[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53323-53329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-054, A-588-604]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Intent to Revoke in-Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner and one respondent, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller 
bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from Japan 
(A-588-604), and of the antidumping finding on TRBs, four inches or 
less in outside diameter, and components thereof, from Japan (A-588-
054). The review of the A-588-054 finding covers two manufacturers/
exporters and one reseller/exporter of the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period October 1, 1997, through September 30, 
1998. The review of the A-588-604 order covers three manufacturers/
exporters and the period October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of TRBs have been made below 
the normal value (NV) for all respondents except Fuji. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties based on the difference between United States price and the NV. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 
Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Ranado (NSK), Stephanie Arthur 
(Koyo), Deborah Scott (NTN or Fuji), or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone : (202) 
482-3518, (202) 482-6312, or (202) 482-2657, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: 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 Rounds Agreements 
Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 18, 1976, the Treasury Department published in the 
Federal Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping finding on TRBs from 
Japan, and on October 6, 1987, the Department published the antidumping 
duty order on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On October 9, 1998, the 
Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' for both TRB cases covering the period October 
1, 1997 through September 30, 1998 (63 FR 54440).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 (b)(1), the petitioner, the 
Timken Company (Timken), requested that we conduct a review of Koyo 
Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo) and NSK Ltd. (NSK) in both the A-588-054 and A-
588-604 cases. Timken also requested that we conduct a review of NTN 
Corporation (NTN) in the A-588-604 TRB case. In addition, Fuji Heavy 
Industries (Fuji) requested that the Department conduct a review in the 
A-588-054 case, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e) requested that 
this finding be revoked with respect to Fuji. On November 30, 1998, we 
published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of these 
antidumping duty administrative reviews covering the period October 1, 
1997 through September 30, 1998 (63 FR 65748).

[[Page 53324]]

    Because it was not practicable to complete these reviews within the 
normal time frame, on May 7, 1999 we published in the Federal Register 
our notice of the extension of the time limits for both the A-588-054 
and A-588-604 1997-98 reviews (64 FR 24577). As a result of this 
extension, we extended the deadline for these preliminary results to 
September 20, 1999.

Scope of the Reviews

    Imports covered by the A-588-054 finding are sales or entries of 
TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter when assembled, including 
inner race or cone assemblies and outer races or cups, sold either as a 
unit or separately. This merchandise is classified under Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.15.
    Imports covered by the A-588-604 order include TRBs and parts 
thereof, finished and unfinished, which are flange, take-up cartridge, 
and hanger units incorporating TRBs, and roller housings (except pillow 
blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, 
whether or not for automotive use. Products subject to the A-588-054 
finding are not included within the scope of this order, except those 
manufactured by NTN. This merchandise is currently classifiable under 
HTS item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 
8483.90.80. The HTS item numbers listed above for both the A-588-054 
finding and the A-588-604 order are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    The period for each 1997-98 review is October 1, 1997, through 
September 30, 1998. The review of the A-588-054 case covers TRB sales 
by two manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and NSK) and one reseller/exporter 
(Fuji). The review of the A-588-604 case covers TRBs sales by three 
manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NTN, and NSK).

Duty Absorption

    On December 15, 1998, Timken requested that the Department 
determine with respect to all respondents whether antidumping duties 
had been absorbed during the POR. This request was filed pursuant to 
section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Section 751(a)(4) provides for the 
Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review 
initiated two or four years after the 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 has already passed. Because 
the finding and order on TRBs have been in effect since 1976 and 1987, 
respectively, 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 determination 
during a review initiated in 1998. Accordingly, 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, NTN, Koyo, NSK, and Fuji sold through 
importers that are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of 
the Act. Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that there are 
margins for the following firms with respect to the percentages of 
their U.S. sales, by quantity, indicated below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage of
                                                               U.S.
                                                            affiliates'
             Manufacturer/exporter reseller                 sales with
                                                              dumping
                                                              margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Case:
  Koyo Seiko............................................           16.46
  NSK...................................................           19.52
For the A-588-604 Case:
  NTN...................................................           33.69
  NSK...................................................           24.76
  Koyo Seiko............................................           98.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of Koyo, the firm did not respond to our request for 
further-manufacturing information and the dumping margins for those 
sales were determined on the basis of adverse facts available (see 
``Use of Facts Available'' below). Lacking other information, we find 
duty absorption on all such sales of further-processed TRBs. See 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 2558 (January 15, 
1998)(1995-96 TRB Final). Where Koyo's margins were not determined on 
the basis of adverse facts available (i.e., for non-further 
manufactured sales), we must presume that duties will be absorbed for 
those sales which were dumped. Id.
    With respect to other respondents with affiliated importers for 
whom we did not apply adverse facts available (NSK and NTN), we must 
presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales which were 
dumped. This presumption of duty absorption can be rebutted with 
evidence that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay 
any ultimately assessed duty. Id. However, there is no such evidence on 
the record. Under these circumstances, we preliminarily find that 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by NSK and NTN 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 any 
ultimately assessed duties, they must do so no later than 15 days after 
publication of these preliminary results.
    Because we preliminarily determine that sales of TRBs have not been 
made below the normal value by Fuji, a duty absorption determination is 
not applicable.

Vertification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Fuji and NSK, using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports, on file in Room B-099 in the main Commerce 
building.

Intent To Revoke

    On October 30, 1998, Fuji submitted a request, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the order covering TRBs 
from Japan with respect to its sales of this merchandise. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.222(e), this request was accompanied by certification 
from Fuji that it had sold the subject merchandise to the United States 
in commercial quantities at not less than NV for a three-year period, 
including this review

[[Page 53325]]

period,1 and would not sell subject merchandise at less than 
NV in the future. Fuji also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in 
the relevant antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the 
order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to revocation, it 
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition, on March 22, 1999 Fuji provided information to 
the Department supporting its claim that it sold TRBs to the United 
States in commercial quantities during this three-year period. That 
submission included estimated sales information for the 1996-97 POR, 
during which the Department did not conduct a review of Fuji (see 
footnote 2). The information provided therein is consistent with the 
information from both the 1995-96 and current POR, and there is no 
evidence on the record calling into question Fuji's 1996-97 
estimated sales information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department conducted verifications of Fuji's responses for this 
period of review. In the two prior reviews of this order, we determined 
that Fuji sold TRBs from Japan to the United States in commercial 
quantities at de minimis margins (1995-96 POR) or did not conduct a 
review with respect to Fuji (1996-97 POR) 2. See 1995-96 TRB 
Final and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 63860 
(November 17, 1998) (1996-97 TRB Final). We preliminarily determine 
that Fuji sold TRBs at not less than NV during the current review 
period. Based on Fuji's three consecutive years of zero or de minimis 
margins and the absence of evidence to the contrary, we preliminarily 
determine that it is not likely that Fuji will in the future sell TRBs 
at less than NV. Therefore, if these preliminary findings are affirmed 
in our final results, we intend to revoke the order on TRBs from Japan 
with respect to Fuji.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the 1996-97 POR, Fuji requested and then timely withdrew 
a request for review. Additionally, petitioner did not request a 
review of Fuji for this period. Therefore, we rescinded the 1996-97 
review for Fuji.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, in these 
preliminary results we find it necessary to use partial facts available 
in those instances were a respondent did not provide us with certain 
information necessary to conduct our analysis. This occurred with 
respect to certain sales and cost information Koyo failed to report for 
its sales of U.S. further-manufactured merchandise subject to the A-
588-604 order.
    On February 17, 1999, Koyo requested that it not be required to 
submit a response to Section E of our questionnaire regarding its U.S. 
further-manufactured sales. We informed Koyo on March 11, 1999 that it 
was required to supply further-manufacturing data by responding to 
section E of the Department's questionnaire by April 5, 1999. Koyo 
notified the Department on April 5, 1999 that it would not file a 
further-manufacturing response. Therefore, as in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 47455 (January 15, 1998), we have 
preliminarily determined that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
it is appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of Koyo 
because it failed to cooperate by not responding to the Department's 
request for information. The Department is authorized, under section 
776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is adverse to the interest 
of a party if the Department finds that the party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's request for information. We examined whether Koyo had 
acted to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for 
information. We took into consideration the fact that, as an 
experienced respondent in reviews of the TRB orders, it can reasonably 
be expected to know which types of information we request in each 
review. Because Koyo has submitted to the Department in previous TRB 
reviews complete further-manufacturing responses, we have determined 
that it failed to act to the best of its ability in providing the data 
we requested and that adverse inferences are warranted. See Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 25200, 25202 (May 20, 1996). As a result, 
we have used the highest rate determined for Koyo from any prior 
segment of the A-588-604 proceedings as partial adverse facts 
available, which is secondary information within the meaning of section 
776(c) of the Act. See 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1)(iii).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used as facts 
available from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value (see H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 
1, at 870 (1994); 19 CFR 351.308(d)).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as 
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for 
calculated dumping margins. The only source for calculated margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as adverse facts available a calculated dumping 
margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to 
question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With 
respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. 
Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 60 FR 49567 (February 22, 1996), where we disregarded the 
highest margin in the case as best information available because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an extremely high margin).
    For these preliminary results, we have examined the history of the 
A-588-604 case and have determined that 41.04 percent, the rate we 
calculated for Koyo in the 1993-94 A-588-604 review, is the highest 
rate for this firm in any prior segment of the A-588-604 order. See 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Termination in Part, 63 FR 20585, (April 27, 
1998). In the absence of information on the administrative record that 
application of this 41.04 percent rate would be inappropriate, that the 
margin is not relevant, or that leads us to re-examine this rate as 
adverse facts available in the instant review, we find the margin

[[Page 53326]]

reliable and relevant. As a result, for these preliminary results we 
have applied as adverse facts available, a margin of 41.04 percent to 
Koyo's further-manufactured U.S. sales.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Because all of Koyo's and NSK's sales and certain of NTN's and 
Fuji's sales of subject merchandise were first sold to unaffiliated 
purchasers after importation into the United States, in calculating 
U.S. price for these sales we used constructed export price (CEP) as 
defined in section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, billing adjustments, 
freight allowances, and rebates. Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act, we reduced this price for movement expenses (Japanese pre-sale 
inland freight, Japanese post-sale inland freight, international air 
and/or ocean freight, marine insurance, Japanese brokerage and 
handling, U.S. inland freight from the port to the warehouse, U.S. 
inland freight from the warehouse to the customer, U.S. duty, post-sale 
warehousing, pre-sale warehousing, and U.S. brokerage and handling). We 
also reduced the price, where applicable, by an amount for the 
following expenses incurred in the selling of the merchandise in the 
United States pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act: commissions to 
unaffiliated parties, U.S. credit, payments to third parties, U.S. 
repacking expenses, and indirect selling expenses (which included, 
where applicable, inventory carrying costs, indirect advertising 
expenses, and indirect technical services expenses). Finally, pursuant 
to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced U.S. price by an 
amount for profit to arrive at CEP.
    NTN claimed an offsetting adjustment to U.S. indirect selling 
expenses to account for the cost of financing cash deposits during the 
POR. For the reasons set out in the 1996-97 TRB Final, we have 
continued to deny such an adjustment. See 1996-97 TRB Final, 63 FR at 
63865.
    Because certain of NTN's and Fuji's sales of subject merchandise 
were made to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to 
importation into the United States and the CEP methodology was not 
indicated by the facts of record, in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act we used export price (EP) for these sales. We calculated EP as 
the packed, delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we reduced 
this price, where applicable, by Japanese pre-sale inland freight, 
Japanese post-sale inland freight, international air and/or ocean 
freight, marine insurance, Japanese brokerage and handling, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S. inland freight.
    Where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, 
the Department also deducts from CEP the cost of any further 
manufacture or assembly in the United States, except where the special 
rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act is applicable. Section 
772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject merchandise is 
imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or producer and the 
value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to 
exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, and 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, 
we shall determine the CEP for such merchandise using the price of 
identical or other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer 
to an unaffiliated person. If there is not a sufficient quantity of 
such sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, 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 CEP. See sections 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act.
    In judging whether the use of identical or other subject 
merchandise is appropriate, the Department must consider several 
factors, including whether it is more appropriate to use another 
``reasonable basis.'' Under some circumstances, we may use the standard 
methodology as a reasonable alternative to the methods described in 
sections 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act. In deciding whether it is more 
appropriate to use the standard methodology, we have considered and 
weighed the burden on the Department in applying the standard 
methodology as a reasonable alternative and the extent to which 
application of the standard methodology will lead to more accurate 
results. The burden on the Department of using the standard methodology 
may vary from case to case depending on factors such as the nature of 
the further-manufacturing process and the finished products. The 
increased accuracy gained by applying the standard methodology will 
vary significantly from case to case, depending upon such factors as 
the amount of value added in the United States and the proportion of 
total U.S. sales that involve further manufacturing. In cases where the 
burden on the Department is high, it is more likely that the Department 
will determine that potential gains in accuracy do not outweigh the 
burden of applying the standard methodology. Thus, the Department 
likely will determine that application of the standard methodology is 
not more appropriate than application of the methods described in 
paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2), or some other reasonable alternate 
methodology. By contrast, if the burden is relatively low and there is 
reason to believe the standard methodology is likely to be more 
accurate, the Department is more likely to determine that it is not 
appropriate to apply the methods described in paragraphs 772(e)(1) or 
(2) of the Act in lieu of the standard methodology. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 47452, 47455 (September 9, 1997) (1995-96 
TRB Prelim).
    With respect to Fuji, its two U.S. affiliates, Subaru of America 
(SOA) and Subaru-Isuzu Automotive (SIA), both import TRBs into the 
United States which were first purchased by Fuji from Japanese 
producers in Japan. SOA imported TRBs during the review period 
primarily for the purpose of reselling the bearings as replacement 
parts for Subaru automobiles in the United States. SOA also imported 
TRB's which were further-manufactured into vehicle transmissions prior 
to resale to SOA's dealers. In addition, SIA imported TRBs for the sole 
purpose of using them in its production of Subaru automobiles in the 
United States, the final product sold by SIA to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. Based on information provided by Fuji 
about this further manufacturing, we have determined that the special 
rule for merchandise with value added after importation under section 
772(e) of the Act applies to this respondent.
    To determine whether the value added in the United States by SIA 
and SOA is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the differences 
between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
U.S. customer for the final merchandise sold (the automobiles or 
vehicle transmissions) and the averages of the prices paid for the 
subject merchandise (the imported TRBs) by the affiliated person. Based 
on this analysis and information on the record, we determined that the 
value of the TRBs

[[Page 53327]]

further processed by SIA and SOA in the United States was a minuscule 
amount of the price charged by SIA and SOA to the first unaffiliated 
customer for the automobiles and vehicle transmissions sold in the 
United States. See Exhibit A-26 of Fuji's February 11, 1999 
questionnaire response. Therefore, we determined that the value added 
is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. 
In addition, we have determined that those sales of TRBs made by SOA as 
replacement parts in the United States, which constitute sales of 
merchandise identical and/or most similar to those TRBs imported by SIA 
for use in the manufacture of Subaru automobiles and by SOA for use in 
the manufacture of vehicle transmissions, were made in sufficient 
quantities to provide a reasonable basis for comparison. Therefore, for 
purposes of determining dumping margins for the TRBs entered by SIA 
used in the production of automobiles and for those entered by SOA to 
be incorporated into vehicle transmissions, we have used the weighted-
average dumping margins we calculated on sales of identical or other 
subject merchandise sold by SOA as replacement TRBs to unaffiliated 
persons in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c).
    Also, NTN imported subject merchandise (TRB parts) which was 
further processed in the United States. NTN further manufactured the 
imported scope merchandise into merchandise of the same class or kind 
as merchandise within the scope of the A-588-604 order. Based on 
information provided by NTN in its December 22, 1998 and January 11, 
1999 letters to the Department, we first determined whether the value 
added in the United States was likely to exceed substantially the value 
of the subject merchandise. We estimated the value added based on the 
differences between the averages of the prices charged to the first 
unaffiliated U.S. customer for the final merchandise sold (finished 
TRBs) and the averages of the prices paid by the affiliated party for 
the subject merchandise (imported TRB parts), and determined that the 
value added was likely to exceed substantially the value of the 
imported TRB parts.
    We then examined whether it would be appropriate to use sales of 
identical or other subject merchandise to unaffiliated persons as a 
basis for comparison, as stated under paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2) of 
the Act. Based on the information provided by NTN in Exhibit A-1 of its 
February 9, 1999 questionnaire response and its December 22, 1998 
letter, we determined that sales of identical or other subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated persons were in sufficient quantity for the 
purpose of determining dumping margins for NTN's imported TRBs which 
were further manufactured in the United States prior to resale. 
Furthermore, the proportion of NTN's further-manufactured merchandise 
to its total imports of subject merchandise was relatively low. In 
NTN's case, any potential gains in accuracy gained from examining NTN's 
further-manufactured sales are outweighed by the burden of the applying 
the standard methodology. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to apply 
one of the methodologies specified in the statute with respect to NTN's 
imported TRB parts. Therefore, we have used the weighted-average 
dumping margins we calculated on NTN's sales of identical or other 
subject merchandise to unaffiliated persons in the United States. See 
19 CFR 351.402(c).
    With respect to Koyo, while we determined that the value added to 
the United States was likely to exceed the value of the imported 
products, we have determined that the use of either of the two proxies 
specified in the statute is not appropriate. See Facts Available 
section for further information.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

A. Viability

    Based on (1) the fact that each company's quantity of sales in the 
home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. 
market and (2) the absence of any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product for all 
respondents sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a 
proper comparison with the sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at 
which the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country.

B. Arm's-Length Sales

    For all respondents we have excluded from our analysis those sales 
made to affiliated customers in the home market which were not at arm's 
length. We determined the arm's-length nature of home market sales to 
affiliated parties by means of our 99.5 percent arm's-length test in 
which we calculated, for each model, the percentage difference between 
the weighted-average prices to the affiliated customer and all 
unaffiliated customers and then calculated, for each affiliated 
customer, the overall weighted-average percentage difference in prices 
for all models purchased by the customer. If the overall weighted-
average price ratio for the affiliated customer was equal to or greater 
than 99.5 percent, we determined that all sales to this affiliated 
customer were at arm's length. Conversely, if the ratio for a customer 
was less than 99.5 percent, we determined that all sales to the 
affiliated customer were not at arm's length because, on average, the 
customer paid less than unaffiliated customers for the same 
merchandise. Therefore, we excluded all sales to the customer from our 
analysis. Where we were unable to calculate an affiliated customer 
ratio because identical merchandise was not sold to both affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine if these sales were 
at arm's length and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis (see 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915 (March 6, 1996).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales that failed the cost test in our last 
completed A-588-054 review for Koyo and NSK, and in our last completed 
A-588-604 review for NTN, Koyo, and NSK we have reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under 
consideration for the determination of NV in this review for these 
companies may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act (see 1995-96 TRB Final and 1996-97 
TRB Final). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
initiated a COP investigation of sales by Koyo, NTN, and NSK for both 
TRB cases.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in 
producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental 
to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for 
shipment. We relied on the home market sales and COP information 
provided by Koyo, NTN, and NSK except in those instances where the data 
was not appropriately quantified or valued (see company-specific 
preliminary results analysis memoranda).
    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of TRBs

[[Page 53328]]

were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities and whether such prices permit 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, or rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's home market sales for a model are at prices 
less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
model because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made 
within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 
20 percent or more of a respondent's home market sales of a given model 
are at prices less than COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because 
they are (1) made within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
and (2) based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the 
POR, were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    The results of our cost test for Koyo, NTN, and NSK indicated that 
for certain home market models less than 20 percent of the sales of the 
model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of 
these market models in our analysis and used them as the basis for 
determining NV. Our cost test for these respondents also indicated that 
within an extended period of time (one year, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), for certain home market models, more than 20 
percent of the home market sales were sold at prices below COP. In 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded 
these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-
cost sales as the basis for determining NV.

D. Product Comparisons

    For all respondents we compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous 
sales of the foreign like product in the home market. We considered 
bearings identical on the basis of nomenclature and determined most 
similar TRBs using our sum-of-the-deviations model-match methodology 
which compares TRBs according to the following five physical criteria: 
inside diameter, outside diameter, width, load rating, and Y2 factor. 
For Koyo, NTN, and NSK we used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise 
(difmer) cost deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable 
for similar merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of 
the difference between the U.S. and home market variable costs of 
manufacturing divided by the U.S. total cost of manufacturing. Because 
Fuji, a reseller, was unable to provide the variable and total costs of 
manufacturing for the TRBs they purchased from Japanese producers, it 
instead provided its acquisition cost for each TRB model purchased from 
Japanese producers. As a result, consistent with our practice in past 
TRB reviews for Fuji, we used these acquisition costs as the basis for 
our 20-percent difmer cap (see, e.g., 1995-96 Prelim, 62 FR at 47458).

E. 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 
constructed value (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).
    We determined that for respondents Koyo and NSK, there were two 
home market levels of trade and one U.S. level of trade (CEP). For 
Fuji, we determined that only one level of trade existed in the home 
market and three distinct levels of trade existed in the U.S. market 
(one CEP and two EP levels of trade). Because there was no home market 
level of trade equivalent to the U.S. level(s) of trade for Koyo, NSK, 
and Fuji, and because NV for these firms represented a price more 
remote from the factory than CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment to 
NV. For NTN we found that there were three home market levels of trade 
and two (EP and CEP) levels of trade in the U.S. Because there were no 
home market levels of trade equivalent to NTN's CEP level of trade, and 
because NV for NTN represented a price more remote from the factory 
than CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment to NV in our CEP comparisons. 
We also determined that NTN's EP level of trade was equivalent to one 
of NTN's home market levels of trade. Because we determined that there 
was a pattern of consistent price differences due to differences in 
levels of trade, we made a level of trade adjustment to NV for NTN in 
our EP comparisons where the U.S. EP sale matched to a home market sale 
at a different level of trade. For more detailed company-specific 
descriptions of our level-of-trade analyses for these preliminary 
results, see the preliminary results analysis memoranda to Robert 
James, on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-
099 of the main Commerce building).

F. Home Market Price

    We based home market prices on the packed, ex-factory or delivered 
prices to affiliated purchasers (where an arm's-length relationship was 
demonstrated) and unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In addition, 
we 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 comparison to EP we made COS adjustments by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments to NV 
by deducting home market direct selling expenses. We also made 
adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling 
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations. No 
other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find a contemporaneous home market match for the 
U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and 
fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and 
profit. In accordance with 772(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

[[Page 53329]]

ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For 
selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling 
expenses. To the extent possible, we calculated CV by LOT, using the 
selling expenses and profit determined for each LOT in the comparison 
market. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for COS adjustments and 
LOT 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 commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 
1, 1997, through September 30, 1998, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
             Manufacturer/exporter/ reseller                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Case:
    Koyo Seiko..........................................           12.97
    Fuji................................................            0.05
    NSK.................................................            4.03
For the A-588-604 Case:
    Fuji................................................           \3\--
    Koyo Seiko..........................................           23.20
    NTN.................................................           20.28
    NSK.................................................            1.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). A party may request a hearing within thirty days of 
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the 
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the 
Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Case briefs and/or 
written comments from interested parties may be submitted no later than 
30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and 
comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these 
proceedings are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement 
of the issues and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The Department 
will issue final results of these administrative reviews, including the 
results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or 
at a hearing, within 120 days of issuance of these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has 
no rate from any prior segment of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem 
assessment rates for the 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. The Department 
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the 
Customs Service upon completion of the review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews 
for all shipments of TRBs from Japan 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 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 these reviews, a prior 
review, or the LTFV investigations, 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) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate for the A-588-054 case will be 18.07 percent, and 36.52 
percent for the A-588-604 case (see Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished and 
Unfinished, and Parts Thereof, from Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From 
Japan, 58 FR 51061 (September 30, 1993)).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 24, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-25620 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P