[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6512-6519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3212]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
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 is conducting administrative reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered
roller bearings) and parts thereof 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, cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and
spherical plain bearings and parts thereof. The reviews cover 20
manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1996, through
April 30, 1997.
We are terminating the reviews for six other manufacturers/
exporters and for certain types of antifriction bearings from still
other manufacturers/exporters because the requests for reviews of these
firms or types of bearings were withdrawn in a timely manner.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value 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: February 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: The appropriate case analysts for the various
respondent firms are 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), Lisa Tomlinson (SNFA), or Richard Rimlinger.
Germany
John Heires (Torrington Nadellager), Davina Hashmi (SKF), or Robin
Gray.
Italy
Chip Hayes (SKF), Mark Ross (FAG), Kristie Strecker (Somecat),
William Zapf (Meter), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Japan
J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Gregory Thompson (NTN), Hermes
Pinilla (NPBS), Thomas Schauer (NSK Ltd.), Jay Biggs (Nachi-Fujikoshi
Corp.), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Romania
Kristie Strecker (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Robin Gray.
Singapore
[[Page 6513]]
Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.
Sweden
Mark Ross (SKF) or Richard Rimlinger.
United Kingdom
Suzanne Flood (Barden Corporation), Diane Krawczun (NSK/RHP),
Hermes Pinilla (FAG), Lyn Johnson (SNFA), Robin Gray, or Richard
Rimlinger.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1, 1996).
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty
orders on ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller
bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical plain bearings and
parts thereof (SPBs) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,
Singapore, Sweden, 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 United Kingdom; and BBs from Romania and
Singapore. On June 17, 1997 and August 28, 1997, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.22(c), we published notices of initiation of administrative
reviews of these orders for the period May 1, 1996 through April 30,
1997 (the POR) (62 FR 32754 (as corrected by 62 FR 34504 and 62 FR
44751) and 62 FR 45621, respectively). The Department is conducting
these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely
withdrawals of review requests for Bruckner (Germany), FAG Kugelfisher
Georg Schaefer AG (Germany), INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (Germany), NTN
Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH (Germany), SNR Roulements (France),
and C.R. s.r.l. (Italy). In addition, we also received timely
withdrawals of review requests for CRBs sold by FAG Italia S.p.A.
(Italy), CRBs sold by Somecat S.p.A. (Italy), CRBs sold by SNFA
Bearings Ltd. (U.K.), and CRBs and SPBs sold by Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.
(Japan). Because there were no other requests for review of these
companies or specified bearing types for the above-named firms, we are
terminating the reviews with respect to these companies or types of
bearings in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). Furthermore, on
December 17, 1997, we received a withdrawal of a request by Agusta
Aerospace Corporation (AAC) to review BBs and CRBs which were produced
by SNFA France and exported by Agusta S.p.A. to the United States. This
withdrawal request does not affect our review of other BBs and CRBs
sold by SNFA France. Therefore, because SNFA France had no specific
foreknowledge that sales it made to Agusta S.p.A. were destined for the
United States, we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate
entries of all SNFA bearings imported by AAC at the rate required at
the time of entry.
Although we received a request to revoke the antidumping duty order
covering BBs from Singapore with respect to NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec
Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec), we have preliminarily determined
that NMB/Pelmec does not qualify for revocation under 19 CFR
353.25(a)(1) because we preliminarily determine that the firm was
dumping BBs in this review period and we determined that NMB/Pelmec
dumped BBs in the review periods May 1, 1994 through April 30, 1995 (62
FR 54043, October 17, 1997) and May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996 (62
FR 2081, January 15, 1997).
Scope of Reviews
The products covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings
(other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) and
constitute the following classes or kinds of merchandise:
1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all AFBs
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,
8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40,
8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,
8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060,
8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75,
8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800,
8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and
8803.90.90.
2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products
include all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling
element. Imports of these products are classified under the following
categories: antifriction rollers, all cylindrical roller bearings
(including split cylindrical roller bearings) and parts thereof, and
housed or mounted cylindrical roller bearing units and parts thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50,
6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00, 8482.50.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530,
8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6595, 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, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043 (October 17, 1997)
(AFBs VII). The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written descriptions of the scope of these
proceedings remain dispositive.
These reviews cover the following firms and classes or kinds of
merchandise:
[[Page 6514]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of firm Class or kind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France (including all relevant BBs, SPBs
affiliates).
SNFA S.A. (SNFA France)...................... BBs, CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF GmbH (including all relevant affiliates) All
(SKF Germany).
Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/ BBs, CRBs
Kuensenbeck).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italia, S.p.A. (including all relevant BBs
affiliates) (FAG Italy).
SKF-Industrie, S.p.A. (including all relevant BBs
affiliates) (SKF Italy).
Meter, S.p.A. (Meter)........................ CRBs
Somecat, S.p.A. (Somecat).................... BBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo).................. BBs
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (Nachi)................ BBs, CRBs
Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd. BBs, CRBs
(NPBS).
NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.)........ BBs, CRBs
NTN Corp. (NTN Japan)........................ All
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (TIE)................ BBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB/Pelmec................................... BBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Sverige (including all relevant BBs, CRBs
affiliates) (SKF Sweden).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation........................... BBs, CRBs
FAG (U.K.) Ltd............................... BBs, CRBs
NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings Ltd. BBs, CRBs
(NSK/RHP).
SNFA (U.K.) Bearings Ltd..................... BBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated June 24, 1997, Torrington requested to be excused
from responding to the Department's questionnaire in this review
involving BBs from Germany. Torrington stated that, during the POR, it
imported into the United States only ten units covered by the order on
BBs and all units were imported and obtained by Torrington-U.S. from
Torrington-Germany via an affiliated-party transaction solely for
testing and/or examination.
On August 4, 1997, Torrington notified the Department that it had
destroyed all ten units in question and that there is no possibility of
resale. Based on this, Torrington states that no useful purpose would
be served by requiring it to answer the questionnaire so far as BBs are
concerned. Given that the units in question were destroyed and there
are no sales to review, we have not calculated dumping margins for
these entries in this review involving BBs from Germany. See memorandum
to Laurie Parkhill from Suzanne Flood, dated August 18, 1997. Because
this merchandise was consumed by the affiliated importer and not resold
in any form, we will liquidate these entries without regard to
antidumping duties. (See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,
Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 35713 (July 8, 1996).)
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by certain respondents using standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of
original documentation containing relevant information. Our
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the
verification reports.
Use of Facts Available
We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of
the Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the weighted-
average dumping margin is not appropriate for any of the companies
under the current review. However, 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. For partial facts available, we
extrapolated information from the company's response and used that
information in our calculations. For SKF (Germany), NPBS, NTN,
Torrington, and NSK-RHP (UK), average credit days were calculated for
missing payment dates. For TIE (Romania), we had no factor value on the
record to value steel tube. Therefore, we used the value of steel bar
[[Page 6515]]
as the factor value for this input. For Torrington, we used facts
available to construct the value of merchandise where no comparable
home market information existed. For further information, please see
the analysis memoranda on file for all of these firms.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price--Market-Economy Countries
For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b)
of the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of
transactions that occurred during the POR and the resulting
administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for
all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales in accordance with
section 777A of the Act. When a firm made more than 2,000 CEP sales
transactions to the United States for a particular class or kind of
merchandise, we reviewed CEP sales that occurred during sample weeks.
We selected one week from each two-month period in the review period,
for a total of six weeks, and analyzed each transaction made in those
six weeks. The sample weeks were June 2-8, 1996; August 11-17, 1996;
October 13-19, 1996; November 3-9, 1996; February 2-8, 1997; and April
13-19, 1997. We reviewed all EP sales transactions during the POR.
We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to,
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts
and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement
of Administrative Action (SAA) (at 823-824) to the URAA, 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 Act, we also deducted the cost of any further
manufacture or assembly, except where the special rule provided in
section 772(e) of the Act was applied (see below). Finally, we made an
adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, i.e., parts
of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters
and then further processed into other products which were then sold to
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for
merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of
the Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States,
with the exception of NSK/RHP and NPBS.
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject
merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine
the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other
subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use
of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of
such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or
other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other
reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold
in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the
subject merchandise by the affiliated person. Based on this analysis,
we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by
all firms, with the exception of NSK/RHP and NPBS, accounted for at
least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated
customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States. (See 19 CFR
351.402 for an explanation of our practice on this issue.) 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 did not permit a proper comparison,
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by most
respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. With the exception of
Meter, each company's quantity of sales in its home market was greater
than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal
value (NV) on the prices at which the foreign like products were first
sold for consumption in the exporting country.
For Meter, we used third-country sales to Germany to establish NV
because Meter had no sales of the foreign like product in Italy. SNFA
France's home market was viable in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of
the Act. However, because there were no contemporaneous sales of
merchandise comparable to the U.S. sales such that we found no matches,
we used constructed value as the basis of NV.
Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred
during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in
examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate NV
in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm had more than
2,000 home market sales transactions for a particular class or kind of
merchandise, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the
sample weeks we selected for U.S. sales sampling plus one
contemporaneous month prior to the POR and one following the POR. The
sample months were March, June, August, October, and November of 1996;
and February, April, and June of 1997.
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 unaffiliated
customers.
Because the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test
under section 773(b) of the Act in the last completed review with
respect to FAG Italy, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF Sweden,
Koyo, Nachi, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind., 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 like product under consideration for the determination of NV in
these reviews
[[Page 6516]]
may have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) as
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales
by these firms in the home market.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed
in producing the foreign like product plus selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to
placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for
shipment. In our COP analysis, we used the home market sales and COP
information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses.
We did not conduct a COP analysis regarding a class or kind of
merchandise for a respondent that reported no U.S. sales or shipments
of that class or kind.
After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of
the Act 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 permitted the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to
the reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges,
discounts, and rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than 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 in substantial quantities within an extended period of time
pursuant to sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act and because,
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 Act. Based on this test, we
disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of the above companies
and classes or kinds of merchandise except where there were no sales or
shipments subject to review.
We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in
the home market or a third country, as noted above. We considered all
non-identical products within a bearing family to be equally similar.
As defined in the questionnaire, a bearing family consists of all
bearings within a class or kind of merchandise that are the same in the
following physical characteristics: load direction, bearing design,
number of rows of rolling elements, precision rating, dynamic load
rating, outer diameter, inner diameter, and width.
Home market or third-country prices were based on the packed, ex-
factory or delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers.
Where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and
for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B)
of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. 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 from NV. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and
CEP calculations.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade as
the EP or CEP. If NV was calculated at a different level of trade, we
made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with
section 773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level of Trade below.)
On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
issued a decision in Cemex v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed. Cir.).
In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court
discussed the appropriateness of using CV as the basis for foreign
market value when the Department finds home market sales to be outside
the ordinary course of trade. This issue was not raised by any party in
these 96/97 reviews. However, the URAA amended the definition of sales
outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include sales below cost.
See section 771(15) of the Act. Because the Court's decision was issued
so close to the deadline for completing these preliminary results, we
have not had sufficient time to evaluate and apply (if appropriate and
if there are adequate facts on the record) the decision to the facts of
these post-URAA reviews. For these reasons, we have determined to
continue to apply our policy regarding the use of CV when we have
disregarded below-cost sales from the calculation of NV; however, we
invite interested parties to comment, in their case briefs, on the
applicability of the Cemex decision to these reviews.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like
product in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with
section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the
amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course
of trade for consumption in the home market. For selling expenses, we
used the weighted-average home market selling expenses. To the extent
possible, we calculated CV by level of trade, using the selling
expenses and profit determined for each level of trade in the
comparison market.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 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 Act. (See Level of Trade
below.)
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determined NV for sales at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there were no
sales at the same level of trade, we compared 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
[[Page 6517]]
level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and
profit.
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a
different level of trade and the differences affected price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we made a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analysis
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Level
of Trade, January 26, 1998, on file 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 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 over exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact
(de facto).
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 Kristie Strecker to Laurie Parkhill, dated January 26, 1998,
``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 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
Factors of Production Memorandum from Disposable Lighters from the
People's Republic of China (A-570-834) (Lighters from the PRC) (April
27, 1995), which is on file in B-099 (for this expense, as well as any
other adjustments or factors in our calculations for which we relied on
pre-POR statistics discussed below, we adjusted those statistics by
annual rates of inflation). We used the actual reported expenses for
international freight and bank charges because the expenses were paid
to market-economy suppliers and 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 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 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 Act and 19 CFR 353.52. In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the
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 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 discussion of the Department's
selection of surrogate countries, see Memorandum from Kristie Strecker
to Laurie Parkhill, dated January 26, 1998, ``Surrogate-Country
Selection: 1996-97 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.
[[Page 6518]]
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the Romanian factors of
production as follows:
Where direct materials used to produce AFBs were imported
by the producers 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 includes 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 of
Lighters from the PRC, which is on file in B-099. We also reduced the
steel input factors to account for the scrap steel that 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. We added
amounts to labor rates to account for benefits. We used information
from the Foreign Labor Trends, as used in Lighters from the PRC, which
shows supplementary benefits to be thirty-three percent of
manufacturing earnings.
For factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we could
not find values for the bearings industry in Indonesia. Therefore,
consistent with AFBsVII, we used the percentages calculated from the
financial statements of the Indonesia company, P.T. Jaya Pari Steel
Ltd. Corporation. We determined that amounts for energy usage for
electricity and natural gas were included in the overhead calculations
in these financial statements.
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.
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,
1996, through April 30, 1997 to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company BBs CRBs SPBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................... 7.40 (\3\) 76.57
SNFA......................................... 0.55 1.78 (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................... 2.27 7.33 5.24
Torrington NAD............................... (\2\) 11.38 (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.......................................... 1.18 (\3\)
SKF.......................................... 3.22 (\3\)
Meter........................................ (\3\) 10.65
Somecat...................................... 0.00 (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo Seiko................................... 6.29 (\3\) (\3\)
Nachi........................................ 6.83 8.53 (\3\)
NPBS......................................... 2.33 (\2\) (\3\)
NSK Ltd...................................... 5.87 2.27 (\3\)
NTN.......................................... 6.16 12.50 10.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIE.......................................... 0.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind..................... 4.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................... 11.73 (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSK/RHP...................................... 16.66 21.08
FAG (U.K.)................................... (\2\) (\2\)
Barden....................................... 8.02 (\1\)
SNFA......................................... 58.20 (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Date Time Room No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues..................... March 18, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412
Sweden............................. March 19, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412
Romania............................ March 19, 1998............. 2:00 p.m......................... 1412
Germany............................ March 20, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412
Italy.............................. March 23, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412
Singapore.......................... March 23, 1998............. 2:00 p.m......................... 1412
United Kingdom..................... March 24, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412
France............................. March 24, 1998............. 2:00 p.m......................... 1412
Japan.............................. March 25, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case 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 case 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 due Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues................ March 9, 1998...... March 16, 1998.
Sweden........................ March 10, 1998..... March 17, 1998.
Romania....................... March 10, 1998..... March 17, 1998.
[[Page 6519]]
Germany....................... March 11, 1998..... March 18, 1998.
Italy......................... March 12, 1998..... March 19, 1998.
Singapore..................... March 12, 1998..... March 19, 1998.
United Kingdom................ March 13, 1998..... March 20, 1998.
France........................ March 13, 1998..... March 20, 1998.
Japan......................... March 16, 1998..... March 23, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those rates established in the final results of these
reviews (except that no deposit will be required for firms with zero or
de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-
value (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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22(c)(5).
Dated: February 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-3212 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P