[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25200-25205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12519]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-604; 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 and 
Termination in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner and two respondents, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from Japan (A-588-
604), and of the finding on tapered roller bearings, four inches or 
less in outside diameter, and components thereof, from Japan (A-588-
054). The review of the A-588-054 finding covers four manufacturers/
exporters and ten resellers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 
1994, and one manufacturer/exporter for the period October 1, 1992, 
through September 30, 1993. The review of the A-588-604 order covers 
five manufacturers/exporters, ten resellers/exporters, and seventeen 
firms identified by the petitioner in this case as forging producers, 
and the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994. The A-588-
604 review also covers one manufacturer/exporter for the period October 
1, 1992, through September 30, 1993.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales of tapered roller 
bearings (TRBs) 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 the U.S. Customs Service 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. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Turoscy or Robert James, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 
482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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.

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 7, 1994 (59 FR 
51166), the Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' for both TRB cases. The petitioner, the 
Timken Co., and two respondents requested administrative reviews. We 
initiated the A-588-054 and A-588-604 administrative reviews for the 
period October 1993 through September 1994 on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 
56459).
    The Department has now conducted these reviews in accordance with 
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). 
However, we have not conducted a review of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. 
(Honda) for either the A-588-054 or the A-588-604 case. In our 
preliminary results notice for the 1992-93 administrative reviews, we 
published our intent to revoke the A-588-054 finding as to Honda and 
explained that our final determination concerning Honda's revocation 
would be published in our final results notice for the 1992-93 
administrative reviews (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; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
Termination in Part, and Intent to Revoke in Part, 60 FR 22349 (May 5, 
1995)). We have not yet completed those final results and our final 
determination concerning Honda's revocation has not yet been made. Upon 
our determination concerning Honda's revocation and the publication of 
our final results of review for the 1992-93 administrative review 
period, we will proceed accordingly for Honda in both the A-588-054 and 
A-588-604 cases.
    This notice also includes, along with our 1993-94 preliminary 
results of review for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo), our 1992-93 
preliminary results of review for Koyo for both the A-588-054 finding 
and the A-588-604 order. Because our scope proceeding regarding Koyo's 
rough forgings was concurrent with our 1992-93 preliminary results 
analysis, we determined that, rather than delay our 1992-93 preliminary 
results of review for all other reviewed firms, we would conduct Koyo's 
1992-93 reviews in both cases after making our final scope 
determination concerning Koyo's rough forgings. On February 2, 1995, we 
published in the Federal Register our final scope decision concerning 
Koyo's rough forgings (60 FR 6519), in which we determined that Koyo's 
rough forgings are within the scope of the A-588-604 order. We provided 
Koyo additional time to submit its sales and cost information 
concerning its rough forgings for both the 1992-93 and 1993-94 
administrative reviews and have now conducted our review of Koyo for 
both these periods in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

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

[[Page 25201]]

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.
    The period for each 1993-94 review is October 1, 1993, through 
September 30, 1994. These reviews cover TRB sales by five TRB 
manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NSK Ltd. (NSK), NTN, Nachi-Fujikoshi 
Corporation (Nachi), and Maekawa Bearing Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Maekawa)), and 
ten resellers/exporters (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/importations of forgings by Koyo, NTN, 
and seventeen firms identified by the petitioner as Japanese forging 
producers (Daido Steel Co., Ltd. (Daido Steel), Asakawa Screw Co., Ltd. 
(Asakawa), Fuse Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., 
Ichiyanagi Tekko, Isshi Nut Industries (Isshi Nut), Kawada Tekko, Kinki 
Maruseo Nut Kogyo Kumiai, Kitazawa Valve Co., Ltd. (Kitz Corp.), 
Nittetsu Bolten, Shiga Bolt, Shinko Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, Sumikin 
Seiatsu, Toyo Valve Co., Unytite Fastener Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Unytite 
Kogyo), and Showa Seiko Co., Ltd. (Showa)). We are terminating our 
review for eleven of the seventeen firms as described in the 
``Termination in Part'' section of this notice.
    The period for the 1992-93 reviews is October 1, 1992, through 
September 30, 1993. The 1992-93 reviews of both the A-588-054 and A-
588-604 cases included in this notice cover TRB sales by one 
manufacturer/exporter, Koyo.

Verification

    As provided for in section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we verified 
information provided by NTN for the 1993-94 review period and 
information provided by Koyo for the 1992-93 review period. We used 
standard verification procedures in each of the verifications, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public versions of our NTN and 
Koyo verification reports.

Best Information Available (BIA)

Total BIA

    For these preliminary results, in accordance with section 776(c) of 
the Tariff Act, for several firms we used BIA, which we determined 
according to the two-tier BIA methodology outlined in Antifriction 
Bearings; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews and 
Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729, 39739 (July 
26, 1993) (AFBs). Based on this methodology we used BIA as follows:
    1. When a company refused to cooperate with the Department 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 and substantially cooperated at verification, but failed to 
provide requested 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 
the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country of 
origin.
    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 
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) Maekawa, 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 criteria set forth above, 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: In a letter responding to our questionnaire Nachi 
indicated that it declined to provide the information requested in our 
questionnaire for both the A-588-604 and A-588-054 reviews. As a 
result, we used for Nachi first-tier BIA rates of 40.37 percent in the 
A-588-604 review and 47.63 percent in the A-588-054 review.
    (iii) Daido Steel, Kawanda Tekkosho, Asakawa, Ichiyanagi Tekko, and 
Isshi Nut: These five firms, which were identified as forging producers 
and 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.
    (iv) While Kawasaki did respond to our questionnaire, its response 
contained only general information and a statement indicating that it 
declined to provide any of the sales-specific information we requested 
in our questionnaire. The information Kawasaki failed to provide was 
necessary for our analysis, and Kawasaki's failure to provide this 
information impeded our ability to conduct the review for Kawasaki. We 
have therefore used a first-tier BIA rate of 40.47 percent for Kawasaki 
in the A-588-604 review, and a first-tier BIA rate of 47.63 percent in 
the A-588-054 review.

Partial BIA

    While conducting our 1992-93 and 1993-94 preliminary analysis for 
Koyo, we discovered that in both reviews Koyo did not report the actual 
further-processing costs for certain of its U.S. further-processed 
models. Rather, Koyo reported further-processing costs for these models 
which were based on the further-processing costs of other U.S. models 
which Koyo identified as most similar. As a result, the actual further-
processing costs requested by the Department for these U.S. models were 
not reported by Koyo. Furthermore, our review of both Koyo's 1992-93 
and 1993-94 questionnaire responses revealed that Koyo failed to 
indicate in its responses that it reported something other than the 
actual further-processing costs for certain U.S. models.

[[Page 25202]]

    In those cases where the overall integrity of a respondent's 
questionnaire response warrants a calculated rate, but the firm failed 
to provide certain information, or certain information it provided was 
inaccurate, it is the Department's practice to use partial BIA (see, 
e.g., AFBs at 10907). Therefore, for these 1992-93 and 1993-94 
preliminary results for Koyo, we have used partial BIA for the further-
processing costs Koyo failed to accurately report for these particular 
U.S. models. After making an initial adjustment to all of Koyo's 
further-processing costs based on information we discovered at 
verification (see the Office of Accounting's preliminary results 
calculation memorandum dated October 12, 1995), we determined the 
single highest ratio between further-processing costs and the gross 
unit price for all of Koyo's further-manufactured U.S. models. We then 
applied this ratio to the unit prices for the models in question and 
used the resulting further-processing cost amounts as partial BIA for 
these models.

No Shipments

    Two resellers, Fuji and MC Int'l, made no shipments of A-588-604 
subject merchandise during the review period. Furthermore, neither of 
these firms was a party to the A-588-604 LTFV investigation or any 
prior administrative reviews of the A-588-604 case. Because their 
shipments have never been reviewed individually, we have not assigned a 
rate to these two firms for the A-588-604 case. If these firms begin 
shipping subject merchandise at some future date, the entries will be 
subject to the cash deposit rates attributable to the manufacturer(s) 
of the subject merchandise.
    Concerning those firms identified by the petitioner as forging 
producers, only one of the 17 firms, Showa, reported that it actually 
produced forgings used in the manufacture of TRBs. However, Showa 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 Showa for the 
A-588-604 case. If Showa were to begin shipping at some future date, 
the entries will be subject to the A-588-604 LTFV ``all others'' cash 
deposit rate of 36.52 percent.

Termination in Part

    Eleven of the seventeen firms identified by the petitioner as 
forging producers 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 eleven firms: 
Fuse Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., Kinki Maruseo Nut 
Kogyo Kumiai, Kitz Corp., Shiga Bolt, Shinko Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, 
Toyo Valve Co., Nittetsu Bolten, Sumikin Seiatsu, and Unytite Kogyo.
    Our termination of the A-588-604 review for these eleven firms does 
not constitute a revocation of the order as to these firms. If any of 
the above eleven firms ever become manufacturers/exporters of TRBs or 
forgings used in the production of TRBs, their merchandise will be 
subject to the order.

Resellers/Shippers

    Of the ten resellers covered by these reviews, we have determined 
that two of these resellers, Sumitomo and Itochu, are mere shippers of 
the subject merchandise and do not warrant their own margin. Itochu and 
Sumitomo contract with larger Japanese companies/suppliers to ship TRBs 
from the suppliers to the suppliers' U.S. subsidiaries. Because these 
suppliers knew at the time of the transfer of merchandise 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, for example, 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).

United States Price (USP)

    The Department used exporter's sales price (ESP) for Koyo, NSK, 
NTN, Fuji, and MC Int'l, and purchase price for certain of Fuji's and 
NTN's sales, as defined in section 772 of the Tariff Act, 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 and Koyo, we also adjusted ESP for value added in 
further manufacturing, including an allocation of profit earned on U.S. 
sales. In addition, based on our verification of Koyo's reported 1992-
93 further manufacturing information, and Koyo's response to our 1993-
94 supplemental questionnaire, we made adjustments to Koyo's reported 
1992-93 and 1993-94 further-manufacturing costs.
    NTN's and Fuji's purchase price sales were based on the sales price 
to the first unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made 
adjustments to purchase price, where appropriate, for rebates and the 
following movement expenses: foreign pre-sale inland freight, foreign 
inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, brokerage and 
handling, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and export inspection fees.
    In light of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) in Federal-Mogul v. United 
States, CAFC No. 94-1097, we have changed our treatment of home market 
consumption taxes. For these preliminary results, where merchandise 
exported to the United States was exempt from the consumption tax, we 
added to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged on 
the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology 
that we adopted following the decision of the Federal Circuit in Zenith 
v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and which was suggested 
by the Federal Circuit in footnote 4 of its decision. The Court of 
International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in Federal-Mogul 
v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and we acquiesced to the 
CIT's decision. We then followed the CIT's preferred methodology, which 
was to calculate the tax to be added to U.S. price by multiplying the 
adjusted U.S. price by the foreign market tax rate; we made adjustments 
to this amount so that the tax adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' 
pre-tax dumping assessment.
    The foreign exporters in the Federal-Mogul case, however, appealed 
the

[[Page 25203]]

decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held that 
the statute did not preclude Commerce from using the ``Zenith footnote 
4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping assessments (i.e., 
assessments that are unaffected by the existence or amount of home 
market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit recognized 
that certain international agreements of the United States, in 
particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the 
Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral 
dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT 
with instructions to direct Commerce to determine which tax methodology 
it will employ.
    We have determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology 
should be used. First, as we have explained in numerous administrative 
determinations and court filings over the past decade, and as the 
Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of the GATT and Article 
2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required that dumping assessments 
be tax-neutral. This requirement continues under the new Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT. Second, the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (URAA) explicitly amended the antidumping law to remove 
consumption taxes from the home market price and to eliminate the 
addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that no consumption tax is included 
in the price in either market. The Statement of Administrative Action 
(p. 159) explicitly states that this change was intended to result in 
tax neutrality.
    While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different 
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA 
law required that the tax be added to U.S. price rather than subtracted 
from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty assessments. 
In sum, we have elected to treat consumption taxes in a manner 
consistent with our longstanding policy of tax-neutrality and with the 
GATT.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value (FMV)

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.48(a), we determined that the home 
market was viable for NTN, NSK, Koyo, and Fuji. Therefore, 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. For reasons of simplification, 
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 whose 
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 whose 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 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 each model sold by Koyo, NSK, Fuji, 
MC Int'l, and NTN during each 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 Koyo, NSK, Fuji, and NTN on an annual 
weighted-average basis.
    Based on petitioner's allegations and the Department's previous TRB 
determinations of sales made below the cost of production (COP), in 
accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we determined that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that, for these 
review periods, NTN, Koyo, and NSK made sales of subject merchandise in 
the home market at prices less than COP. As a result, we investigated 
whether NTN, Koyo, or NSK sold such or similar merchandise in the home 
market at prices below COP. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we 
calculated COP for NTN, NSK, and Koyo as the sum of reported materials, 
labor, factory overhead, and general expenses, and, where appropriate, 
compared COP to home market prices net of direct 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 
period of review (POR) were made at prices below the COP, we included 
all sales of that 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 from 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 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the 
constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, e.g., 
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

[[Page 25204]]

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, Koyo, 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, NSK, and Koyo 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 in 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, NSK's, and Koyo'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.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, 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 expenses (SG&A) were less than the statutory minimum of 
ten percent of the cost of manufacture (COM), we calculated SG&A as ten 
percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were less than the 
statutory minimum of eight percent of the COM plus SG&A, we calculated 
profit as eight percent of the sum of COM plus SG&A. We also adjusted 
NSK's and NTN'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 or third-country 
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, 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, we 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. In those instances 
where a commission was granted on the U.S. sale only, we increased the 
amount classified as U.S. indirect selling expenses for comparison to 
home market indirect selling expenses by the amount of the U.S. 
commission. We then limited the deduction from FMV for home market 
indirect selling expenses by the amount of the enhanced U.S. indirect 
selling expenses. For NTN, NSK, Koyo, and Fuji, all of which reported 
consumption tax-exclusive home market gross prices, we adjusted FMV for 
the Japanese consumption tax by adding the absolute amount of home 
market tax to FMV in accordance with our tax-neutral methodology 
described above. Finally, after deducting home market packing from FMV, 
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 as described above, 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 whose organization and development is 
most like that of the United States, as the most appropriate market for 
comparison, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b)(2). 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 to unrelated customers in the 
United Kingdom. In addition, we applied to MC Int'l's sales in the 
United Kingdom the identical price stability test described above, and 
because the annual weighted-average prices for TRBs sold by MC Int'l in 
the United Kingdom 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 in the 
United Kingdom to be representative of the transactions under 
consideration. Therefore, we calculated a single FMV for each model 
sold by MC Int'l in the United Kingdom on an annual weighted-average 
basis.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily 
determine that the following margins exist for Koyo for the period 
October 1, 1992, through September 30, 1993:

[[Page 25205]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (Percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Review:Koyo Seiko........................        38.64
For the A-588-604 Review: Koyo Seiko.......................        46.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we preliminarily determine that the following margins 
exist for the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994 for 
the following firms:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
               Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter                 (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Review:                                               
  Koyo Seiko...............................................        34.68
  Nachi....................................................        47.63
  NSK......................................................         7.61
  Fuji.....................................................         6.08
  Kawasaki.................................................        47.63
  Yamaha...................................................        47.63
  MC International.........................................         2.36
  Maekawa..................................................        47.63
  Toyosha..................................................        47.63
  Nigata Converter.........................................        47.63
  Suzuki...................................................        47.63
                                                                        
For the A-588-604 Review:                                               
  NTN......................................................        19.73
  Koyo Seiko...............................................        41.21
  Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.....................................        40.37
  NSK Ltd..................................................         7.15
  Fuji.....................................................          (1)
  Kawasaki.................................................        40.37
  Yamaha...................................................        40.37
  MC International.........................................          (1)
  Maekawa..................................................        40.37
  Toyosha..................................................        40.37
  Nigata Converter.........................................        40.37
  Suzuki...................................................        40.37
  Showa Seiko..............................................          (1)
  Daido....................................................        40.37
  Ichiyanagi Tekko.........................................        40.37
  Kawada Tekkosho..........................................        40.37
  Asakawa Screw Co.........................................        40.37
  Isshi Nut................................................        40.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no rate  
  from any prior 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 U.S. 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. For Koyo, the 
cash deposit rates will be those rates established in the final results 
for the 1993-94 administrative 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 less-than-fair-value (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, Finished and 
Unfinished, and Parts Thereof, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From 
Japan, 58 FR 51058, 51061 (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: May 10, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12519 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P