[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71447-71449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results 
of 1996-1997 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On November 17, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the 
final results of administrative review and new shipper review of the 
antidumping order on tapered roller bearings from the People's Republic 
of China (63 FR 63842). The period of review is June 1, 1996 through 
May 31, 1997. Subsequent to the publication of the final results, we 
received comments from respondents and the petitioner alleging various 
ministerial errors. After analyzing the comments submitted, we are 
amending our final results to correct certain ministerial errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Matney or Stephanie Hoffman; 
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, US Department of 
Commerce; 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone numbers (202) 482-1778 or (202) 482-4198, respectively.

Applicable Statute:

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(the Act), as amended, 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. Additionally, unless otherwise 
indicated all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 71448]]

Background

    On November 17, 1998, the Department published the final results of 
administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty 
order on tapered roller bearings from the People's Republic of China 
covering the period June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997. See Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1996-1997 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Determination Not To 
Revoke Order in Part 63 FR 63842 (November 17, 1998) (Final Results). 
Subsequently, the petitioner, the Timken Company, and one respondent, 
Premier Bearing & Equipment Ltd. (Premier), submitted ministerial error 
allegations.
    A summary of each allegation along with the Department's response 
is included below. For a more detailed analysis, see December 17, 1998 
Memorandum from Case Team to Richard Moreland, ``Concurrence for 
ministerial error corrections to final results of review.'' We are 
hereby amending our final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.28(c), to 
reflect the correction of those errors which are clerical in nature.

Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations

    Allegation 1: The petitioner alleges that in its database 
containing corrections to steel unit consumption based on verification 
for one of Zhejiang's suppliers, the Department included one model 
number twice, with different steel unit consumption figures for the cup 
and cone. The petitioner notes that this duplication of model numbers 
may lead to erratic results in the calculations.
    Department's Position: The petitioner is correct in stating that 
one model in this database is included twice. However, the model in 
question is not included among the U.S. sales of Zhejiang and, 
therefore, the calculation of Zhejiang's margin is not affected. 
Therefore, we did not alter Zhejiang's SAS program with regard to this 
issue.
    Allegation 2: The petitioner alleges that there is an error in the 
SAS program for Zhejiang at the point where the revised steel unit 
consumption database, discussed in Allegation 1 above, is merged into 
the Factors of Production (FOP) database for one supplier. In 
particular, there are more model numbers in the FOP database than there 
are in the corrected unit consumption database. In the process of 
merging these two data sets, the correct unit consumption for certain 
models is erroneously overwritten, and reset to zero. This results in 
an inaccurate calculation of the cost of production for these 
particular models. The petitioner alleges the same error for four other 
respondents: Yantai CMC, Liaoning MEC Group Co., Peer/Chin Jun, and 
Premier.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner's allegations. 
The appropriate unit consumption values for certain model numbers are 
overwritten and reset to zero in these programs. We have modified the 
SAS programs for Zhejiang and Yantai CMC to correct this error. This 
error also affected the calculations for Peer/Chin Jun and Premier, as 
these companies used constructed value (CV) data from the same 
supplier. We re-ran these two companies' SAS programs with the revised 
CV data to correct this error. We did not modify Liaoning's SAS program 
as Liaoning did not sell the relevant models and, therefore, the error 
did not affect the calculation of Liaoning's margin.
    Allegation 3: Premier states that there were several ``complete'' 
bearings listed in Premier's sales database at CONNUMU for which the 
proper FOP data match was not performed in the SAS final margin 
program. Premier explained that this is because the model numbers of 
inch-sized (as opposed to metric-size) complete bearings are often 
shorthand combinations of the individual cup and cone assemblies used 
in the bearing (e.g., complete bearing model LM11949/10 is comprised of 
cone number LM11949 and cup number LM11910). Because of this shorthand 
method of recording bearings, the margin program did not match certain 
cups and cones with their respective complete bearings.
    Department's Position: Although the Department acknowledges that 
certain FOP data were not matched in the margin program, this is a 
result of inconsistent CONNUMU numbering. The burden of identifying any 
CONNUMUs which may be numbered inconsistently lies with the respondent, 
not the Department. Premier did describe how its CONNUMUs are derived, 
but it did not explain that factor information reported by the 
suppliers was numbered differently. Therefore, the problem was not with 
the shorthand reporting method, but rather with the inconsistency in 
reporting between Premier and the suppliers. The Department had no 
knowledge of this inconsistency.
    The inconsistency in CONNUMUs was apparent to Premier after the 
preliminary results. Yet Premier failed to raise this issue in its case 
brief. Because Premier did not identify this error prior to the final 
determination, the Department was not aware of the inconsistency in 
reporting. Therefore, because we did not make a ministerial error, we 
have not modified Premier's final calculations with regard to this 
issue.
    Moreover, the Department also notes that for three of the four 
CONNUMUs identified in Premier's ministerial error allegation, the FOP 
data is not complete. These bearings did not have CV information for 
the entire assembled bearing, but only for the different components. 
Therefore, certain factor information remains lacking, such as the 
labor required to assemble the cone and cup. More information would be 
required before we would be able to calculate the CV for the entire 
assembled bearing. For all of the above reasons, Premier's allegations 
do not constitute ministerial errors and will not be corrected.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of the amended margin calculations, the following 
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period June 1, 1996 
through May 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percentage
                   Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wafangdian................................................          0.00
Luoyang...................................................          3.20
Yantai CMC................................................          0.03
Xiangfan..................................................         33.18
Zhejiang..................................................          0.11
Wanxiang..................................................          0.00
Liaoning MEC Group Corporation............................          0.02
Premier...................................................          7.22
Peer/Chin Jun.............................................          0.05
ZX (the new shipper)......................................          0.00
PRC Rate..................................................         33.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. With respect to 
export price sales for these amended final results, we divided the 
total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and 
export price) for each importer/customer by the total number of units 
sold to that importer/customer. We will direct Customs to assess the 
resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in 
each of that importer's/customer's entries under the relevant order 
during the review period. Although this will result in assessing 
different percentage margins for individual entries, the total 
antidumping duties collected for each

[[Page 71449]]

importer/customer for the review period will be almost exactly equal to 
the total dumping margins.
    For constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping 
margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those 
reviewed sales for each importer/customer. We will direct Customs to 
assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered Customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's/
customer's entries during the review period. While the Department is 
aware that the entered value of sales during the POR is not necessarily 
equal to the entered value of entries during the POR, use of entered 
value of sales as the basis of the assessment rate permits the 
Department to collect a reasonable approximation of the antidumping 
duties which would have been determined if the Department had reviewed 
those sales of merchandise actually entered during the POR.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of amended final results of administrative 
review and new shipper review for all shipments of TRBs entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rates for the PRC companies named above will be the rates shown 
above, except that for exporters with de minimis rates, i.e., less than 
0.50 percent, no deposit will be required; (2) for all remaining PRC 
exporters, all of which were found not to be entitled to separate 
rates, the cash deposit will be 33.18 percent (the proceeding's highest 
margin); (3) for non-PRC exporters, Premier and Chin Jun, the cash 
deposit rates will be the rates established above; (4) for non-PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, other than Premier and 
Chin Jun, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d) or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: December 17, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-34324 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P