[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49572-49576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23885]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, 
finished and unfinished, from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner and one respondent, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 
1993, through May 31, 1994. The review indicates the existence of 
dumping margins during this period.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference 
between United States price (USP) and FMV. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle, Hermes Pinilla, Andrea 
Chu, Kris Campbell or Michael Rill, 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) 482-4733.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 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 references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

    On June 7, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(59 FR 29411) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC. In 
accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(a), the petitioner, The Timken 
Company, requested that we conduct an administrative review. In 
addition, respondent Shanghai General Bearing Company (Shanghai) 
requested revocation pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.25(b) (revocation based 
on not selling subject merchandise at less than foreign market value 
for three consecutive years). We published a notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review on August 24, 1994 (59 FR 
43537), covering the period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994 (the 7th 
review period).
    On July 26, 1994, we notified the PRC government, through its 
embassy in Washington, that we were conducting this review and 
requested information relevant to the issue of whether the companies 
named in the initiation request are independent from government 
control. See Separate Rates, infra. On the same date, we also notified 
the PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) of 
this review.
    On July 28, 1994, a representative from MOFTEC informed us that the 
Secretary General of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of 
Commerce for Import & Export of Machinery and Electronics (CCCME) would 
be the designated contact for the PRC in this review. On December 5, 
1994, we sent a copy of the questionnaire to the Secretary General of 
CCCME and requested that the questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC 
companies identified in our initiation notice.
    We also sent questionnaires to the Hong Kong companies listed in 
our initiation notice, using addresses supplied in the petitioner's 
initiation request as well as information from the Hong Kong branch of 
the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service.
    On December 7-9, 1994, we conducted a presentation of the 
questionnaire in Beijing. The following companies attended the 
presentation: China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export 
Corporation (CMC), Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation 
(Liaoning), Henan Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation 
(Henan), China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Guizhou 
Corporation (Guizhou Automotive), Luoyang Bearing Factory (Luoyang), 
Jilin Province Machinery Import & Export Corporation (Jilin), Tianshui 
Hailin Import & Export Corporation (Tianshui), Wafangdian Bearing 
Industry Import & Export Corporation (Wafangdian), Guizhou Machinery 
Import & Export Corporation (Guizhou), Zhejiang Machinery Import & 
Export Corporation (Zhejiang), and a voluntary respondent that did not 
request a review and which was not named in the initiation notice, 
Xiangfan International Trade Corporation (Xiangfan).
    We received responses to our questionnaire from fourteen companies, 
consisting of the companies that attended the questionnaire 
presentation, Shanghai, and two Hong Kong resellers: Premier Bearing 
and Equipment Company, Ltd. (Premier), and Chin Jun Industrial, Ltd. 
(Chin Jun).

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of TRBs and parts 
thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC. This merchandise is 
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 
8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.60, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30 and 8483.90.80. Although the HTS 
item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Separate Rates

1. Background and Summary of Findings

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in non-market economy (NME) countries 
a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. 
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes 

[[Page 49573]]
the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 
amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, 
a finding of de jure absence of government control over export 
activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. See Sparklers at 20589. Evidence relevant to a de facto 
analysis of absence of government control over exports is based on four 
factors: (1) whether the respondent sets its own export prices 
independent from the government and other exporters; (2) whether the 
respondent can retain the proceeds from its export sales; (3) whether 
the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts; and 
(4) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government regarding 
the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; see also 
Sparklers at 20589.
    The Department preliminarily determined that Guizhou, Henan, Jilin, 
Luoyang, Liaoning, Wafangdian, Guizhou Automotive, and Shanghai were 
entitled to separate rates during the concurrent administrative reviews 
of the 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 review periods (each covering the 
period June 1-May 31). See (cite to 4-6 prelim., unsigned as of 7/26). 
Information submitted by these companies for the record in the current 
review is consistent with these findings. Further, there have been no 
allegations of changes in control of these companies in this review. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the government does not 
exercise control over the export activities of these firms. 
Accordingly, we will calculate rates separate from the PRC rate for 
each of the above companies.
    In the 1989-90 review, we determined that CMC was entitled to a 
separate rate. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China (56 FR 67590, 67597, December 31, 1991). Information 
submitted by CMC for the record in the current review, including 
information gathered at verification concerning certain criteria that 
were not analyzed in the 1989-90 separate rate determination (see 
Additional Separate Rate Criteria Applied to CMC, infra), is consistent 
with this finding, and there have been no allegations in this review of 
changes in the control of CMC's export activities. Accordingly, we have 
preliminarily determined that the government does not exercise control 
over CMC's export activities, and that CMC is therefore entitled to a 
separate rate in this review.
    Tianshui, Zhejiang, and Xiangfan also meet both the de jure and de 
facto criteria and are therefore entitled to separate rates (see De 
Jure Analysis and De Facto Analysis, infra).
    Finally, with respect to Premier and Chin Jun, no separate rates 
analysis is required because these companies are privately owned 
trading companies located in Hong Kong.

2. De Jure Analysis: Tianshui, Zhejiang, and Xiangfan

    Information submitted during this review indicates that Tianshui, 
Zhejiang, and Xiangfan are owned ``by all of the people''. In Silicon 
Carbide (at 22586), we found that the PRC central government had 
devolved control of state-owned enterprises, i.e., enterprises owned 
``by all the people''. As a result, we determined that companies owned 
``by all the people'' were eligible for individual rates, if they met 
the criteria developed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
    The following laws, which have been placed on the record in this 
case, indicate a lack of de jure government control over these 
companies, and establish that the responsibility for managing companies 
owned by ``all the people'' has been transferred from the government to 
the enterprise itself. These laws include: ``Law of the People's 
Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole 
People,'' adopted on April 13, 1988 (1988 Law); ``Regulations for 
Transformation of Operational Mechanism of State-Owned Industrial 
Enterprises,'' approved on August 23, 1992 (1992 Regulations); and the 
``Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities,'' 
approved on December 21, 1992 (Export Provisions). The 1988 Law states 
that enterprises have the right to set their own prices (see Article 
26). This principle was restated in the 1992 Regulations (see Article 
IX). Finally, the 1992 ``Temporary Provisions for Administration of 
Export Commodities'' list those products subject to direct government 
control. TRBs do not appear on this list and are not therefore subject 
to the constraints of these provisions.
    Consistent with Silicon Carbide, we preliminarily determine that 
the existence of these laws demonstrates that Tianshui, Zhejiang, and 
Xiangfan, companies owned by ``all the people,'' are not subject to de 
jure government control with respect to export activities. In light of 
reports 1 indicating that laws shifting control from the 
government to the enterprises themselves have not been implemented 
uniformly, an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining 
whether respondents are, in fact, subject to government control with 
respect to export activities.

    \1\ See ``PRC Government Findings on Enterprise Autonomy,'' in 
Foreign Broadcast Information Service-China-93-133 (July 14, 1993) 
and 1992 Central Intelligence Agency Report to the Joint Economic 
Committee, Hearings on Global Economic and Technological Change: 
Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and China, Pt.2 (102 Cong., 
2d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. De Facto Analysis: Tianshui, Zhejiang, and Xiangfan

    The following record evidence, which is contained in the 
questionnaire responses, indicates a lack of de facto government 
control over the export activities of Tianshui, Zhejiang, and Xiangfan. 
We have found that these respondents' pricing and export strategy 
decisions are not subject to any entity's review or approval, and that 
there are no government policy directives that affect these decisions. 
There are no restrictions on the use of respondents' revenues or 
profits, including export earnings.
    Each company's general manager has the right to negotiate and enter 
into contracts, and may delegate this authority to other employees 
within the company. There is no evidence that this authority is subject 
to any level of governmental approval.
    The general manager is elected by an employees' assembly. The 
election results are then recorded with the relevant provincial or 
municipal bureau (e.g., the Zhejiang Provincial Foreign Trade and 
Economic Cooperation Commission in the case of Zhejiang). There is no 
evidence that these bureaus control the selection process or that they 
have rejected a general manager selected through the employee election 
process. The employee assemblies can remove the general manager, 
typically under the authority of the company's Articles of Association, 
in the case of mismanagement or violation of Chinese law.
    Decisions made by respondents concerning purchases of subject 
merchandise from other suppliers are 

[[Page 49574]]
not subject to government approval. Finally, respondents' sources of 
funds are their own savings or bank loans, and they have sole control 
and access to their bank accounts, which are held in each company's 
name.
    Based on the foregoing analysis of the evidence of record, we find 
no evidence of either de jure or de facto government control over the 
export activities of Tianshui, Zhejiang, and Xiangfan. Accordingly, 
each of these exporters will receive a separate rate.
    Because we have preliminarily determined that the voluntary 
respondent Xiangfan is entitled to a separate rate and no review was 
requested for this company, we have not reviewed its entries during the 
93-94 review period (see Background section above). Therefore, the 
current cash deposit rate established for this company in the 1989-90 
review of this case (i.e., the 1989-90 PRC rate) will continue to apply 
for future cash deposits unless this rate is replaced by a more recent 
PRC rate (i.e., from the concurrent 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 
reviews) before the publication of these final results.

4. Additional Separate Rate Criteria Applied to CMC

    The Department's determination that CMC was entitled to a separate 
rate during the administrative review of the 1989-90 POR was made 
pursuant to the de jure criteria cited above, as well as the de facto 
criteria developed in Sparklers (criteria (1) and (2) above). However, 
this determination was made prior to the development of the additional 
de facto criteria that were considered in Silicon Carbide (criteria (3) 
and (4) above). Accordingly, for the preliminary results of this review 
we have examined the extent to which CMC maintains the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and its degree of autonomy in the 
selection of management. Record evidence relevant to these criteria 
indicates that CMC independently negotiates contracts free of 
government control and is autonomous in its selection of management.
    Although CMC's response to our separate rates questionnaire 
indicates that the general manager and deputy general manager are 
appointed by MOFTEC, a more detailed examination of this issue at 
verification revealed that MOFTEC's only involvement is a requirement 
that the selection of these managers be recorded with MOFTEC. Our 
verification findings indicate that these managers are selected by an 
employee assembly, which in turn is elected by the employees of the 
company. At verification we examined the ballots used for the election 
of the employee assembly as well as CMC's Articles of Association, 
which detail the procedural requirements for such elections. Our 
discussions with company officials indicated that MOFTEC could annul 
the election results but it has never done so.
    Our verification findings also indicate that the authority to 
negotiate and enter into contracts on behalf of CMC rests with the 
managers of each subsidiary department (e.g., CMC Baili, the export 
division of CMC) and that such contract negotiation is not subject to 
the approval of any outside entity.

5. Separate Rate Determinations for Non-responsive Companies

    For those companies for which we initiated a review and which did 
not respond to the questionnaires, as best information available (BIA), 
we have determined that these companies do not merit separate rates. 
See ``Best Information Available'' section below.

United States Price

    For sales made by Luoyang, Zhejiang, Tianshui, Wafangdian, 
Liaoning, Jilin, Guizhou, Guizhou Automotive, and Premier, we based the 
USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers in the 
United States prior to importation into the United States, and because 
exporter's sales price (ESP) methodology was not indicated by other 
circumstances. For sales made by Shanghai and Chin Jun, we based USP on 
ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, because sales to the 
first unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United 
States. CMC and Henan had a combination of purchase price and ESP sales 
subject to review.
    We calculated purchase price based on, as appropriate, the FOB, 
CIF, or C&F port price to unrelated purchasers. We made deductions for 
brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and 
marine insurance. When marine insurance and ocean freight were provided 
by PRC-owned companies, we based the deduction on surrogate values. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818, 58825 (November 15, 1994). 
We valued foreign inland freight deductions using surrogate data based 
on Indian freight costs. We selected India as the surrogate country for 
the reasons explained in the ``Foreign Market Value'' section of this 
notice. We calculated ESP based on the packed, ex-warehouse price from 
the U.S. subsidiary to unrelated customers. We made deductions from ESP 
for U.S. packing in the United States, ocean freight, foreign brokerage 
& handling, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, customs duty, 
U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight insurance and U.S. inland freight.

Foreign Market Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the FMV using a factors of production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) the information 
does not permit the calculation of FMV using home market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value (CV) under section 773(a).
    In the most recent review of this order, the Department treated the 
PRC as an NME country. In its April 17, 1995, questionnaire response, 
Shanghai requested that the Department accept Shanghai's actual costs, 
claiming that its costs were market-driven. However, in order to accept 
the costs of a company in an NME country, the Department must determine 
that the industry in which that company operates, not just a particular 
company, is market-oriented. See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Pure and Alloy Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 59 FR 55427, 
55430 (November 7, 1994) (``an NME-country respondent may argue that 
market-driven prices characterize its particular industry and, 
therefore, despite NME status, that foreign market value should be 
calculated using actual home market prices or costs'' (emphasis 
added)).
    Because neither Shanghai, nor any other company in these reviews, 
has argued that the TRB industry in the PRC is market-oriented, we 
continue to consider that industry to be non-market-oriented and, 
therefore, we have applied our standard NME methodology and surrogate 
values to Shanghai's factors of production to determine FMV and 
movement costs.
    Except as noted below, we calculated FMV based on factors of 
production in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act and section 
353.52 of our regulations. We chose India as the most comparable 
surrogate on the basis of the criteria set out in section 353.52(b). 
See Memorandum from Director, Office of Policy to Program Manager, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, dated November 23, 1994. Further, 
information on the record indicates that India is a significant 
producer of TRBs. See Memorandum from the analyst to 

[[Page 49575]]
the file, dated July 27, 1995. We used publicly available information 
relating to India to value the various factors of production.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
     For hot-rolled alloy steel bars and rods, and irregular 
coils, used in the production of rollers, hot-rolled alloy steel bars 
and rods, used in the production of cups and cones, cold-rolled strip 
and sheet, used in the production of cages, and bearing quality and 
non-bearing quality steel scrap, we used import prices obtained from 
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II- Imports. 
We used data from the annual issue of this source, which covers the 
period April 1993-March 1994, and also factored in the remaining POR 
months of April - May 1994. We made further adjustments to include 
freight costs incurred between the steel supplier and the TRB factory.
    We used actual costs for certain steel inputs because they were 
purchased from a market-economy country. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oscillating Fans and Ceiling Fans from 
the PRC, 56 FR 55271, 55275 (October 25, 1991).
     For direct labor, we used 1993 data from Investing, 
Licensing & Trading Conditions Abroad, India, published in November 
1993 by the Economist Intelligence Unit. We then adjusted the 1993 
labor value to the POR to reflect inflation using wholesale price 
indices (WPI) of India as published in the International Financial 
Statistics by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We calculated the 
labor cost for each component by multiplying the labor time requirement 
by the surrogate labor rate. Indirect labor is reflected in the 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) and overhead rates.
     For factory overhead, we used information obtained from a 
financial report of a producer of similar merchandise in India. From 
this source, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage 
of total cost of manufacture.
     For SG&A expenses, we used information obtained from the 
same financial report used to obtain factory overhead. This information 
showed SG&A expenses as a percentage of the cost of manufacture. SG&A 
expenses were less than 10 percent of the cost of manufacture. 
Therefore, we used the statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of 
manufacture for SG&A, in accordance with sections 773(c)(1) and 773(e) 
of the Act.
     For profit, we used the profit rate of the same Indian 
producer of similar merchandise from which we derived a rate for 
factory overhead.
     For export packing, we applied BIA (section 776(c) of the 
Act) because the respondents did not supply sufficient factor 
information by which to calculate packing costs. We used, as BIA, one 
percent of the total ex-factory cost and SG&A expenses combined. This 
percentage, obtained from publicly available data, was used in the 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Tapered Roller 
Bearings from Italy, 52 FR 24198 (June 29, 1987). This methodology is 
consistent with the Department's valuation of packing in the Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller 
Bearings from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 67590 (December 31, 
1991). We used this percentage because there was no publicly available 
information from a comparable surrogate country.
     For foreign inland freight, we used the price reported in 
a December 1989 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India submitted for the 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Shop Towels of 
Cotton from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 4040 (February 1, 
1991). We adjusted the value of freight to the POR using a WPI 
published by the IMF.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 
353.60(a). Currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Best Information Available

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that whenever a party refuses or 
is unable to produce information requested in a timely manner and in 
the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation, 
the Department shall use BIA. In deciding what to use as BIA, 19 C.F.R. 
353.37(b) provides that the Department may take into account whether a 
party refused to provide requested information. Thus, the Department 
determines on a case-by-case basis what is BIA. Whenever a company 
refuses to provide the information requested in the form required, or 
otherwise significantly impedes the Department's review, the Department 
will normally assign to that company the higher of (1) the highest rate 
for any firm in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior 
administrative reviews of sales of subject merchandise from that same 
country; or (2) the highest rate found in that review for any firm. 
When a company has cooperated with the Department's request for 
information but fails to provide the information requested in a timely 
manner or in the form required, the Department will normally assign to 
that company the higher of either: (1) the highest of the rates found 
for that firm in the LTFV investigation or prior administrative 
reviews; or (2) the highest calculated rate found in that review for 
any firm. (See Antifriction Bearings from France, et al.; Final Results 
of Review, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993).)

Non-responsive companies

    We have assigned non-cooperative BIA to those companies for which 
we initiated a review and which did not respond to the questionnaires. 
In accordance with the non-cooperative BIA formula stated above, this 
represents the highest rate for any firm from the LTFV investigation or 
any review of sales of subject merchandise from the PRC. As noted in 
the separate rates section above, we have determined that the non-
responsive companies do not merit separate rates. Therefore, the non-
cooperative BIA for these companies forms the basis for the PRC rate. 
The PRC rate is 57.86 percent for this review.

Responsive Companies

Premier

    Premier, a reseller of TRBs from the PRC based in Hong Kong, stated 
it could not respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, 
which requested factors of production data. We asked Premier for 
factors of production data with the intent of using this information 
to: (1) perform a cost of production test on third-country sales, and 
(2) calculate CV when necessary. Premier stated that it was not in a 
position to request factors of production information from its 
suppliers. The Department then sent factors of production 
questionnaires to Premier's suppliers in an effort to obtain the 
information. We did not receive any responses from Premier's suppliers. 
In addition, the Department found significant errors in reported sales 
data at verification of Premier. Therefore, for these preliminary 
results we have applied, as cooperative BIA, the higher of the highest 
rate ever applicable to Premier or the highest calculated rate in this 
review.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of the USP to FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June 
1, 1993, through May 31, 1994:

                                                                        

[[Page 49576]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Bearing and Equipment, Limited......................       75.87
Guizhou Machinery Import and Export Corporation.............        5.38
Henan Machinery and Equipment Import and Export Corporation.        1.42
Luoyang Bearing Factory.....................................        2.12
Shanghai General Bearing Company, Ltd.......................        0.07
Jilin Machinery Import and Export Corporation...............       60.91
Chin Jun Industrial Ltd.....................................        1.94
Wafangdian Bearing Factory..................................       75.87
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation..............       12.06
China National Machinery & Equipment Import and Export                  
 Corporation................................................        0.13
China Nat'l Automotive Industry Import and Export Guizhou               
 Corporation................................................        1.44
Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation...............        0.00
Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corporation..............        7.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held approximately 44 days after the publication of 
this notice. Interested parties may submit written comments (case 
briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after 
the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the 
companies named above that have separate rates and were reviewed 
(Premier, Guizhou Machinery, Henan, Luoyang, Shanghai General, Jilin, 
Chin Jun, Wafangdian, Liaoning, CMEC, Guizhou Automotive, Tianshui, 
Zhejiang), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for Xiangfan, 
which we preliminarily determine to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
rate will continue be that which currently applies to this company 
(8.83 percent) unless modified by a more recent PRC rate (e.g., from 
the concurrent 90-91, 91-92, or 92-93 reviews); (3) for all remaining 
PRC exporters, all of which were found to not be entitled to separate 
rates, the cash deposit will be 57.86 percent; and (4) for other non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 C.F.R. 
353.22.

    Dated: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23885 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P