[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31566-31575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15118]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-485-801, A-559-801, A-
401-801, A-412-801]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
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 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, Romania, Singapore, Sweden 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 21 manufacturers/exporters. The 
period of review (the POR) is May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996.
    We are terminating the reviews for five other manufacturers/
exporters because the requests for reviews were withdrawn in a timely 
manner.
    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 on all appropriate entries.
    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: June 10, 1997.

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

France

    Chip Hayes (SKF), Lyn Johnson (SNFA), Michael Panfeld (SNR), Kris 
Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.

Germany

    Thomas Barlow (Torrington Nadellager), J. David Dirstine (SKF), 
Suzanne Flood (INA), Michael Panfeld (NTN Kugellagerfabrik), Thomas 
Schauer (FAG), Kris Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.

Italy

    Chip Hayes (SKF), Mark Ross (FAG), or Richard Rimlinger.

Japan

    J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Charles Riggle (NTN), Matthew 
Rosenbaum (NPBS), Thomas Schauer (NSK Ltd., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.), 
Kris Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.

Romania

    Thomas Barlow (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Kris Campbell.

Singapore

    Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.

Sweden

    Mark Ross (SKF) or Richard Rimlinger.

United Kingdom

    Hermes Pinilla (FAG, Barden, NSK/RHP) or Kris Campbell.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, 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 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, Thailand and Singapore. On June 20, 
1996, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(c), we published a notice of 
initiation of administrative reviews of certain of these orders for the 
period May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996 (61 FR 31506). Subsequently, 
on July 30, 1996, we published an amendment to our initiation notice 
which, inter alia, terminated the review with respect to BBs from 
Thailand and conditionally initiated reviews for all other exporters of 
BBs from Romania in addition to Tehnoimportexport (61 FR 39629). The 
Department is now conducting these administrative reviews in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act.
    Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely 
withdrawals of review requests for Meter S.p.A. (Italy), Asahi Seiko 
(Japan), Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd. (Japan), Kohwa Technos Corp. (Japan), 
and Sanwa Kizai Co., Ltd. (Japan). 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 C.F.R. 353.22(a)(5).

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,

[[Page 31567]]

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, 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, 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 1997) 
(AFBs VI). 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                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Compagnie d'Applications Mecaniques,  All                           
 S.A. (including all relevant                                           
 affiliates) (SKF France).                                              
SNFA....................................  BBs, CRBs                     
Societe Nouvelle Roulements (SNR).......  All                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Germany                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA      All                           
 (FAG Germany).                                                         
INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (INA).......  All                           
NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH   All                           
 (NTN Germany).                                                         
SKF GmbH (including all relevant          All                           
 affiliates) (SKF Germany).                                             
Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/        CRBs                          
 Kuensebeck).                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Italy                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italia S.p.A. (including all          BBs, CRBs                     
 relevant affiliates) (FAG Italy).                                      
SKF-Industrie S.p.A. (including all       BBs                           
 relevant affiliates) (SKF Italy).                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.....................  All                           
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp....................  All                           
Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd.   All                           
 (NPBS).                                                                
NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.)...  All                           
NTN Corp. (NTN Japan)...................  All                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Romania                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (TIE)...........  BBs                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Singapore                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec Ind. (Pte.)     BBs                           
 Ltd./(NMB Singapore/Pelmec).                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sweden                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Sverige (including all relevant       BBs                           
 affiliates) (SKF Sweden).                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             United Kingdom                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation......................  BBs, CRBs                     
FAG (U.K.) Ltd..........................  BBs, CRBs                     
NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings    BBs, CRBs                     
 Ltd. (NSK/RHP).                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Absorption

    On May 31, 1996, and July 9, 1996, the Torrington Co. requested 
that the Department determine with respect to all respondents, except 
Torrington Nadellager and SNFA, whether antidumping duties had been 
absorbed during the POR. This request was filed pursuant to section 
751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act.

[[Page 31568]]

    Section 751(a)(4) provides for the Department, if requested, to 
determine, during an administrative review initiated two years or four 
years after publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have 
been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if 
the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an 
importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter. 
Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Tariff Act by the URAA. The 
Department's interim regulations do not address this provision of the 
Tariff Act.
    For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the 
Tariff Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section 
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping regulations 
provides that the Department will make a duty-absorption determination, 
if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. 
See 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 1996). The preamble to the proposed 
antidumping regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be 
considered initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998 
will be considered initiated in the fourth year. 61 FR at 7317. 
Although these proposed antidumping regulations are not yet binding 
upon the Department, they do constitute a public statement of how the 
Department expects to proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the 
Tariff Act. This approach ensures that interested parties will have the 
opportunity to request a duty-absorption determination prior to the 
time for sunset review of the order under section 751(c) on entries for 
which the second and fourth years following an order have already 
passed. Because these orders on AFBs have been in effect since 1989, 
these are transition orders in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of 
the Tariff Act; therefore, based on the policy stated above, the 
Department will consider a request for an absorption determination 
during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review initiated in 
1996 and a request having been made, we are making a duty-absorption 
determination as part of these administrative reviews.
    The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the 
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. In these cases, all firms subject to the duty-absorption 
request filed by the Torrington Co., with the exception of TIE, sold 
through importers that are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 
751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. Furthermore, we have preliminarily 
determined that there are dumping margins for the following firms with 
respect to the percentages of their U.S. sales, by quantity, indicated 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                                                               of U.S.  
                                                             affiliate's
             Name of firm                  Class of kind      sales with
                                                               dumping  
                                                               margins  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 France                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF..................................  BBs                         34.84
                                       CRBs                       100.00
                                       SPBs                       100.00
SNR..................................  BBs                         36.23
                                       CRBs                        64.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Germany                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG..................................  BBs                         54.58
                                       CRBs                        64.05
                                       SPBs                        18.70
INA..................................  BBs                         81.91
                                       CRBs                        88.78
NTN..................................  BBs                         36.44
SKF..................................  BBs                          7.03
                                       CRBs                        53.85
                                       SPBs                        21.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Italy                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG..................................  BBs                         20.43
SKF..................................  BBs                          7.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo.................................  BBs                         44.43
                                       CRBs                        53.22
Nachi................................  BBs                         59.81
                                       CRBs                        32.44
NPBS.................................  BBs                         61.41
NSK..................................  BBs                         31.30
                                       CRBs                        36.82
NTN..................................  BBs                         21.24
                                       CRBs                        12.86
   SPBs                                47.01                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Singapore                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM Singapore/Pelmec Ind..............  BBs                         17.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sweden                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF..................................  BBs                         45.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             United Kingdom                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSK/RHP..............................  BBs                          1.46
                                       CRBs                        18.77
Barden...............................  BBs                          0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of SKF France, the firm did not respond to our 
questionnaire with respect to CRBs and SPBs and the dumping margins for 
all sales of these classes or kinds of merchandise were determined on 
the Basis of adverse facts available. Lacking other information, we 
find duty absorption on all sales.
    With respect to those companies (with affiliated importers) whose 
margins were not determined based on adverse facts available, we 
rebuttably presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales 
which were dumped. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence that 
the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the 
ultimately assessed duty. However, there is no such evidence on the 
record. Under these circumstances, we preliminarily find that 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by the above-listed firms on the 
percentages of U.S. sales indicated. If interested parties wish to 
submit evidence that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
will pay the ultimately assessed duty, they must do so no later than 15 
days after publication of these preliminary results.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff 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 Tariff Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the 
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for SNFA with respect to 
BBs and CRBs, for Torrington Nadellager with respect to CRBs, and for 
SKF France with respect to CRBs and SPBs because these firms did not 
respond to our antidumping questionnaire. We find that these firms have 
not provided ``information that has been requested by the administering 
authority.'' Furthermore, we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Tariff Act, it is appropriate to make an inference adverse to 
the interests of these companies because they failed to cooperate to 
the best of their ability by not responding to our questionnaire.
    With respect to SNFA, an importer of subject merchandise, Agusta 
Aerospace Corporation (AAC) submitted information regarding its 
purchases of subject merchandise produced by SNFA. We have not used 
this information to calculate an antidumping duty rate for either SNFA 
or AAC. It is our practice to base our analysis on information provided 
by the respondent, in this case SNFA, and to calculate a single rate 
for each respondent. Further, AAC did not provide sufficient data to 
allow for a determination of the antidumping duty rate for SNFA's POR 
sales of subject

[[Page 31569]]

merchandise. The only information that AAC provided concerned its own 
imports of merchandise produced by SNFA and that information is in fact 
insufficient to allow for an analysis of the duty rate applicable to 
these imports. We are also denying a request made by AAC that, because 
it imported and sold a de minimis amount of subject merchandise from 
SNFA during the POR, such imports should be exempted from the 
antidumping duty order. The statute and our regulations do not provide 
for exceptions to the dumping law based on a small quantity of imports.
    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. This is secondary information 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Tariff Act.
    Section 776(c) of the Tariff 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, and Torrington Nadellager, 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.
    In certain situations, we found it necessary to use partial facts 
available. Partial facts available was applied in cases where we were 
unable to use some portion of a response in calculating the dumping 
margin. This occurred with respect to tooling revenues reported by NSK 
and related-party-input costs provided by Nachi. For partial facts 
available, we extrapolated information from the company's response and 
used that information in our calculations. For further information, 
please see the analysis memoranda on file for these firms.
    We also found that Barden failed to report information concerning 
the channel(s) of distribution of its EP sales despite requests for 
such information in both the initial and supplemental questionnaires. 
Since we did not have this information, we were unable to determine 
which level of trade in the home market most closely corresponded to 
the level(s) of trade of Barden's EP sales. Because Barden repeatedly 
failed to report the requested information, we have used an inference 
that is adverse to Barden with respect to the missing information 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. As partial adverse facts 
available, we matched Barden's EP sales to the level of trade in the 
home market with the highest average prices.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price--Market-Economy Countries

    For the price to the United States, we used EP or CEP as defined in 
sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Tariff 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 Tariff 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 were June 4-
10, 1995, August 20-26, 1995, October 15-21, 1995, December 17-23, 
1995, February 11-17, 1996, and March 24-30, 1996. 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 Tariff Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff 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, indirect selling 
expenses, and repacking expenses in the United States. Where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we 
also deducted the cost of any further manufacture or assembly, except 
where the special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Tariff Act was 
applied (see below). Finally, we made an adjustment for profit 
allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Tariff Act.
    Some respondents claimed an offsetting adjustment to U.S. indirect 
selling expenses to account for the cost of financing cash deposits 
during the POR. In past reviews of these orders we have accepted such 
an adjustment, mainly to account for the opportunity cost associated 
with making a deposit (i.e., the cost of having money unavailable for a 
period of time). However, we have preliminarily determined to change 
our practice of accepting such an adjustment.
    We are not convinced that there are opportunity costs associated 
with paying deposits. Moreover, while it may be true that importers 
sometimes incur an expense if they borrow money in order to pay 
antidumping duty deposits, it is a fundamental principle that money is 
fungible. If an importer acquires a loan to cover one operating cost, 
that may simply mean that it will not be necessary to borrow money to 
cover a different operating cost. We find that the calculation of the 
dumping margin should not vary depending on whether a party has funds 
available to pay cash deposits or requires additional funds in the form 
of loans.
    Therefore, we find that an adjustment to indirect selling expenses 
where parties have claimed financing costs is inappropriate and we have 
denied such an adjustment for these preliminary results of reviews. We 
invite interested parties to comment on this issue.

[[Page 31570]]

    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 Tariff Act applied for all firms that added 
value in the United States except INA and NPBS.
    Section 772(e) of the Tariff 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 that added value in the United States 
except INA and NPBS 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. Also, for the companies in question, we determined that 
there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a 
reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of such sales is 
appropriate. 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--Market-Economy Countries

    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 Tariff 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 Tariff 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 Tariff 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 were April, June, August, October, and December of 1995, 
and February, March, and May of 1996.
    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, SKF 
Sweden, Koyo, Nachi, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind., 
FAG U.K., Barden U.K. and NSK/RHP and the classes or kinds of 
merchandise under review, 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 Tariff Act. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 
initiated COP investigations of sales by SNR, FAG Germany, FAG Italy, 
INA, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF Sweden, Koyo, Nachi, NPBS, 
NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec, FAG U.K., and NSK/RHP in the home 
market. In addition, based on allegations submitted by the Torrington 
Co. subsequent to our initiation of these reviews, we determined that 
there was a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that NTN Germany may 
have made sales in the home market at prices below the COP and we 
initiated a COP investigation of NTN Germany as well.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff 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 shipments nor did we conduct a 
COP analysis for respondents for which we relied on total facts 
available to determine weighted-average dumping margins for a class or 
kind of merchandise.
    After calculating the COP, we tested whether home market sales of 
AFBs were made at prices below the 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 Tariff Act, where less than 
20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the 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 were made within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 
Tariff Act. Based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for 
the POR, we also determined that these sales 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 Tariff 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

[[Page 31571]]

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 Tariff 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 Tariff Act and for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff 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. 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 Tariff 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 Tariff Act. (See Level of Trade below.)
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff 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 Tariff Act. We included the cost of materials and 
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff 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 Tariff 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. 
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 Tariff Act. (See Level of Trade 
below.)

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determine NV for sales at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there are no 
sales at the same level of trade, we compare U.S. sales to home market 
(or, if appropriate, third-country) sales at a different level of 
trade. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the 
home market. When NV is based on CV, the level of trade is that of the 
sales from which we derive selling, SG&A and profit.
    For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the level-of-
trade analysis is the sale (or constructed sale) from the exporter to 
the importer. While the starting price for CEP is that of a subsequent 
resale to an unaffiliated buyer, the construction of the CEP results in 
a price that would have been charged if the importer had not been 
affiliated. We calculate the CEP by removing from the first resale to 
an independent U.S. customer the expenses under section 772(d) of the 
Tariff Act and the profit associated with these expenses. These 
expenses represent activities undertaken by the affiliated importer. As 
such, they occur after the transaction between the exporter and the 
importer for which we construct CEP. Because the expenses deducted 
under section 772(d) represent selling activities in the United States, 
the deduction of these expenses normally yields a different level of 
trade for the CEP than for the later resale (which we use for the 
starting price). Movement charges, duties and taxes deducted under 
section 772(c) do not represent activities of the affiliated importer, 
and we do not remove them to obtain the CEP level of trade.
    To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales are at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. The 
marketing process in both markets begins with goods being sold by the 
producer and extends to the sale to the final user, regardless of 
whether the final user is an individual consumer or an industrial user. 
The chain of distribution between the producer and the final user may 
have many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur somewhere 
along this chain. In the United States, the respondent's sales are 
generally to an importer, whether independent or affiliated. We review 
and compare the distribution systems in the home market and U.S. export 
markets, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent 
and level of selling expenses for each claimed level of trade. Customer 
categories such as distributor, original equipment manufacturer (OEM), 
or wholesaler are commonly used by respondents to describe levels of 
trade, but, without substantiation, they are insufficient to establish 
that a claimed level of trade is valid. An analysis of the chain of 
distribution and of the selling functions substantiates or invalidates 
the claimed levels of trade. If the claimed levels are different, the 
selling functions performed in selling to each level should also be 
different. Conversely, if levels of trade are nominally the same, the 
selling functions performed should also be the same. Different levels 
of trade necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but 
differences in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone 
sufficient to establish a difference in the levels of trade. A 
different level of trade is characterized by purchasers at different 
stages in the chain of distribution and sellers performing 
qualitatively or quantitatively different functions in selling to them.
    When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different 
level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference 
in levels of trade affects price comparability. We determine any effect 
on price comparability by examining sales at different levels of trade 
in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home 
market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of 
trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we 
calculate the difference

[[Page 31572]]

in the average of the net prices of the same models sold at different 
levels of trade. We use the average difference in net prices to adjust 
NV when NV is based on a level of trade different from that of the 
export sale. If there is no pattern of consistent price differences, 
the difference in levels of trade does not have a price effect and, 
therefore, no adjustment is necessary.
    The statute also provides for an adjustment to NV when NV is based 
on a level of trade different from that of the CEP if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP and if we are unable to 
determine whether the difference in levels of trade between CEP and NV 
affects the comparability of their prices. This latter situation can 
occur where there is no home market level of trade equivalent to the 
U.S. sales level or where there is an equivalent home market level but 
the data are insufficient to support a conclusion on price effect. This 
adjustment, the CEP offset, is identified in section 773(a)(7)(B) and 
is the lower of the following:
     The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale, or
     The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting 
price used to calculate CEP.
    The CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP. The CEP 
offset is made only when the level of trade of the home market sale is 
more advanced than the level of trade of the U.S. (CEP) sale and there 
is not an appropriate basis for determining whether there is an effect 
on price comparability.
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analysis 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Level 
of Trade, March 24, 1997, in Import Administration's Central Records 
Unit (Room B-099 of the main Commerce building (hereafter, B-099)).

Methodology for Romania

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
subject merchandise subject to review in a non-market-economy (NME) 
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate. For 
purposes of this ``separate rates'' inquiry, the Department analyzes 
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 
amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries 
are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can 
demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and 
in fact (de facto), with respect to exports.
    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control 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.
    De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is 
based on four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or 
subject to the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each 
exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; 
(3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions regarding 
the selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter has the 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts. See Silicon Carbide at 
22587.
    We have determined that the evidence of record demonstrates an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
exports by TIE according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and 
Silicon Carbide. For a discussion of the Department's preliminary 
determination that TIE is entitled to a separate rate, see Memorandum 
from Thomas O. Barlow to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 24, 1997, 
``Assignment of Separate Rate for Tehnoimportexport: 1995-96 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Antifriction 
Bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from 
Romania'' (Separate Rate Memo), which is a public document on file in 
B-099. Since TIE is preliminarily entitled to a separate rate and is 
the only Romanian firm for which an administrative review has been 
requested, it is not necessary for us to review any other Romanian 
exporters of subject merchandise.

Export Price--Romania

    For sales made by TIE we based our margin calculation on EP as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act because the subject 
merchandise was first sold before the date of importation by the 
exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States (TIE) 
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.
    We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the price used 
to establish EP, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, bank 
charges and international freight (air and ocean). To value foreign 
inland freight we used the freight rates from the public version of the 
May 10, 1996 and July 15, 1996 submissions of P.T. Multi Raya Indah 
Abadi, respondent in the antidumping case concerning melamine 
institutional dinnerware from Indonesia which is on file in B-099. We 
used the actual reported expenses for international freight and bank 
charges because the expenses were incurred in market-economy 
currencies. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value--Romania

    For merchandise exported from a NME country, section 773(c)(1) of 
the Tariff Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a 
factors-of-production methodology if available information does not 
permit the calculation of NV using home-market or third-country prices 
under section 773(a) of the Tariff Act. In every investigation or 
review conducted by the Department involving Romania, we have treated 
Romania as a NME country. None of the parties to this proceeding has 
contested such treatment in this review and, therefore, we have 
maintained our treatment of Romania as a NME for these preliminary 
results.
    Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Tariff Act and section 353.52 of the Department's regulations. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Tariff Act, the factors of 
production used in producing AFBs include, but are not limited to, 
hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts 
of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital 
cost, including depreciation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act, the 
Department valued the factors of production, to the extent possible, 
using the prices or costs of factors of production in market-economy 
countries which are at a level of economic development comparable to 
that of Romania and which are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. We determined that Indonesia is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of Romania. We also found that Indonesia 
is a producer of bearings. Therefore, we have selected Indonesia as the 
primary surrogate country. For a further

[[Page 31573]]

discussion of the Department's selection of surrogate countries, see 
Memorandum from Thomas O. Barlow to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 24, 
1997, ``Surrogate-Country Selection: 1995-96 Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Antifriction Bearings (other than tapered 
roller bearings) and parts thereof from Romania'' (Surrogate Memo), 
which is a public document on file in B-099.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the Romanian factors of 
production as follows:
     Where direct materials used to produce AFBs were imported 
into Romania from market-economy countries, we used the import price to 
value the material input. To value all other direct materials used in 
the production of AFBs, i.e., those which were sourced from within 
Romania, we used the import value per metric ton of these materials 
into Indonesia as published in the Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical 
Bulletin--Imports which include data on months during the POR. We made 
adjustments to include freight costs incurred between the domestic 
suppliers and the AFB factories, using freight rates obtained from the 
public version of the April 27, 1995 calculation memorandum for the 
antidumping case Disposable Lighters from the People's Republic of 
China (A-570-834) (Lighters from the PRC), which is on file in B-099. 
We also made a deduction to the steel input factors to account for the 
scrap steel which was sold by the producers of the relevant bearings.
     For direct labor, we used the Indonesian average daily 
wage and hours worked per week for the iron and steel basic industries 
reported in the 1994 Special Supplement to the Bulletin of Labour 
Statistics, published by the International Labour Office.
     For factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we could 
not find values for the bearings industry in Indonesia. Therefore, we 
used information which the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, provided 
in the antidumping duty investigation of certain carbon-steel butt-weld 
pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China because the pipe-
fittings industry is a similar metal manufacturing industry (see A-570-
814, cable from American Embassy--Jakarta, Indonesia, September 9, 
1991).
     To value packing materials, where materials used to 
package AFBs were imported into Romania from market-economy countries, 
we used the import price. To value all other packing materials, i.e., 
those sourced from within Romania, we used the import value per metric 
ton of these materials (adjusted with the wholesale-price-index 
inflator to place these values on an equivalent basis) as published in 
the Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin--Imports. We adjusted 
these values to include freight costs incurred between the domestic 
suppliers and the AFB factories. To value freight costs, we used 
freight rates obtained from the public version of the calculation 
memorandum in Lighters from the PRC, cited above.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of 
the Tariff Act. We used the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank 
or, where not available, we used average monthly exchange rates 
published by the International Monetary Fund in International Financial 
Statistics.

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, 
1995, through April 30, 1996 to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Company                      BBs      CRBs      SPBs  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 France                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................      3.48     18.37     42.79
SNFA......................................     66.42     18.37       \3\
SNR.......................................      8.68     23.77       \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Germany                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.......................................     12.42     19.49     10.33
INA.......................................     49.41     19.77     28.62
NTN.......................................      9.44       \2\       \2\
SKF.......................................      4.25     17.83      4.78
Torrington Nadellager.....................       \3\     76.27       \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Italy                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.......................................      1.64       \2\  ........
SKF.......................................      4.66       \3\  ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo Seiko................................     14.66     12.17       \3\
Nachi.....................................     14.02      3.51       \2\
NPBS......................................     19.58       \2\       \2\
NSK Ltd...................................      9.49      6.26       \2\
NTN.......................................      5.82      3.84      8.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Romania                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIE.......................................      0.01  ........  ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Singapore                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind..................      1.40  ........  ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31574]]

                                                                        
                                 Sweden                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................     13.13  ........  ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             United Kingdom                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSK/RHP...................................      2.90     13.74  ........
FAG (U.K.)................................       \1\       \1\  ........
Barden....................................      0.30       \1\  ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an       
  individual rate 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Room 
                                                     Date                              Time                No.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues......................  July 8, 1997......................  10:00 a.m....................     4830
Sweden..............................  July 9, 1997......................  9:00 a.m.....................     4830
Romania.............................  July 9, 1997......................  2:00 p.m.....................     4830
Italy...............................  July 10, 1997.....................  9:00 a.m.....................     4830
United Kingdom......................  July 11, 1997.....................  9:00 a.m.....................     4830
Singapore...........................  July 11, 1997.....................  2:00 p.m.....................     4830
Germany.............................  July 14, 1997.....................  9:00 a.m.....................     4830
France..............................  July 14, 1997.....................  2:00 p.m.....................     4830
Japan...............................  July 15, 1997.....................  10:00 a.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..............  June 24, 1997.........  July 1, 1997.     
Sweden......................  June 25, 1997.........  July 2, 1997.     
Romania.....................  June 25, 1997.........  July 2, 1997.     
Italy.......................  June 26, 1997.........  July 3, 1997.     
United Kingdom..............  June 27, 1997.........  July 7, 1997.     
Singapore...................  June 27, 1997.........  July 7, 1997.     
Germany.....................  June 30, 1997.........  July 7, 1997.     
France......................  June 30, 1997.........  July 7, 1997.     
Japan.......................  July 1, 1997..........  July 8, 1997.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will 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 120 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 
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates 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 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.

[[Page 31575]]

    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 Tariff 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 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), and Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66472 
(December 17, 1996)). 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22(c)(5).

    Dated: June 2, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-15118 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P