandise to
the United States but, for reasons unknown to the Department, did not
respond to our questionnaire (see the April 8, 1994, Memorandum to
Barbara E. Tillman Regarding Verification of Questionnaire Response in
1992 Administrative Review of CVD Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Singapore--
Covering the Period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, at 4,
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the
Department of Commerce). The GOS did not provide any information
regarding Sundstrand or the other companies' sales or exports of the
subject merchandise, or the extent to which Sundstrand or these
companies participated in the programs reviewed. During the course of
the 1993 verification of the GOS questionnaire response, we again
examined a list of companies which exported subject merchandise to the
United States but did not respond to our questionnaire (see the April
9, 1995, Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman Regarding Verification of
Questionnaire Responses in the 1993 Administrative Review of
Countervailing Duty Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered
Roller Bearings) From Singapore, at 3, which is on file in the Central
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce). Again,
[[Page 39935]]
the GOS did not provide any information regarding Sundstrand or the
other companies' sales or exports of the subject merchandise, or the
extent to which they participated in the programs reviewed. Therefore,
in accordance with section 776 of the Act and Allied-Signal, we are
assigning to Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies a first-
tier uncooperative BIA rate for both periods of review. The rate we are
applying for the periods January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992,
and January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, is 9.11 percent ad
valorem. This rate is the rate that has been assigned to Sundstrand in
each review since the first administrative review (see Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (other
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from Singapore (56 FR
26384; June 7, 1991)).
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
In accordance with our standard practice, for both periods of
review, we calculated the net subsidy on a country-wide basis by first
calculating the subsidy rate for each company subject to the
administrative review. See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel
Products from the United Kingdom, 60 FR 24833, 24834 (May 10, 1995). We
then weight-averaged the rate received by each company using as the
weight the company's share of total exports from Singapore to the
United States of subject merchandise, including all companies, even
those with de minimis and zero rates. To determine the value of exports
for the Minebea group of companies, we added the reported total exports
of subject merchandise to the United States by the two related
producers/exporters, NMB and Pelmec, to the total net mark-up on
exports of subject merchandise to the United States reported by the
related trading company respondent, MSB. To determine the value of
exports for Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies based on
BIA (see Best Information Available, above), we subtracted the value of
the Minebea companies' exports of subject merchandise to the United
States from the total value of exports of subject merchandise to the
United States, as reported by the GOS.
We then summed the individual weight-averaged rates to determine
the subsidy from all programs benefitting Singaporean exports of
subject merchandise to the United States. Because the country-wide rate
calculated using this methodology was above de minimis, as defined by
19 CFR Sec. 355.7, for both periods of review, we next examined the net
subsidy rate calculated for each company to determine whether
individual company rates differed significantly from the weighted-
average country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 355.22(d)(3).
For both periods of review, we found that the Minebea companies and
the non-respondent companies had significantly different net subsidy
rates (zero and 9.11 percent ad valorem, respectively); therefore all
companies are treated separately for assessment and cash deposit
purposes for both periods.
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Subsidies Investment
Allowances Under Part X of the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA)
Pelmec and NMB received tax deductions under this program during
both periods of review, which petitioners have alleged are
countervailable. The Investment Allowance program was originally
established under Part VIA of the EEIA in 1979 to encourage investment
in Singapore. The Department determined in 1985 that the investment
allowance program under Part VIA of the EEIA was not countervailable
(see Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Textile
Mill Products and Apparel from Singapore, 50 FR 9840 (March 12, 1985)
(Textiles)). After the Department's determination in Textiles, the EEIA
was amended so that the investment allowance program was included under
Part X of the EEIA (see Final Negative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Singapore (53 FR 16304; May
6, 1988) (Wire Rod)). Because the investment allowance program has not
been examined since the EEIA was amended, we are doing so in the 1992
review. (For a more detailed explanation of the Department's decision
to examine Part X, see the December 30, 1994, Memorandum to Barbara E.
Tillman Regarding 1992 and 1993 Administrative Reviews of Antifriction
Bearings (AFBs) from Singapore--Investment Allowance Program, Part X of
the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA), on file in the public
file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of
Commerce.)
Under Part X, companies are granted a tax deduction for up to 50
percent of the investment in fixed assets made by the company over the
course of a project. The EEIA authorizes allowances for a project in
any of the following areas:
a. for the manufacture or increased manufacture of any product;
b. for the provision of specialized engineering or technical
services;
c. for research and development;
d. for construction operations;
e. for reducing the consumption of potable water;
f. for services listed under section 16 of the EEIA; or
g. for the promotion of the tourist industry (other than a hotel)
in Singapore.
If an investment project falls within one of the above categories,
companies will receive an allowance if the investment meets one of the
following criteria:
the investment results in greater efficiency in resource
utilization;
the investment introduces a new technology into an
existing industry;
the project is significantly more efficient in resource
utilization than the industry average; or
the project produces parts and components used by other
industries.
We verified that, under each of the eligible project areas, all
companies investing in new plant and equipment are eligible to
participate in the program and that any such company which meets the
above criteria will be approved to receive the investment allowance.
Moreover, we found no evidence that the program is regional or that
company approval is contingent on export. Finally, we found no evidence
that the program is limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or a
group of enterprises or industries. There are a large number and wide
variety of users of the program. The range of industries that received
investment allowances includes, among others, food & beverage,
textiles, chemicals, steel, paper, minerals, electronics, plastics,
furniture, petroleum/coal, rubber, and numerous service industries,
including hotels, air transport, banking, real estate, accounting,
information technology, medical/health, and photography. Moreover, the
AFBs producers are neither a dominant nor disproportionate recipient of
the investment allowances, and there is no evidence that the GOS
exercises discretion, in general or across industries, in conferring
benefits. Thus, we preliminarily determine that this program is not
countervailable within the meaning of section 701(a) of the Act. (A
detailed specificity analysis is set forth in the Memorandum dated July
28, 1995, 1992 Administrative Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Orders
on Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof
[[Page 39936]]
from Singapore: Part X of the EEIA--Investment Allowances which is on
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of
Commerce.)
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that
the Minebea group of companies did not apply for or receive benefits
under these programs during either the 1992 review period or the 1993
review period:
A. Production for Export under Part VI of the EEIA
B. Monetary Authority of Singapore Rediscount Facility
C. Other Tax Incentives under the EEIA
Part IV: Expansion of Established Enterprises
Part VII: International Trade Incentives
Part VIII: Foreign Loans for Productive Equipment
Part IX: Royalties, Fees and Development Contributions
Part XI: Warehousing and Servicing Incentives
D. Incentives Under the Income Tax Act
Sections 14B and 14C: Double Deduction of Export
Promotion Expenses
Section 14E: Double Deduction for Research and
Development
Section 19B: Write-Offs of Payments for ``Know-How'',
Patents and Manufacturing Licenses
E. Programs Administered by the Economic Development Board
Capital Assistance Scheme
Productive Development Assistance Scheme
Initiatives in New Technology Program
F. Program Administered by the National Science Technology Board:
Research & Development Assistance Scheme
In the 1993 review, we received a submission from the Torrington
Company, the petitioner in this proceeding, alleging that post-pioneer
status under Part IIIA of the EEIA might have been granted to producers
of the subject merchandise. We examined that program and preliminarily
determine that the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise did
not apply for or receive benefits under that program and were not
granted post-pioneer status.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
For the periods January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and
January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, we preliminarily determine
the net subsidy to be zero for the Minebea group of companies (Pelmec,
NMB, and MSB) and 9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies (see
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes,
above).
If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess the following countervailing duties for the
period January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB)..................... 0.00
All Other Companies.......................................... 9.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties of zero
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject
merchandise from the Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB), and 9.11
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject
merchandise from all other companies entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the
final results of these reviews.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted
seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties who
submit written arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit
with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary
of the argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days
after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of
case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in
accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 355.38(e).
Representatives of parties to these proceedings may request
disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective
order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or
employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than
the date the case briefs, under section 355.38(c), are due. The
Department will publish the final results of these administrative
reviews including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.
C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR Sec. 355.22.
Dated: July 28, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix A
Scope of The Reviews
The products covered by these reviews, antifriction bearings
(other than tapered roller bearings), mounted or unmounted, and
parts thereof, constitute the following separate ``classes or
kinds'' of merchandise as outlined below.
(1) Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts Thereof:
These products include all antifriction bearings which employ balls
as the rolling element. Such merchandise is classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers: 8482.10.10,
8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.70,
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20,
8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
(2) Spherical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which
employ spherical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is
classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.30.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.50, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40,
8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,
8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
(3) Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which
employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise
is classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.50.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
(4) Needle Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which
employ needle rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is
classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.40.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
(5) Spherical Plain Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all spherical plain bearings which
do not employ rolling elements and include spherical plain rod ends.
Such merchandise is classifiable under the following HTS item
numbers: 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00,
and 8708.99.50.
These reviews cover all of the subject bearings and parts
thereof outlined above
[[Page 39937]]
with certain limitations. With regard to finished parts (inner race,
outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.), all such
parts are included in the scope of this review. For unfinished parts
(inner race, outer race, rollers, balls, etc.), such parts are
included if (1) they have been heat treated, or (2) heat treatment
is not required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only
unfinished parts that are not covered by this review are those which
will be subject to heat treatment after importation.
[FR Doc. 95-19258 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P