[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 151 (Monday, August 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40610-40615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19857]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty 
Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China and Intent 
to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, 
finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 1994, through May 31, 
1995. The review indicates the existence of dumping margins during this 
period.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference 
between United States price (USP) and NV. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle, Hermes Pinilla, Andrea 
Chu or Kris Campbell, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4733.

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). In addition, all citations 
to the Department's regulations are to the current regulations, as 
amended by the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on 
May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    On June 6, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 29821) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC (52 FR 19748 
(May 27, 1987)). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), the petitioner, 
The Timken Company, requested that we conduct an administrative review. 
In addition, respondent Shanghai General Bearing Company (Shanghai) 
requested revocation pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b) (revocation based on 
not selling subject merchandise at less than normal value for three 
consecutive years). Shanghai stated that it was making this request 
solely because the Department had not yet ruled on its revocation 
request made with respect to the 1993-1994 review (the 7th review 
period). We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42500), covering the 
period June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995 (the 8th review period).
    On September 18, 1995, we sent questionnaires directly to the PRC 
companies for which we had addresses on the record. We also sent 
questionnaires to the Hong Kong companies listed in our initiation 
notice, using addresses supplied in the petitioner's initiation request 
as well as information from the Hong Kong branch of the U.S. & Foreign 
Commercial Service.
    On the same date, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary General 
of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for Import & 
Export of Machinery and Electronics (CCCME) and requested that the 
questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in our 
initiation notice for which we did not have addresses. We also 
requested information relevant to the issue of whether the companies 
named in the initiation request are independent from government 
control. See Separate Rates, infra. Finally, we notified the PRC 
government, through its embassy in Washington, that we were conducting 
this review and requested that the PRC government notify us if it did 
not wish to have the Secretary General of the Basic Machinery Division 
of CCCME act as the contact person for this review.
    We received responses to our questionnaire from thirteen of the 
companies named in the initiation notice: China National Machinery 
Import & Export Corporation (CMC), Liaoning Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation (Liaoning), China National Automotive Industry Import & 
Export Guizhou Corporation (Guizhou Automotive), Luoyang Bearing 
Factory (Luoyang), Jilin Province Machinery Import & Export Corporation 
(Jilin), Tianshui Hailin Import & Export Corporation, also known as 
Tianshui Hailin Bearing Factory (Tianshui), Wafangdian Bearing Industry 
Import & Export Corporation (Wafangdian), Guizhou Machinery Import & 
Export Corporation (Guizhou), Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation (Zhejiang), Xiangfan International Trade Corporation 
(Xiangfan), East Sea Bearing Co., Ltd., also know as Zhejiang East Sea

[[Page 40611]]

Bearing Company, Ltd. (East Sea), Shanghai, and Premier Bearing and 
Equipment Company, Ltd. (Premier), a Hong Kong reseller.
    We also received responses to the Separate Rates section of the 
questionnaire from two companies that were not named in the initiation 
notice and that we therefore consider to be voluntary respondents: 
Shandong Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation (Shandong) 
and Wanxiang Group Corporation (Wanxiang).

Scope of Review

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

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted 
verification of the information submitted by Premier, Jilin, and 
Zhejiang at these companies' headquarters from March 25-April 5, 1996.

Separate Rates

1. Background and Summary of Findings

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries 
a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. 
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 
amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, 
a finding of de jure absence of government control over export 
activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 
3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. See Sparklers at 20589. Evidence relevant to a de facto 
analysis of absence of government control over exports is based on four 
factors, whether the respondent: 1) sets its own export prices 
independent from the government and other exporters; 2) can retain the 
proceeds from its export sales; 3) has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts; and 4) has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; see also 
Sparklers at 20589.
    We preliminarily determined that Guizhou, Jilin, Luoyang, Liaoning, 
Wafangdian, Guizhou Automotive, Shanghai, CMC, Tianshui, Zhejiang, and 
Xiangfan were entitled to separate rates for the administrative review 
of the June 1993-May 1994 period. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 49572, 
49572-74 (September 26, 1995). Information submitted by these companies 
for the record in the current review is consistent with these findings. 
Further, there have been no allegations regarding changes in control of 
these companies in this review. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that the government does not exercise control over the export 
activities of these firms. East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang also meet 
both the de jure and de facto criteria and are entitled, therefore, to 
separate rates (see De Jure Analysis and De Facto Analysis, infra). 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to apply rates separate from 
the PRC rate to each of the above companies.
    Finally, with respect to Premier, no separate rates analysis is 
required because this company is a privately owned trading company 
located in Hong Kong.

2. De Jure Analysis: East Sea, Shandong, Wanxiang

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

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

3. De Facto Analysis: East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang

    The following record evidence, which is contained in the 
questionnaire responses, indicates a lack of de facto government 
control over the export activities of East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang. 
We have found that these respondents' pricing and export strategy 
decisions are not subject to any entity's review or approval and that 
there are no government policy directives that affect

[[Page 40612]]

these decisions. There are no restrictions on the use of respondents' 
revenues or profits, including export earnings.
    Each company's general manager or chairman of the board has the 
right to negotiate and enter into contracts, and may delegate this 
authority to other employees within the company. There is no evidence 
that this authority is subject to any level of governmental approval.
    The general manager is elected by the board of directors for each 
of these companies. The results of Wanxiang's management elections are 
not required to be submitted to any government agency. For Shandong and 
East Sea, the election results are recorded with the relevant 
provincial or municipal bureau (e.g., the Shandong Machinery Industry 
Commission in the case of Shandong). There is no evidence that these 
bureaus control the selection process or that they have rejected a 
general manager selected through the election process.
    Decisions made by respondents concerning purchases of subject 
merchandise from other suppliers are not subject to government 
approval. Finally, respondents' sources of funds are their own savings 
or bank loans, and they have sole control over, and access to, their 
bank accounts, which are held in each company's name.
    Based on the foregoing analysis of the evidence of record, we find 
no evidence of either de jure or de facto government control over the 
export activities of East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily determine that each of these exporters will receive a 
separate rate.
    Because we have preliminarily determined that the voluntary 
respondents Shandong and Wanxiang are entitled to separate rates, and 
no review was requested for these companies, we have not reviewed their 
entries during the 94-95 review period (see Background section, above). 
Therefore, the current cash deposit rate established for these 
companies in the 1989-90 review of this case (i.e., the 1989-90 PRC 
rate) will continue to apply for future cash deposits unless this rate 
is replaced by a more recent PRC rate (i.e., from the concurrent 1990-
91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 reviews) before the publication of these final 
results. The assessment rate for entries from these companies during 
the 1994-95 POR will be the rate required at the time of entry.

4. Separate Rate Determinations for Non-responsive Companies

    For those companies for which we initiated a review and which did 
not respond to the questionnaires, as the facts otherwise available, we 
have determined that these companies do not merit separate rates. See 
Use of Facts Otherwise Available, below.

United States Price

    For sales made by Luoyang, Zhejiang, Tianshui, Wafangdian, 
Liaoning, Guizhou, Guizhou Automotive, Xiangfan, East Sea and Premier, 
we based the USP on export price, in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated 
purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States, and because the constructed export price (CEP) methodology was 
not indicated by other circumstances. For sales made by Shanghai, we 
based USP on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because 
sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place after importation 
into the United States. CMC had a combination of export price and CEP 
sales subject to review.
    We calculated export price based on, as appropriate, the FOB, CIF 
or C&F port price to unrelated purchasers. We made deductions for 
brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and 
marine insurance. When marine insurance and ocean freight were provided 
by PRC-owned companies, we based the deduction on surrogate values. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818, 58825 (November 15, 1994). 
We valued foreign inland freight deductions using surrogate data based 
on Indian freight costs. We selected India as the surrogate country for 
the reasons explained in the Normal Value section of this notice.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse price from the 
U.S. subsidiary to unrelated customers. We made deductions from CEP for 
U.S. packing in the United States, ocean freight, foreign brokerage & 
handling, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, customs duty, U.S. 
brokerage, U.S. inland freight insurance and U.S. inland freight. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from CEP the 
following selling expenses that related to economic activity in the 
United States: commissions, direct selling expenses, including 
advertising, warranties, and credit expenses, and indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production 
methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and 
(2) available information does not permit the calculation of NV using 
home market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (CV) 
under section 773(a). In such cases, the factors include, but are not 
limited to: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw 
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; 
and (4) representative capital cost, including depreciation.
    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all 
previous cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i), any 
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in 
effect until revoked by the administering authority. Furthermore, 
available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home 
market prices, third country prices, or CV under section 773(a). 
Therefore, except as noted below, we calculated NV based on factors of 
production in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act and section 
353.52 of our regulations.
    In its questionnaire response, Shanghai requested that the 
Department accept its actual costs, claiming that those costs were 
market-driven. However, in order to accept the costs of a company in an 
NME country, the Department must determine that the industry in which 
that company operates, not just a particular company, is market-
oriented. See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Pure and Alloy 
Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 59 FR 55427, 55430 (November 7, 
1994) (``an NME-country respondent may argue that market-driven prices 
characterize its particular industry and, therefore, despite NME 
status, that [normal] value should be calculated using actual home 
market prices or costs'') (emphasis added).
    Because neither Shanghai nor any other company in this review has 
argued that the TRB industry in the PRC is market-oriented, we continue 
to consider that industry to be non-market-oriented and, therefore, we 
have applied our standard NME methodology and surrogate values to 
Shanghai's factors of production to determine NV and movement costs.
    Although Premier is a Hong Kong company, we calculated NV for 
Premier based on factors of production data. We were unable to use home 
market sales as a basis for NV because Premier had no sales in Hong 
Kong during the POR. We did not use Premier's third-country sales in 
calculating NV because Premier's PRC-based suppliers had

[[Page 40613]]

knowledge that the merchandise in question was exported to an 
intermediate country (Hong Kong). See section 773(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we calculated NV for Premier on the basis of PRC 
production inputs and surrogate country factor prices. We calculated NV 
using these factors of production data based on the facts available in 
this review. See Use of Facts Otherwise Available, infra.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4), we valued PRC factors of 
production, to the extent possible, using the prices or costs of 
factors of production in a market-economy country that is: (1) at a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the non-market-
economy country, and (2) a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise.
    We chose India as the most comparable surrogate on the basis of the 
criteria set out in section 353.52(b). See Memorandum from Director, 
Office of Policy to Director, Division II, Office of Antidumping 
Compliance, dated March 15, 1996. Further, information on the record 
indicates that India is a significant producer of TRBs. See Memorandum 
from the analyst to the file, dated July 22, 1996. We used publicly 
available information relating to India to value the various factors of 
production.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
     For hot-rolled alloy steel bars and rods, and irregular 
coils, used in the production of rollers, hot-rolled alloy steel bars 
and rods, used in the production of cups and cones, cold-rolled strip 
and sheet, used in the production of cages, and bearing quality and 
non-bearing quality steel scrap, we used import prices obtained from 
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports. 
We used data from the annual issue of this source, which covers the 
period April 1994-March 1995, and also factored in the remaining POR 
months of April-May 1995. We made further adjustments to include 
freight costs incurred between the steel supplier and the TRB factory.
    We used actual costs for certain steel inputs because they were 
purchased directly from a market-economy country. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oscillating Fans and 
Ceiling Fans from the PRC, 56 FR 55271, 55275 (October 25, 1991).
     For direct labor, we used 1994 data from Investing, 
Licensing & Trading Conditions Abroad, India, published in November 
1994 by the Economist Intelligence Unit. We then adjusted the 1994 
labor value to the POR to reflect inflation using consumer price 
indices (CPI) of India as published in the International Financial 
Statistics by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We calculated the 
labor cost for each component by multiplying the labor time requirement 
by the surrogate labor rate. Indirect labor is reflected in the 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) and overhead rates.
     For factory overhead, we used information obtained from 
the 1994-95 annual report of a producer of similar merchandise in 
India. See SKF Bearings India, Ltd. Annual Report 1994-95. From this 
source, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of 
total cost of manufacture.
     For SG&A expenses, we used information obtained from the 
same financial report used to obtain factory overhead. This information 
showed SG&A expenses as a percentage of the cost of manufacture.
     For profit, we used the profit rate of the same Indian 
producer of similar merchandise from which we derived a rate for 
factory overhead.
     For export packing, we used the facts available because 
the respondents did not supply sufficient factor information by which 
to calculate packing costs. We used one percent of the total ex-factory 
cost and SG&A expenses combined. This percentage, obtained from 
publicly available data, was used in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value: Tapered Roller Bearings from Italy, 52 FR 
24198 (June 29, 1987). This methodology is consistent with the 
Department's valuation of packing in the Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's 
Republic of China, 56 FR 67590 (December 31, 1991). We used this 
percentage because there was no publicly available information from a 
comparable surrogate country.
     For foreign inland freight, as the most recent publicly 
available published source, we used a rate derived from a newspaper 
article in the April 20, 1994 issue of The Times of India, as submitted 
in the antidumping duty investigation on honey from the PRC. We 
adjusted the value of freight to the POR using a WPI published by the 
IMF.
    We made no adjustments for selling expenses because the surrogate 
SG&A information we used did not allow a breakout of selling expenses.

Intent to Revoke

    Shanghai requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b), revocation of the 
order with respect to its sales of the merchandise in question and 
submitted the certification required by 19 CFR 353.25(b)(1). In 
addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), Shanghai has 
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long 
as any producer or reseller is subject to the order, if the Department 
concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that Shanghai, subsequent to 
revocation, sold merchandise at less than NV. Based on the preliminary 
results in this review and the two preceding reviews (see Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 44302 (August 25, 1995) and Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 49572 (September 26, 1995)), Shanghai has 
demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV.
    If the final results of this and the two preceding reviews 
demonstrate that Shanghai sold the merchandise at not less than NV, and 
if the Department determines that it is not likely that Shanghai will 
sell the subject merchandise at less than NV in the future, we intend 
to revoke the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported 
by Shanghai.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act. Currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a 
daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is our practice to 
find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs 
from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. See Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 61 FR 35188, 35192 (July 5, 1996). The 
benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the 
past 40 business days. Because we found no fluctuation in this case, we 
believe it is appropriate to use a daily exchange rate for currency 
conversion purposes.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for Premier, 
Jilin, and all companies named in the Notice of Initiation that did not 
respond to our

[[Page 40614]]

requests for information. Furthermore, we determine that, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, it is appropriate to make inferences adverse 
to the interests of the non-responding companies because they failed to 
cooperate by not responding to our questionnaire.
    Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a 
respondent in an administrative review on facts available because that 
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act 
authorizes the Department to use inferences adverse to the interests of 
that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act 
also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record. Because information from prior segments of the proceeding 
constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) of the Act provides 
that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
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 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 
inappropriate. 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 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).
    Companies that did not respond to the questionaire 
    We have preliminarily assigned 129.97 percent as facts available to 
those companies for which we initiated a review and which did not 
respond to the questionnaires. As noted in the separate rates section 
above, we have also determined that the non-responsive companies do not 
merit separate rates. Therefore, the facts available for these 
companies form the basis for the PRC rate. The PRC rate is 129.97 
percent for this review.
    1. Jilin: Because Jilin withheld information requested by the 
Department (see Memorandum from Analyst to File: Verification Report 
for Jilin Machinery Import & Export Corporation, dated July 22, 1996), 
section 776(a) of the Act requires us to use the facts otherwise 
available. At verification, we discovered that Jilin failed to report 
certain U.S. sales during the POR. Because Jilin's unreported sales 
represented a large portion of its total U.S. sales during the POR (and 
because these unreported sales would have escaped dumping duties if 
undiscovered), we find that Jilin failed to cooperate by not complying 
with our request for information, and we have rejected Jilin's 
submissions in accordance with section 782(e)(4) of the Act. Section 
776(b) of the Act allows us to use an adverse inference in selecting 
from the facts otherwise available. As adverse facts available, we have 
selected 129.97 percent, the highest rate calculated in this review, as 
the margin for Jilin.
    2. Premier: We determined that Premier, a Hong Kong-based reseller 
of TRBs from the PRC, responded to the best of its ability to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire which requested factors-of-
production data. Premier was able to provide factors data from its 
suppliers for models which represented most of Premier's U.S. sales by 
value. For models which Premier purchased from multiple suppliers, it 
provided factors data from only one of its PRC suppliers. For a 
significant amount of its U.S. sales by value, Premier was unable to 
provide factors data from any of its PRC suppliers. However, for models 
involved in those sales, Premier was able to provide factors data from 
other PRC suppliers of the same models. For the remainder of its U.S. 
sales, Premier was unable to report factors data.
    We determined that there is, however, little variation in factor 
utilization rates among the TRB producers from whom we have received 
factors-of-production data. For this reason, and because Premier made 
every attempt to respond fully to the Department's supplemental 
questionnaire regarding factors data, we are using as facts available 
the factors data provided by Premier in order to calculate CV. For 
Premier's U.S. sales of models for which Premier was unable to provide 
any factors data, we have applied 23.31 percent, the average of the 
calculated margins for other companies in this review, to those U.S. 
sales. We did not apply an adverse margin to these sales because we 
determined that Premier had cooperated to the best of its ability. 
Furthermore, because we had no information with which to calculate NV 
for the models represented by these sales, we determined that a simple 
average of the calculated margins for other companies in this review, 
for which we were able to calculate NV, is a reasonable rate to apply, 
as facts available, for these sales by Premier. See Memorandum to 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement from Office Director 
for AD/CVD Enforcement dated July 29, 1996.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of the USP to NV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June 
1, 1994, through May 31, 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Bearing and Equipment, Limited.......................       5.37
Guizhou Machinery Import and Export Corporation..............      23.87
Luoyang Bearing Factory......................................       2.46
Shanghai General Bearing Company, Ltd........................       0.00
Jilin Machinery Import and Export Corporation................     129.97
Wafangdian Bearing Factory...................................     129.97
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation...............      16.67
China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation.......       0.00
China Nat'l Automotive Industry Import and Export Guizhou               
 Corporation.................................................       9.34
Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation................      54.71
Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corporation...............       5.77
Xiangfan International Trade Corp............................       0.38
East Sea Bearing Co., Ltd....................................      13.20
Shandong Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation.     129.97
Wanxiang Group Corporation...................................     129.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40615]]


    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held approximately 44 days after the publication of 
this notice. Interested parties may submit written comments (case 
briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after 
the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 180 days 
of publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the 
companies named above that have separate rates and were reviewed 
(Premier, Guizhou Machinery, Luoyang, Shanghai, Jilin, Wafangdian, 
Liaoning, CMC, Guizhou Automotive, Tianshui, Zhejiang, Xiangfan, East 
Sea), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for Shandong and 
Wanxiang, which we preliminarily determine to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the rate will continue be that which currently applies to this 
company unless modified by a more recent PRC rate (e.g., from the 
concurrent 90-91, 91-92, or 92-93 reviews); (3) for all remaining PRC 
exporters, all of which were found to not be entitled to separate 
rates, the cash deposit will be 129.97 percent; and (4) for other non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 C.F.R. 
353.22.

    Dated: July 29, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-19857 Filed 8-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P