[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8790-8798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4443]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Rescission of Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Rescission 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,
[[Page 8791]]
Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The
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 21 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998.
We are rescinding the reviews for thirteen 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bearings were withdrawn in a timely manner.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 23, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please contact the appropriate case analysts
for the various respondent firms as listed below, at Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
France. Lyn Johnson (SKF), Larry Tabash or Davina Hashmi (SNFA), J.
David Dirstine (SNR), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Germany. Mark Ross (INA and Torrington Nadellager), Farah Naim or
Davina Hashmi (SKF), Thomas Schauer (FAG), Robin Gray, or Richard
Rimlinger.
Italy. Anne Copper or J. David Dirstine (SKF), Edythe Artman or Mark
Ross (FAG), Minoo Hatten (Somecat), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Japan. J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.), Thomas
Schauer (NTN), Davina Hashmi (NPBS), Diane Krawczun (NSK Ltd.), Robin
Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Romania. Suzanne Flood (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Robin Gray.
Sweden. Davina Hashmi (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 of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).
Background
On May 15, 1989, 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 29, 1998,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, we published a notice of initiation
of administrative reviews of these orders for the period May 1, 1997,
through April 30, 1998 (the POR) (63 FR 35188). 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 Rofer LDA (France), Rodaindustria SA
(France), Rodaindustria Vigo SA (France), Bucher Guyer (France), Alfa
Team GmbH (Germany), D&R Technisher Grosshandel (Nurnberg) (Germany),
D&R Technisher Grosshandel (Rednitzhembach) (Germany), Frolich & Dorken
GmbH (Germany), RMV Walzlager Vetr. GmbH (Germany), Wyko Export
(Germany), Minetti (Italy), Motovario (Italy), and NMB/Pelmec
(Singapore). Because there were no other requests for review of the
above-named firms, we are rescinding the reviews with respect to these
companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d).
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 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, 8482.99.6595, 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, Mounted or Unmounted, 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, 8482.99.70, 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, Mounted and Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all spherical plain bearings that
employ a spherically shaped sliding element and include spherical plain
rod ends.
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
[[Page 8792]]
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, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998) (AFBs VIII).
Although 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 merchandise:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of firm Merchandise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France:
11SKF France (including all relevant All
affiliates).
SNFA S.A. (SNFA France).................... All
SNR........................................ All
Germany:
SKF GmbH (including all relevant All
affiliates) (SKF Germany).
Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/ BBs, CRBs
Kuensenbeck).
FAG........................................ All
INA........................................ All
Italy:
FAG Italia, S.p.A. (including all relevant BBs, CRBs
affiliates) (FAG Italy).
SKF-Industrie, S.p.A. (including all BBs
relevant affiliates) (SKF Italy).
Somecat, S.p.A. (Somecat).................. BBs, CRBs
Japan:
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)................ All
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (Nachi).............. 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
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, CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated July 1, 1998, the Torrington Group requested to
be excused from responding to the Department's questionnaire in the
review involving BBs from Germany. The Torrington Group stated that,
during the POR, it imported into the United States only eight units
covered by the order on BBs from Germany and all units were imported
and obtained by the Torrington Company from Torrington Nadellager GmbH
via an affiliated-party transaction. The Torrington Group stated
further that after importation it loaned the eight units to an
unaffiliated U.S. customer for examination, retrieved the units from
the customer, and destroyed the units after retrieval. 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
Michael Panfeld, dated July 15, 1998, located in Import
Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, Main Commerce
Building (hereafter, B-099). 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, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 63 FR 6512, 6514 (February 9, 1998).)
Duty Absorption
On May 29, 1998, and July 29, 1998, the Torrington Company
requested that the Department determine with respect to all
respondents, except Torrington Nadellager and SNFA UK, whether
antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. On May 29, 1998,
FAG Bearings Corp. requested that the Department determine for
Torrington Nadellager whether antidumping duties had been absorbed
during the POR. These requests were filed pursuant to section 751(a)(4)
of the Act.
Section 751(a)(4) of the Act 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 (see also 19 CFR 351.213(j)(1)). Section 751(a)(4) was added
to the Act by the URAA.
For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's antidumping regulations provides that
the Department will make a duty-absorption determination, if requested,
for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. 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) of the Act 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, they are
transition orders in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act;
therefore, based on the policy stated above, the Department will
consider a request for an absorption
[[Page 8793]]
determination during a review initiated in 1998. This being a review
initiated in 1998 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
requests filed by the Torrington Company and FAG Bearings Corp., with
the exception of TIE, SNFA France, and Somecat, sold AFBs through
importers that are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 771(33)
of the 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 or kind sales with
dumping
margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France:
SKF................................ BBs 17.88
SNR................................ BBs 10.18
CRBs 14.38
Germany:
SKF................................ BBs 3.20
CRBs 33.85
SPBs 22.03
Torrington Nadellager.............. CRBs 0.26
FAG................................ BBs 10.93
CRBs 26.83
INA................................ BBs 9.14
CRBs 9.25
SPBs 4.00
Italy:
FAG................................ BBs 10.38
SKF................................ BBs 20.73
Japan:
Koyo............................... BBs 30.38
CRBs 47.46
Nachi.............................. BBs 48.39
CRBs 7.93
NPBS............................... BBs 22.42
NSK................................ BBs 4.88
................................. CRBs 16.25
NTN................................ BBs 39.38
CRBs 86.38
SPBs 60.68
Sweden:
SKF................................ BBs 4.17
CRBs 100.00
United Kingdon:
Barden............................. BBs 19.43
NSK/RHP............................ BBs 34.25
CRBs 56.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of SKF Sweden, the firm did not respond to our
questionnaire with respect to its sales of CRBs and the dumping margin
for all sales of CRBs were determined on the basis of adverse facts
available (see Use of Facts Available below). Lacking other
information, we find duty absorption on all U.S. sales of CRBs by SKF
Sweden.
With respect to the above companies, 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 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 located in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce
Building, Room B-099.
Use of Facts Available
We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of
the Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the weighted-
average dumping margin is appropriate for SKF Sweden with respect to
CRBs because this firm did not respond to our antidumping
questionnaire. We find that this firm has not provided ``information
that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore,
we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is
appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of this
company because it did not cooperate to the best of its ability by not
responding to our questionnaire.
In certain situations, we found it necessary to use partial facts
available. Partial facts available was applied in cases in which we
were unable to use some portion of a response in calculating the
dumping margin. For TIE (Romania), we had no factor value on the record
to value steel tube. Therefore, we used the value of steel bar as the
factor value for this input. In addition, we discovered at verification
that, for a few transactions, TIE inadvertently reported factors-of-
production (FOP) information for a factory other than the actual
producing factory. We determine that non-adverse partial facts
available should be applied to these transactions for the following
reasons: the sales with misreported FOP data account for a very small
percentage of U.S. sales; we are satisfied with the accuracy of TIE's
FOP data for other U.S. sales; the misreported FOP data accurately
reflect the experience of the other factories in producing the same
models; the misreported FOP data constitute an inadvertent error by TIE
which could not reasonably be corrected at verification. As non-adverse
partial facts available, we have used the information TIE reported as
the FOP of the affected models. See Memorandum of January 29, 1999,
from Suzanne Flood to Laurie Parkhill in Room B-099.
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 (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 merchandise subject to a
particular order, 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 are as follows: May 25-31, 1997; July
13-19, 1997; October 19-25, 1997; November 23-29, 1997; January 25-31,
1998; April 5-11, 1998. 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) to the URAA (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
[[Page 8794]]
repacking expenses in the United States. When 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, e.g., 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, except NPBS, that added value in the
United States.
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when 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 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(c) for an
explanation of our practice on this issue.) Therefore, we preliminarily
determine 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 the sales subject to the special rule, 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 all
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. 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.
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 foreign like
product, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the sample
weeks we selected for U.S. CEP sales plus one month prior to the POR
and one following the POR. The sample months were February, May, July,
October, and November of 1997 and January, April, and May of 1998.
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
provided for in section 773(b) of the Act in the last completed review
with respect to SKF France (BBs), INA (All), SKF Germany (All), FAG
Italy (BBs), SKF Italy (BBs), SKF Sweden (BBs), Koyo (BBs), Nachi (BBs
and CRBs), NPBS (BBs), NSK (BBs and CRBs), NTN Japan (All), Barden U.K.
(BBs), and NSK/RHP (BBs and CRBs), 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 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
packing the merchandise. 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
merchandise subject to an antidumping order for a respondent that
reported no U.S. sales or shipments of merchandise subject to that
order.
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, when 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. When 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-mentioned
companies and indicated merchandise except where there were no sales or
shipments subject to review.
[[Page 8795]]
We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in
the home market, 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 which are
the foreign like product 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. When
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 351.410. 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, when 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 section below.)
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like
product in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with
section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit in the calculation of CV. In
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for all respondents
except SNFA S.A. and Torrington Nadellager, we based SG&A expenses and
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each 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
Torrington Nadellager and SNFA S.A., pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)
of the Act, we calculated profit for CV using an alternative
methodology because the calculation of profit in accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act is not attainable from the information
on the record. For SNFA S.A. we calculated profit for CV in accordance
with 773(e)(2)(B)(i); for Torrington Nadellager we calculated profit
for CV in accordance with 773(e)(2)(B)(iii). See analysis memoranda
from case analysts to Robin Gray, dated January 26, 1999, in Room B-099
for a description of the alternative CV-profit calculation
methodologies.
When appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for COS differences and
level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses from and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to NV. For comparisons to CEP, we
made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses.
We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home market indirect
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
When 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 (8) of the Act. (See Level of Trade section
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
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 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, 1999, on file in Room 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 the following: (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 the following 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
[[Page 8796]]
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 Suzanne Flood to Laurie Parkhill,
dated January 20, 1999, ``Assignment of Separate Rate for
Tehnoimportexport: 1997-98 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 on file in Room 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 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 Room B-099. 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 an 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 we
have conducted involving Romania, we have treated Romania as an 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 an NME for these preliminary results.
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. 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 To The File from
Suzanne Flood, dated January 21, 1999, ``Surrogate-Country Selection:
1997-98 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 Room 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
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 1997 United Nations Trade
Commodity Statistics (UNTCS), which includes the most recent published
data closest to the 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. We
also reduced the steel input factors to account for the scrap steel
that was sold by the producers of the relevant bearings.
For labor, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's
regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. We have
used the regression-based wage rate on Import Administration's internet
website at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/wages.
For factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we could
not find values for the bearings industry in Indonesia. Therefore,
consistent with AFBs VIII, we used the percentages calculated from the
1996 financial statements of the Indonesia company, P.T. Jaya Pari
Steel Ltd. Corporation. See TIE Preliminary Analysis Memorandum from
Suzanne Flood. 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.
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,
1997, through April 30, 1998, to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company BBs CRBs SPBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................... 7.35 (\2\) 7.39
[[Page 8797]]
SNFA......................................... 0.41 0.21 (\2\)
SNR.......................................... 2.91 1.91 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................... 1.24 5.58 3.08
Torrington Nadellager........................ (\2\) 0.45 (\3\)
FAG.......................................... 3.32 9.42 (\1\)
INA.......................................... 7.51 3.97 0.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.......................................... 0.95 (\1\) .......
SKF.......................................... 3.42 (\3\) .......
Somecat...................................... 1.24 (\2\) .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo......................................... 6.81 11.73 (\1\)
Nachi........................................ 11.19 1.51 (\1\)
NPBS......................................... 2.64 (\2\) (\2\)
NSK Ltd...................................... 0.74 4.31 (\2\)
NTN.......................................... 0.59 0.71 1.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIE.......................................... 0.78 ....... .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.......................................... 2.87 13.69 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation........................... 2.89 (\1\) .......
FAG (U.K.)................................... (\1\) (\1\) .......
NSK/RHP...................................... 21.46 51.05 .......
SNFA......................................... 0.00 (\2\) .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last
relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/
sales.
\2\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no
individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.
\3\ No review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 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 30, 1999.............. 8:30 am.................... 1412
Sweden................................... March 31, 1999.............. 8:30 am.................... 1412
Romania.................................. March 31, 1999.............. 2:00 pm.................... 1412
Germany.................................. April 1, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 1412
Italy.................................... April 2, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 1412
United Kingdom........................... April 5, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 1412
France................................... April 5, 1999............... 2:00 pm.................... 1412
Japan.................................... April 6, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 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 with an electronic version
included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Briefs due Rebuttals due
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues........................... March 19, 1999................... March 26, 1999.
Sweden................................... March 22, 1999................... March 29, 1999.
Romania.................................. March 22, 1999................... March 29, 1999.
Germany.................................. March 23, 1999................... March 30, 1999.
Italy.................................... March 24, 1999................... March 31, 1999.
United Kingdom........................... March 25, 1999................... April 1, 1999.
France................................... March 25, 1999................... April 1, 1999.
[[Page 8798]]
Japan.................................... March 26, 1999................... April 2, 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an
exporter/importer-specific assessment rate or value for subject
merchandise.
Export Price Sales
With respect to EP sales for these preliminary results, we divided
the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal
value and EP) for each importer/customer by the total number of units
sold to that importer/customer. We will direct the Customs Service 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.
Constructed Export Price Sales
For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total
dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of
those reviewed sales for each importer. When an affiliated party acts
as an importer for EP sales we have included the applicable EP sales in
this assessment-rate calculation. We will direct the Customs Service to
assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries
under the relevant order 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.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each respondent (i.e., each
exporter and/or manufacturer included in these reviews) we divided the
total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that
company's sales of merchandise during the review period subject to each
order.
In order to derive a single deposit rate for each order for each
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP deposit rates (using the
EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). To accomplish this
when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the total dumping
margins for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the
sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the review period to
days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total net value for all
CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP total
net value by the same ratio. We then divided the combined total dumping
margins for both EP and CEP sales by the combined total value for both
EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate.
Entries of parts incorporated into finished bearings before sales
to an unaffiliated customer in the United States will receive the
respondent's deposit rate applicable to the order.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative
reviews for all shipments of AFBs 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
reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms
whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and therefore
de minimis, the Department shall not require a deposit of estimated
antidumping duties; (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 for the relevant order made
effective by the final results of review published on July 26, 1993
(see Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26,
1993), and, for BBs from Italy, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination
of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty
Orders, 61 FR 66472 (December 17, 1996)). 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 reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 16, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-4443 Filed 2-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P