[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35713-35724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-485-801, A-559-801, A-
549-801, A-412-801]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, 
Thailand and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, Termination of Administrative Reviews, and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Termination of Administrative Reviews, and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other 
than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom. The classes or 
kinds of merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and 
parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof 
(CRBs), and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof (SPBs). The 
reviews cover 27 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review (the 
POR) is May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995.
    Although we initiated reviews for seven other manufacturers/
exporters, we are terminating the reviews because the requests for 
these reviews were withdrawn in a timely manner. In addition, the 
Department is terminating reviews of the orders on BBs from Romania and 
Thailand. The sole request

[[Page 35714]]

we received regarding Romania was withdrawn. Regarding Thailand, on 
June 21, 1996, we issued the final results of the 1993-1994 
administrative review revoking the order on BBs from Thailand, 
effective May 1, 1994.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV) by various companies subject to these reviews. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these 
administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess 
antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price 
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and the NV.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The appropriate case analyst, for the 
various respondent firms listed below, at the Office of Antidumping 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

France

    Andrea Chu (Intertechnique, SNFA, SNR), Hermes Pinilla (Franke 
GmbH, Hoesch Rothe Erde, Rollix Defontaine), Matthew Rosenbaum (SKF), 
or Michael Rill.

Germany

    Thomas Barlow (Torrington Nadellager), Davina Hashmi (INA), Chip 
Hayes (NTN Kugellagerfabrik), Hermes Pinilla (Franke GmbH, Hoesch Rothe 
Erde and Rollix Defontaine), Matthew Rosenbaum (SKF), Thomas Schauer 
(FAG), Michael Rill, or Richard Rimlinger.

Italy

    Kris Campbell (SKF), Michael Rausher (FAG), Michael Rill, or 
Richard Rimlinger.

Japan

    J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Chip Hayes (NTN), Michael Panfeld 
(NPBS), Mark Ross (Asahi Seiko), Thomas Schauer (NSK Ltd.), or Richard 
Rimlinger.

Singapore

    Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.

United Kingdom

    Andrea Chu (Hoffman U.K.), Hermes Pinilla (NSK/RHP), Matthew 
Rosenbaum (Rose Bearing Co., Ltd.), or Michael Rill.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders on BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, 
and the United Kingdom. Specifically, these orders cover BBs, CRBs, and 
SPBs from France, Germany, and Japan; BBs and CRBs from Italy, Sweden 
and the U.K.; and BBs from Romania, Singapore and Thailand. On June 19, 
1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated administrative 
reviews of certain of these orders for the period May 1, 1994, through 
April 30, 1995 (60 FR 31952). The Department is now conducting these 
administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
    Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely 
withdrawals of review requests for Fichtel & Sachs AG (Germany), 
Jidosha Buhin Kogyo Co., Ltd. (Japan), Naiico Spicer Co., Ltd. (Japan), 
Nissan Trading Co., Ltd. (Japan), Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd. (Japan), 
Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (Romania), Barden Corporation (United Kingdom), 
and Normalair-Garrett Ltd. (United Kingdom). Because there were no 
other requests for review of these companies from any other interested 
parties, we are terminating the reviews with respect to these companies 
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). We are terminating the review 
of AFBs from Romania because Tehnoimportexport, S.A. was the only 
company for which a review of that order was requested.
    We are terminating the review of AFBs from Thailand with respect to 
NMB Thai/Pelmec Thai because subsequent to the initiation of this 
review we revoked the antidumping duty order (see Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Thailand; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation 
of Antidumping Duty Order, issued June 21, 1996).

Scope of Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews are AFBs and constitute the 
following classes or kinds of merchandise:
    1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all 
antifriction bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports 
of these products are classified under the following categories: 
antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings 
(including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or 
mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 
4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 
8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.10, 
8482.99.35, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 
8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 
8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 
8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
    2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products 
include all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling 
element. Imports of these products are classified under the following 
categories: antifriction rollers, all cylindrical roller bearings 
(including split cylindrical roller bearings) and parts thereof, and 
housed or mounted cylindrical roller bearing units and parts thereof.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS 
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 
6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00, 8482.50.00, 
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530, 
8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
8483.50.8040, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 
8708.60.50, 8708.93.5000, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 
8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 
8803.90.90.
    3. Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products 
include all spherical plain bearings that employ a spherically shaped 
sliding element.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS 
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

[[Page 35715]]

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.50.10, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00, 
8708.93.5000, 8708.99.50, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 
8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by the order. For a further discussion of the 
scope of the orders being reviewed, including recent scope 
determinations, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al.; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Orders, 60 FR 10900 (February 28, 1995) (AFBs IV). The HTS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
descriptions remain dispositive.
    These reviews cover the following firms and classes or kinds of 
merchandise:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Name of firm                        Class or kind         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 France                                                 
                                                                        
Franke GmbH............................  BBs.                           
Hoesch Rothe-Erde AG...................  BBs.                           
Intertechnique.........................  All.                           
Rollix Defontaine, S.A.................  BBs.                           
SKF France (including all relevant       All.                           
 affiliates).                                                           
SNFA...................................  BBs, CRBs.                     
Societe Nouvelle Roulements (SNR)......  All.                           
                                                                        
                Germany                                                 
                                                                        
FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA     All.                           
 (FAG Germany).                                                         
Franke GmbH............................  BBs.                           
Hoesch Rothe Erde AG...................  BBs.                           
INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (INA)......  All.                           
NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH  All.                           
 (NTN Germany).                                                         
Rollix & Defontaine, S.A...............  BBs.                           
SKF GmbH (including all relevant         All.                           
 affiliates) (SKF Germany).                                             
Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/       BBs, CRBs.                     
 Kuensenbeck).                                                          
                                                                        
                 Italy                                                  
                                                                        
FAG Italia S.p.A. (including all         BBs, CRBs.                     
 relevant affiliates) (FAG Italy).                                      
SKF-Industrie S.p.A. (SKF Italy).......  BBs.                           
                                                                        
                 Japan                                                  
                                                                        
Asahi Seiko............................  BBs.                           
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd....................  All.                           
Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd.  All.                           
 (NPBS).                                                                
NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.)..  All.                           
NTN Corp. (NTN Japan)..................  All.                           
                                                                        
               Singapore                                                
                                                                        
NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec Ind. (Pte.)    BBs.                           
 Ltd. (NMB Singapore/Pelmec).                                           
                                                                        
             United Kingdom                                             
                                                                        
NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings   BBs, CRBs.                     
 (NSK/RHP).                                                             
Hoffman U.K............................  BBs, CRBs.                     
Rose Bearing Co., Ltd..................  BBs, CRBs.                     
Timken Bearing Co......................  BBs, CRBs.                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain respondents reported no shipments or sales subject to these 
reviews. One firm, Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/Kuensenbeck), 
reported entries of merchandise subject to the order on BBs from 
Germany but no sales to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers. Because this 
merchandise was consumed by the affiliated importer and not resold in 
any form, we will liquidate these entries without regard to antidumping 
duties.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by certain respondents, using standard verification 
procedures, 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 the verification reports.

Use of Facts Available

    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the weighted-
average dumping margin is appropriate for SNFA, Hoffman U.K., and Rose 
Bearings, all with respect to BBs and CRBs, for Torrington Nadellager 
with respect to CRBs only, and for SKF France with respect to SPBs 
only, because these firms did not respond to our antidumping 
questionnaire. We find that these firms have withheld ``information 
that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore, 
we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is 
appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of these 
companies because they failed to cooperate by not responding to our 
questionnaire. For the weighted-average dumping margins of these firms, 
we have used the highest rate from any prior segment of the respective 
proceeding as adverse facts available, which is secondary information 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
    We also preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) 
of the Act, that the use of the facts available as the basis for the 
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for NPBS because, 
despite the Department's attempts to verify information provided

[[Page 35716]]

by NPBS, the Department could not verify the information as required 
under section 782(i) of the Act. Where a party provides information 
requested by the Department but the information cannot be verified, 
section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Department to use facts 
otherwise available. Further, in accordance with section 782(e)(2) of 
the Act, the Department has declined to consider information submitted 
by NPBS because the information cannot be verified. Moreover, we 
preliminarily determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
NPBS did not cooperate to the best of its ability and therefore we are 
required to use adverse facts available.
    We found that responses provided by NPBS, as a whole, could not be 
verified. At our attempted verification, for example, we found the 
following inaccuracies in the response provided by NPBS which render 
the response unusable for purposes of margin calculations: unreported 
home market and United States sales; inability to demonstrate how 
quantity and value totals were calculated; incorrect reporting of the 
form of the subject merchandise as entered; incorrect designation of 
bearings that were further processed in the United States; and failure 
to provide in its response to the questionnaire the final prices to its 
largest home market customer. In addition, we found errors in the 
calculation of the following items: entered customs value, all charges 
and adjustments allocated by entered value, customer category of U.S. 
sales, U.S. inland freight, U.S. international freight, U.S. short-term 
interest rate, export selling expenses incurred in the home market, 
indirect selling expenses for home market sales, and home market short-
term interest income.
    NPBS has not cooperated to the best of its ability, as demonstrated 
by the misreportings, inaccuracies, and omissions we found at our 
attempted verification which resulted from inconsistencies in data 
within NPBS's control. Therefore, as facts available for NPBS, we have 
used the ``all others'' rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, which is considered secondary information within the 
meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value (see H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 
2d sess. 870 (1994)).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a 
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is 
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers) (where 
the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse best 
information available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin)).
    In this case, for SKF France, SNFA, Torrington Nadellager, Hoffman 
U.K. and Rose Bearings, we have used the highest rate from any prior 
segment of the respective proceeding as adverse facts available. This 
rate is the highest available rate and no evidence exists in the record 
that indicates that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse 
facts available.
    For NPBS, we examined the rates applicable to ball bearings from 
Japan throughout the course of the proceeding. Given NPBS's level of 
participation in this segment of the proceeding, we preliminarily 
determine that 45.83 percent, which is the all others rate from the 
LTFV investigation, is sufficiently adverse to encourage full 
cooperation in future segments of the proceeding. Moreover, this rate 
has probative value because it includes the average of calculated 
margins from the LTFV investigation. Furthermore, there is no reliable 
evidence on the record indicating that this selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available. (See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers.)

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used EP or CEP as defined in 
sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, as appropriate. Due to the 
extremely large volume of transactions that occurred during the POR and 
the resulting administrative burden involved in calculating individual 
margins for all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales in 
accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm made more than 
2,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States for a particular 
class or kind of merchandise, we reviewed CEP sales that occurred 
during sample weeks. We selected one week from each two-month period in 
the review period, for a total of six weeks, and analyzed each 
transaction made in those six weeks. The sample weeks included May 1-7, 
1994, August 21-27, 1994, October 2-8, 1994, November 6-12, 1994, 
January 22-28, 1995, and March 19-25, 1995. We reviewed all EP sales 
transactions during the POR.
    We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts 
and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA (at 
823-824), we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including commissions, direct selling expenses, expenses assumed on 
behalf of the buyer and indirect selling expenses, and repacking 
expenses in the United States. Where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also deducted the cost of any further 
manufacture or assembly, except where the special rule provided in 
section 772(e) of the Act was applied (see below). Finally, we made an 
adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to these expenses in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, e.g., parts 
of bearings that were imported and further processed into finished 
bearings by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters, we determined that 
the special rule for merchandise with value added after importation 
under section 772(e) of the Act applied for all firms, except INA, that 
added value in the United States.

[[Page 35717]]

    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject 
merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in 
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine 
the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other 
subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use 
of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of 
such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or 
other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other 
reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
    To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the 
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold 
in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the 
subject merchandise by the affiliated person. Based on this analysis, 
we estimated, for all firms except INA that added value in the United 
States, that the value added was at least 60 percent of the price 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold 
in the United States. Therefore, we determined that the value added is 
likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. 
Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins for these 
sales, we have used the weighted-average dumping margins calculated on 
sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated 
persons.
    No other adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product each respondent 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, because each company's 
quantity of sales in its home market was greater than five percent of 
its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the 
foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the exporting 
country.
    Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred 
during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in 
examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate NV 
in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm had more than 
2,000 home market sales transactions for a particular class or kind of 
merchandise, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the 
sample weeks we selected for U.S. sales sampling plus one 
contemporaneous month prior to the POR and one following the POR. The 
sample months included April, May, August, October, and November of 
1994, and January, March, and May of 1995.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unrelated 
customers.
    Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of 
production (COP) in the last completed review with respect to SNR, FAG 
Germany, FAG Italy, INA, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, Asahi 
Seiko, Koyo, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind., and NSK/
RHP and the classes or kinds of merchandise under review (see AFBs IV; 
concerning Asahi Seiko, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al.; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an 
Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993) (AFBs III)), we had 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review 
may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales by SNR, FAG 
Germany, FAG Italy, INA, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, Asahi 
Seiko, Koyo, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec, and NSK/RHP in 
the home market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product plus selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to 
placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for 
shipment. In our COP analysis, we used the home market sales and COP 
information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses. 
We did not conduct a COP analysis for respondents which reported no 
sales or no shipments, nor did we conduct a COP analysis for 
respondents for which we relied on facts available to determine 
weighted-average dumping margins.
    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of AFBs 
were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities and whether such prices permit recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific 
COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable movement 
charges, discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they (1) 
were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities 
in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) 
based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, 
were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with 
respect to all of the above companies and classes or kinds of 
merchandise.
    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market. We considered all non-identical products within a 
bearing family to be equally similar. As defined in the questionnaire, 
a bearing family consists of all bearings within a class or kind of 
merchandise that are the same in the following physical 
characteristics: load direction, bearing design, number of rows of 
rolling elements, precision rating, dynamic load rating, outer 
diameter, inner diameter, and width.
    Home market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or 
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home 
market. Where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in 
packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) 
(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in 
cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for 
differences in circumstances of sale

[[Page 35718]]

(COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 
C.F.R. 353.56. For comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses except those deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. We also made 
adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling 
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade as 
the EP or CEP. If NV was calculated at a different level of trade, we 
made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level of Trade below.)
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with 
section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and 
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, 
we used the weighted-average home market selling expenses. To the 
extent possible, we calculated CV by level of trade, using the selling 
expenses and profit determined for each level of trade in the 
comparison market.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 353.56 for COS differences 
and level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses except those deducted from the starting 
price in calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. We also 
made adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling 
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
    Where possible, we calculated CV at the same level of trade as the 
EP or CEP. If CV was calculated at a different level of trade, we made 
an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(7) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. (See Level of Trade 
below.)

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA 
accompanying the URAA at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the 
Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade 
as the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same level of 
trade as the U.S. sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to 
sales at a different level of trade in the comparison market.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at 
allegedly different levels of trade are compared, the Department will 
adjust the NV to account for the difference in level of trade if two 
conditions are met. First, there must be differences between the actual 
selling activities performed by the exporter at the level of trade of 
the U.S. sale and the level of trade of the comparison market sales 
used to determine NV. Second, the differences must affect price 
comparability as evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences 
between sales at the different levels of trade in the market in which 
NV is determined.
    Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset'' 
may be made when two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a level 
of trade which constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than 
the level of trade of the CEP; and (2) the data available do not 
provide an appropriate basis for a level-of-trade adjustment.
    In implementing these principles in these reviews, we obtained 
information about the selling activities of the producers/exporters 
associated with each channel of distribution. We asked each respondent 
to establish any claimed levels of trade based on these selling 
activities.
    In order to determine whether separate levels of trade actually 
existed within or between the U.S. and home markets, we reviewed the 
selling activities associated with each channel of distribution claimed 
by the respondents. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 
the SAA at 827, in identifying levels of trade for EP and home market 
sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting 
price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the 
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. Whenever sales 
were made by or through an affiliated company or agent, we considered 
all selling activities of both affiliated parties, except for those 
selling activities related to the expenses deducted under section 
772(d) of the Act in CEP situations.
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondents, we 
considered all types of selling activities that had been performed. In 
analyzing whether separate levels of trade existed in these reviews, we 
found that no single selling function in the bearings industry was 
sufficient to warrant a separate level of trade (see Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7307, 7348 (February 
27, 1996) (Proposed Regulations)).
    In determining whether separate levels of trade existed in or 
between the U.S. and home markets, the Department considered the level-
of-trade claims of each respondent. To test the claimed levels of 
trade, we analyzed the selling activities associated with the channels 
of distribution respondents reported. In applying this test, we expect 
that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of 
sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
    When we were unable to find sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market at the same level of trade as that of the EP or CEP, we 
examined whether a level-of-trade adjustment was appropriate. In these 
reviews, the same level of trade as that of the CEP did not exist in 
the home market. For some EP sales, we also did not find the same level 
of trade in the home market. Therefore, we could not determine whether 
there was a pattern of consistent price differences between the levels 
of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, based on 
the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under review. 
However, the SAA states that ``if information on the same product and 
company is not available, the adjustment may also be based on sales of 
other products by the same company. In the absence of any sales, 
including those in recent time periods, to different levels of trade by 
the exporter or producer under investigation, Commerce may further 
consider the selling experience of other producers in the foreign 
market for the same product or other products.'' SAA

[[Page 35719]]

at 830. Accordingly, where necessary we examined the alternative 
methods for calculating a level-of-trade adjustment. In these reviews, 
we did not have information that would allow us to apply these 
alternative methods. Thus, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(b) of 
the Act, if we established NV at a level of trade which constituted a 
more advanced stage of distribution, we made a CEP offset.
    For some EP sales, the same level of trade did exist in the home 
market but we could only match the U.S. sale to home market sales at a 
different level of trade because there were no usable sales of the 
foreign like product at the same level of trade. Therefore, we 
determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price differences 
between these different levels of trade in the home market. To make 
this determination, we compared the average of the prices of sales made 
in the ordinary course of trade at the two levels of trade for models 
sold at both levels. If the average prices were higher at one of the 
levels of trade for a preponderance of the models, we considered this 
to demonstrate a pattern of consistent price differences. We also 
considered whether the average prices were higher at one of the levels 
of trade for a preponderance of sales, based on the quantities of each 
model sold, in making this determination.
    Respondent Intertechnique reported only one channel of distribution 
in the home market and only EP sales through one channel of 
distribution to the United States. Because the selling activities in 
both markets were substantially the same, we considered the home market 
sales and the EP sales to be at the same level of trade. Therefore, we 
made no level-of-trade adjustments.
    SKF Germany, SKF France, SKF Italy, Koyo, and SNR each reported two 
channels of distribution in the home market. For each of these 
companies we found that the two home market channels differed 
significantly with respect to selling activities such as advertising 
and sales promotion, sales and marketing support, inventory maintenance 
and, to a lesser degree, other selling activities. Based on these 
differences, we found that the two home market channels constituted two 
different levels of trade.
    These companies, except SKF France and SKF Italy, reported only CEP 
sales in the U.S. market. SKF France and SKF Italy also had EP sales. 
Although the starting price for the CEP sales was based on sales made 
by the affiliated reseller to unaffiliated customers through two 
channels of distribution which constituted two different levels of 
trade, each of these companies reported similar selling activities 
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller (i.e., at the 
level of trade of the CEP). Therefore, we considered the CEP to 
constitute only one level of trade for each of these companies. We 
found that there were significant differences between the selling 
activities associated with the CEP and those associated with each of 
the home market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the 
CEP involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting, 
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical 
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered the level 
of trade of the CEP to be different from either home market level of 
trade and a less advanced stage of distribution than either home market 
level of trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same 
level of trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-
trade adjustment based on each respondent's home market sales of 
merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other information 
that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade 
adjustment. For these respondents, to the extent possible, we 
determined NV at the same level of trade as the starting price for the 
CEP, which was the price to the unaffiliated customer, and made a CEP 
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 
SKF France made EP sales of BBs through one channel of distribution. 
SKF Italy made EP sales of BBs through two channels of distribution. 
For both SKF France and SKF Italy, the selling activities associated 
with EP sales were similar to those associated with one of the levels 
of trade in the home market. Therefore, we considered these channels to 
constitute one level of trade and this level of trade to be the same as 
a level of trade in the home market. Where possible we matched EP sales 
to sales at the same level of trade in the home market and made no 
level-of-trade adjustment. Where we matched to home market sales at a 
different level of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act, we determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price 
differences between these different levels of trade in the home market. 
For this class or kind of merchandise, we found that there was such a 
pattern for both SKF France and SKF Italy and therefore made an 
adjustment for the differences in level of trade. We therefore adjusted 
normal value by the weighted-average difference in prices between the 
two levels of trade in the home market. We calculated the adjustment 
based on home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade and 
prices net of billing adjustments, movement expenses, discounts, 
rebates, commissions, direct selling expenses and packing expenses. For 
each model sold at both levels of trade in the home market, we 
calculated the difference between the weighted-average prices at the 
two levels of trade as a percentage of the weighted-average price at 
the comparison level of trade. We then calculated a weighted average of 
these model-specific percentage differences on a class-or-kind basis. 
We calculated the amount of the level-of-trade adjustment by applying 
this weighted-average percentage price difference to the NV determined 
at the different level of trade.
    INA reported only one channel of distribution in the home market. 
Because the selling activities associated with all sales were similar, 
we considered this channel of distribution to constitute one level of 
trade. INA reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market, 
one represented by its EP sales and one represented by its CEP sales. 
Because the selling activities associated with the home market level of 
trade were similar to those associated with EP sales, we made no level-
of-trade adjustments for these comparisons. For CEP sales, INA reported 
similar selling activities associated with all sales to the affiliated 
reseller. Therefore, we considered the CEP to constitute only one level 
of trade. We compared the selling activities associated with the sale 
to the affiliated reseller to those associated with the home market 
level of trade and found them to be dissimilar. For example, the level 
of trade of the CEP involved little or no strategic and economic 
planning, advertising or sales promotion, technical services, technical 
assistance, inventory maintenance or after-sale service. Therefore, we 
considered the home market sales to be at a different level of trade 
and at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP. Because the 
sole home market level of trade was different from the level of trade 
of the CEP, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in 
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment 
based on INA's home market sales of merchandise under review. 
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate 
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. Accordingly, for 
INA, we determined NV at the sole

[[Page 35720]]

home market level of trade and made a CEP offset adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    FAG Germany reported a number of channels of distribution in the 
home market. We found that four of these channels did not differ 
significantly with respect to selling activities and constitute one 
level of trade (level 1). We found that the same is true of three other 
home market channels (level 2). Finally, we found that another home 
market channel is not similar to any of the other channels of 
distribution in the home market (level 3). We found that level 1 
differed significantly from level 2 with respect to selling activities 
such as post-sale services and warranties, technical advice, 
advertising, strategic and economic planning, market research, research 
and development, and engineering services. We found that level 1 
differed significantly from level 3 with respect to selling activities 
such as inventory maintenance, advertising, freight and delivery 
arrangement, strategic and economic planning, market research, 
personnel training, research and development, and engineering services. 
We found that level 2 differed significantly from level 3 with respect 
to selling activities such as inventory maintenance, post-sale services 
and warranties, technical advice, freight and delivery arrangement, 
advertising, and personnel training. Based on these differences, we 
found that the three home market channel groups constitute three 
different levels of trade.
    In the U.S. market, FAG Germany reported CEP sales and EP sales. 
The CEP sales were made by FAG Germany's U.S. subsidiary to 
unaffiliated customers through channels of distribution and at levels 
of trade similar to levels 1 and 2 in the home market. Although we 
considered FAG Germany's sales to unaffiliated customers to be made at 
two levels of trade, FAG Germany reported similar selling activities 
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we 
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that 
there were significant differences between the selling activities 
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home 
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP 
involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting, 
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical 
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered the level 
of trade of the CEP to be different from all home market levels of 
trade and at a less advanced stage of distribution than any home market 
level of trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same 
level of trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-
trade adjustment based on FAG Germany's home market sales of 
merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other information 
that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade 
adjustment. For FAG Germany, to the extent possible, we determined NV 
for CEP sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the 
unaffiliated customer and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance 
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. FAG Germany made EP sales of two 
classes or kinds of merchandise through channels of distribution 
similar to those comprising one of the levels of trade in the home 
market. Therefore, we considered these channels to constitute one level 
of trade and this level of trade to be the same as one of the levels of 
trade in the home market. Where possible we matched EP sales to sales 
at the same level of trade in the home market and made no level-of-
trade adjustment. Where we matched to home market sales at a different 
level of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we 
determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price differences 
between these different levels of trade in the home market. For BBs, we 
found that there was such a pattern and therefore made an adjustment 
for the differences in level of trade. However, for CRBs we did not 
find such a pattern and therefore made no level-of-trade adjustment. 
For BBs, we adjusted normal value by the weighted-average difference in 
prices between the two levels of trade in the home market. We 
calculated the adjustment based on home market sales made in the 
ordinary course of trade and prices net of billing adjustments, 
movement expenses, discounts, rebates, commissions, direct selling 
expenses and packing expenses. For each model sold at both levels of 
trade in the home market, we calculated the difference between the 
weighted-average prices at the two levels of trade as a percentage of 
the weighted-average price at the comparison level of trade. We then 
calculated a weighted-average of these model-specific percentage 
differences on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated the amount of the 
level-of-trade adjustment by applying this weighted-average percentage 
price difference to the NV determined at the different level of trade.
    FAG Italy reported two channels of distribution in the home market. 
We found that the two home market channels differed with respect to 
selling activities such as after sales services/warranties, technical 
advice, and research and development. Based on these differences, we 
found that the two home market channels constituted two different 
levels of trade.
    In the U.S. market, FAG Italy reported only CEP sales. The CEP 
sales were made by FAG Italy's U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated 
customers through channels of distribution and at levels of trade 
similar to the two levels of trade in the home market. Although we 
considered FAG Italy's sales to unaffiliated customers to be made at 
two levels of trade, FAG Italy reported similar selling activities 
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we 
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that 
there were significant differences between the selling activities 
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home 
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP 
involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting, 
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical 
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered the level 
of trade of the CEP to be different from either home market level of 
trade and at a less advanced stage of distribution than either home 
market level of trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the 
same level of trade in the home market, nor could we determine a level-
of-trade adjustment based on FAG Italy's home market sales of 
merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other information 
that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade 
adjustment. For FAG Italy, to the extent possible, we determined NV at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer 
and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    NSK reported four channels of distribution in the home market. We 
found that two of these channels did not differ significantly from each 
other with respect to selling activities and constitute one level of 
trade (level 1). We found that the same is true of the other two home 
market channels (level 2). We found that the selling activities 
associated with level 1 differed significantly from activities at level 
2. For example, we found differences with respect to personnel 
training, advertising, technical support, price negotiation, and sales 
calls on the end-user. Based on these differences, we found that the 
two home market channel groups constituted two different levels of 
trade.

[[Page 35721]]

    In the U.S. market, NSK had CEP sales and EP sales. NSK made CEP 
sales to unaffiliated customers through five channels of distribution, 
which we considered to be two levels of trade similar to those found in 
the home market. Though NSK's sales to unaffiliated customers were made 
at two levels of trade, NSK reported similar selling activities 
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we 
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that 
there were significant differences between the selling activities 
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home 
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP 
involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting, 
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical 
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered this level 
of trade to be different from either home market level of trade and at 
a less advanced stage of distribution than either home market level of 
trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of 
trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade 
adjustment based on NSK's home market sales of merchandise under to 
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an 
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For NSK, 
to the extent possible, we determined NV for CEP sales at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a 
CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B). NSK made 
EP sales of one class or kind of merchandise to unaffiliated customers 
through channels of distribution similar to those comprising channel 1 
in the home market. Therefore, we considered these channels to 
constitute one level of trade and that level of trade to be the same as 
level 1 in the home market. Where possible we have matched EP sales to 
sales at the same level of trade in the home market and made no level-
of-trade adjustment. Where we matched EP sales to home market sales at 
a different level of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act, we determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price 
differences between these different levels of trade in the home market. 
For this class or kind of merchandise, we found that there was such a 
pattern and therefore made an adjustment for the differences in level 
of trade. We adjusted normal value by the weighted-average difference 
in prices between the two levels of trade in the home market. We 
calculated the adjustment based on home market sales made in the 
ordinary course of trade and prices net of billing adjustments, 
movement expenses, discounts, rebates, commissions, direct selling 
expenses and packing expenses. For each model sold at both levels of 
trade in the home market, we calculated the difference between the 
weighted-average prices at the two levels of trade as a percentage of 
the weighted-average price at the comparison level of trade. We then 
calculated a weighted-average of these model-specific percentage 
differences on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated the amount of the 
level-of-trade adjustment by applying this weighted-average percentage 
price difference to the NV determined at the different level of trade.
    NTN Japan reported five channels of distribution in the home 
market. We found that the degree to which NTN Japan performed functions 
such as market research, technical services, and sales services such as 
processing and purchasing arrangements and delivery arrangements varied 
among the five channels. Based on these differences, we found that the 
five home market channels constituted three levels of trade. We found 
that the selling activities for level 1 differed significantly from 
levels 2 and 3 in terms of strategic economic planning, market 
research, accounting and business functions, engineering services, 
types of packing, and types of advertising and sales promotion. The 
selling activities for level 2 varied from those of level 3 in 
strategic and economic planning, accounting and business functions, and 
advertising and sales promotion.
    NTN Japan reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market made 
through two channels of distribution. NTN Japan made CEP sales through 
its U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated customers through channels of 
distribution similar to those in the home market. Though these sales to 
unaffiliated customers were made at two levels of trade, NTN Japan 
reported similar selling activities associated with all sales to the 
affiliated reseller. Therefore, we considered the CEP to constitute 
only one level of trade. We found that there were significant 
differences between the selling activities associated with the CEP and 
those associated with each of the home market levels of trade. For 
example, at the level of trade of the CEP there was little or no 
strategic planning, sales forecasting, advertising, or technical 
assistance. Therefore, we considered this level of trade to be 
different from the three home market levels of trade and at a less 
advanced stage of distribution than the home market levels of trade. 
Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in 
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment 
based on the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under 
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an 
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For this 
respondent, to the extent possible, we determined NV at the same level 
of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP 
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 
We considered all of NTN Japan's EP sales to be at one level of trade. 
We determined that the selling activities associated with EP sales were 
essentially the same as those associated with one of the home market 
levels of trade, and therefore the EP level of trade did exist in the 
home market. Therefore, where possible we matched EP sales to sales at 
the same level of trade in the home market and made no level-of-trade 
adjustment. Where we matched to home market sales at a different level 
of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we 
determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price differences 
between these different levels of trade in the home market. For BBs and 
CRBs, we found that there was such a pattern and therefore made an 
adjustment for the differences in level of trade. However, for SPBs we 
did not find such a pattern and therefore made no level-of-trade 
adjustment. For BBs and CRBs, we adjusted NV by the weighted-average 
difference in prices between the two levels of trade in the home 
market. We calculated the adjustment based on home market sales made in 
the ordinary course of trade and prices net of billing adjustments, 
movement expenses, discounts, rebates, commissions, direct selling 
expenses and packing expenses. For each model sold at both levels of 
trade in the home market, we calculated the difference between the 
weighted-average prices at the two levels of trade as a percentage of 
the weighted-average price at the comparison level of trade. We then 
calculated a weighted average of these model-specific percentage 
differences on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated the amount of the 
level-of-trade adjustment by applying this weighted-average percentage 
price difference to the NV determined at the different level of trade.
    NTN Germany claimed one channel of distribution but two levels of 
trade in

[[Page 35722]]

the home market. We found that the degree to which NTN Germany 
performed functions such as after sales services, market research, 
technical services, and sales services such as processing and 
purchasing arrangements differed by claimed levels of trade. Based on 
these differences, we found that these claimed levels of trade in fact 
constitute two levels of trade in the home market.
    NTN Germany reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market. Though CEP 
sales to unaffiliated customers were made at two levels of trade, NTN 
Germany reported similar selling activities associated with all sales 
to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we considered the CEP to 
constitute only one level of trade. We found that there were 
significant differences between the selling activities associated with 
the CEP and those associated with each of the home market levels of 
trade. For example, at the level of trade of the CEP there was little 
or no strategic planning, sales forecasting, advertising, or technical 
assistance. Therefore, we considered this level of trade to be 
different from the home market levels of trade and at a less advanced 
stage of distribution than the home market levels of trade. 
Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in 
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment 
based on the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under 
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an 
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For this 
respondent, to the extent possible, we determined NV at the same level 
of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP 
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    NMB Singapore/Pelmec reported two channels of distribution in the 
home market. We found that these two channels differed significantly 
with respect to selling activities such as after-sales services/
warranties, technical support, engineering services, market research, 
sales promotion, and advertising. Based on these differences, we found 
that the two home market channels constituted two different levels of 
trade.
    NMB Singapore/Pelmec reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market. 
Though sales were made to unaffiliated customers through two channels 
of distribution, the company reported similar selling activities 
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we 
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that 
there were significant differences between the selling activities 
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home 
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP only 
involved order processing and some engineering consultation. This level 
did not include any of the other selling activities associated with 
either of the home market levels of trade such as inventory 
maintenance, after-sales services/warranties, technical support, market 
research, sales promotion, advertising, freight and delivery, packing 
and accounting. Therefore, we considered the level of trade of the CEP 
to be different from either home market level of trade and at a less 
advanced stage of distribution than either home market level of trade. 
Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in 
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment 
based on the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under 
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an 
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For this 
respondent, to the extent possible, we determined NV at the same level 
of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP 
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    Asahi Seiko reported seven channels of distribution in the home 
market and CEP sales through four channels of distribution in the U.S. 
market. In comparing selling activities among channels of distribution 
in the home market, we found that no promotional expenses, sales-
support functions, or inventory maintenance activities were performed 
for the channel of distribution consisting of direct sales to Asahi's 
affiliated customer while these functions were performed with respect 
to the other six channels. In addition, the selling activities were 
substantially the same among the other six channels. Therefore, we 
found that the seven HM channels constitute two different levels of 
trade. However, we are not using the level of trade consisting of 
direct sales to Asahi's affiliated customer as a basis for NV because 
we could not determine that these sales were made at arm's-length 
prices. Thus, for NV we could use only one level of trade for 
comparison purposes.
    In the U.S. market Asahi Seiko reported that the CEP sales it made 
to unaffiliated customers were through four channels of distribution, 
but the selling activities among all sales to the affiliated reseller 
were similar. Therefore, we considered the CEP to constitute only one 
level of trade. We found significant differences between the selling 
activities associated with the CEP and those associated with the home 
market level of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP 
involved little or no advertising and sales promotions, engineering 
services, or after-sales service. Therefore, we considered this level 
of trade to be different from and at a less advanced stage of 
distribution than the home market level of trade. Consequently, we 
could not match to sales at the same level of trade in the home market 
nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on Asahi's 
home market sales of merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no 
other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a 
level-of-trade adjustment. For Asahi Seiko, to the extent possible, we 
determined NV at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales to the 
unaffiliated customer and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance 
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    NSK/RHP reported five channels of distribution in the home market. 
The selling activities associated with three of these reported channels 
did not differ significantly, and therefore we considered sales through 
these channels to constitute one level of trade (level 1). The selling 
activities associated with another channel of distribution differed 
from level 1 in terms of advertising, inventory maintenance, technical 
support and to a lesser degree other selling activities. Therefore, we 
consider this channel of distribution to constitute a second level of 
trade (level 2). The remaining channel of distribution involved only 
sales to an affiliate. However, we requested, and NSK/RHP reported, the 
downstream sales to unaffiliated customers which constitute levels 1 
and 2. Moreover, we could not determine that these sales were made at 
arm's length. Therefore, we did not use these sales to determine NV or 
as the basis of any level-of-trade adjustments.
    In the U.S. market, NSK/RHP reported EP and CEP sales. Although 
NSK/RHP reported that the CEP sales it made to unaffiliated customers 
were made through two channels of distribution, the selling activities 
among all sales to the affiliated reseller were similar. Therefore, we 
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We compared 
the selling activities at this level of trade with the selling 
activities at each home market level of trade and found them to be 
substantially dissimilar. For example, the level of trade of the CEP 
involved little or no strategic and economic planning,

[[Page 35723]]

advertising or sales promotion, technical services, technical 
assistance, or inventory maintenance. Therefore, we considered the home 
market sales to be at a different level of trade and at a more advanced 
stage of distribution than CEP. Because the home market levels of trade 
were different from the level of trade of the CEP, we could not match 
to sales at the same level of trade in the home market nor could we 
determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on NSK-RHP's home market 
sales of merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other 
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-
of-trade adjustment. For NSK-RHP's CEP sales, to the extent possible, 
we determined NV at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the 
unaffiliated customer and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance 
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. NSK/RHP made EP sales of two 
classes or kinds of merchandise to unaffiliated customers through one 
channel of distribution which we considered to be a level of trade 
similar to one of the levels of trade in the home market. We were able 
to match all EP sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home 
market and therefore made no level-of-trade adjustments.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period May 1, 
1994, through April 30, 1995 to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Company                      BBs      CRBs      SPBs  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  France                                                
                                                                        
Franke GmbH...............................   1 66.42       (3)       (3)
Hoesch Rothe Erde.........................       (2)       (3)       (3)
Intertechnique............................      1.55       (2)       (2)
Rollix Defontaine.........................       (2)       (3)       (3)
SKF.......................................     21.39       (2)     42.79
SNFA......................................     66.42     18.37       (2)
SNR.......................................      2.10      4.26       (2)
                                                                        
                  Germany                                               
                                                                        
FAG.......................................     10.22     16.90      9.51
Franke GmbH...............................  1 132.25       (3)       (3)
Hoesch Rothe Erde.........................       (2)       (2)       (2)
INA.......................................     11.66     12.33       (2)
NTN.......................................     23.37       (2)       (2)
Rollix & Defontaine.......................       (2)       (3)       (3)
SKF.......................................      2.42      8.11      5.34
Torrington Nadellager.....................       (2)     76.27       (3)
                                                                        
                   Italy                                                
                                                                        
FAG.......................................      2.43       (2)       (3)
SKF.......................................      2.68       (3)       (3)
                                                                        
                   Japan                                                
                                                                        
Asahi Seiko...............................      1.96       (3)       (3)
Koyo Seiko................................     22.32      2.79    0.00 1
NPBS......................................     45.83       (2)       (2)
NSK Ltd...................................     14.24     18.27       (2)
NTN.......................................      4.31     10.27      2.60
                                                                        
                 Singapore                                              
                                                                        
NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind..................      0.71       (3)       (3)
                                                                        
              United Kingdom                                            
                                                                        
NSK/RHP...................................      9.60     11.13       (3)
Hoffman U.K...............................     54.27     48.29       (3)
Rose Bearings.............................     54.27     48.29       (3)
Timken Bearings...........................       (2)       (2)       (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last 
  relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/   
  sales.                                                                
\2\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no       
  individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.                  
\3\ No review requested.                                                

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. A general issues hearing, if requested, and any hearings 
regarding issues related solely to specific countries, if requested, 
will be held in accordance with the following schedule and at the 
indicated locations in the main Commerce Department building:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Case                                Date                          Time               Room No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues...........................  Aug. 16, 1996...............  9:00 a.m....................       4830
Singapore................................  Aug. 16, 1996...............  3:00 p.m....................       4830
United Kingdom...........................  Aug. 19, 1996...............  10:00 a.m...................       1412
Japan....................................  Aug. 19, 1996...............  1:00 p.m....................       1412
Germany..................................  Aug. 20, 1996...............  10:00 a.m...................       1412
France...................................  Aug. 20, 1996...............  1:00 p.m....................       1412
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective briefs and rebuttal briefs. Briefs from interested parties 
and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective 
case briefs, may be submitted not later than the dates shown below for 
general issues and the respective country-specific cases. Parties who 
submit briefs or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Case                      Briefs           Rebuttals due  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General issues..................  Aug. 5, 1996......  Aug. 12, 1996.    
Singapore.......................  Aug. 5, 1996......  Aug. 12, 1996.    
U.K.............................  Aug. 6, 1996......  Aug. 13, 1996.    
Japan...........................  Aug. 6, 1996......  Aug. 13, 1996.    
Germany.........................  Aug. 7, 1996......  Aug. 14, 1996.    
France..........................  Aug. 7, 1996......  Aug. 14, 1996.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will subsequently publish the final results of these 
administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or hearings. The Department will 
issue final results of these reviews within 180 days of publication of 
these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because sampling 
and the inability to link sales with specific entries prevents 
calculation of duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we have calculated an 
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate for each class or 
kind of merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the 
POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those 
duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that 
particular importer made during the POR. (This is equivalent to 
dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated 
by taking the difference between statutory NV and statutory EP or CEP, 
by the total statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared, and 
adjusting the result by the average difference between EP or CEP and 
customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.)
    In some cases, such as EP situations, the respondent does not know 
the

[[Page 35724]]

entered value of the merchandise. For these situations, we have either 
calculated an approximate entered value or an average unit dollar 
amount of antidumping duty based on all sales examined during the POR. 
(See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 31694 (July 11, 1991).) 
The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service upon completion of these reviews.
    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 by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those rates established in the final results of these 
reviews (except that no deposit will be required for firms with zero or 
de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (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 this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, 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) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate 
made effective by the final results of the 1991-92 administrative 
reviews of these orders (see AFBs III). As noted in those previous 
final results, these rates are the ``all others'' rates from the 
relevant LTFV investigations. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative reviews.
    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 notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22(c)(5).

    Dated: June 27, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17277 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P