[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60269-60272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28768]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-485-602]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Tapered Roller Bearings 
From Romania

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: tapered 
roller bearings from Romania.

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

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on tapered roller bearings from Romania (64 FR 15727) pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive 
comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate 
response (in this case, a waiver) from respondent interested parties, 
the Department determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result 
of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping 
duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section 
of this notice.

For Further Information Contact: Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: November 4, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and 19 CFR Part 351 (1998) in 
general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to 
the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the 
Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of 
Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

[[Page 60270]]

Scope

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is tapered 
roller bearings and parts thereof (``TRBs'') from Romania. These 
include flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating TRBs, 
and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating 
tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for 
automotive use.
    This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item numbers 8482.20.00.10, 8482.20.00.20, 
8482.20.00.30, 8482.20.00.40, 8482.20.00.50, 8482.20.00.60, 
8482.20.00.70, 8482.20.00.80, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15.00, 
8482.99.15.40, 8482.99.15.80, 8483.20.40.80, 8483.20.80.80, 
8483.30.80.20, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80.1 The HTS 
item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. 
The written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Per phone conversation with United States Customs officials, 
the HTS numbers listed above are those that Customs uses for 
official duty collection. See memo to file dated June 8, 1999, re. 
HTS numbers for TRBs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Timken Company (``Timken'') and the Torrington Company 
(``Torrington''), in their substantive response, argue that two scope 
clarifications the Department made with regard to the antidumping order 
on TRBs, over four inches, from Japan are relevant to this order (see 
May 3, 1999, Substantive Response of Timken & Torrington at 12). Timken 
and Torrington argue that since the product description for that order 
is included in the Romanian order, the two Japanese rulings are 
relevant to the scope of the Romanian order. In the first ruling, the 
Department ruled that green rings which had not been heat-treated were 
within the scope of the order.2 The Department also ruled 
that unfinished green forged rings and tower forgings were within the 
scope of the order.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See unpublished scope ruling dated May 16, 1989.
    \3\ See Final Affirmative Determination in Scope Inquiry on 
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof 
from Japan, 60 FR 6519 (February 2, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department makes its scope determinations on an order-specific 
basis. Therefore, we conclude that the two scope clarifications the 
Department made on the antidumping order on TRBs, over four inches, 
from Japan cannot be applied to this order.

History of the Order

    The Department, in its final determination of sales at less than 
fair value (``LTFV''), published a country-wide weighted-average 
dumping margin for Romania (52 FR 17433, May 8, 1987). The antidumping 
duty order on TRBs from Romania was published in the Federal Register 
on June 19, 1987 (52 FR 23320). Since that time, the Department has 
conducted several administrative reviews.4 This sunset 
review covers imports from all known Romanian producers/exporters. To 
date, the Department has issued no duty absorption findings in this 
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 1169 (January 11, 
1991); as amended, Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Amended 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 29288 
(July 1, 1992); Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 41518 (August 21, 
1991); Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 51427 (October 2, 
1996); as amended, Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Amended 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 59416 
(November 22, 1996); Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 37194 (July 
11, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 31075 (June 6, 1997); 
and Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 36390 (July 6, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On April 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping order on TRBs from Romania (64 FR 15727), pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice of Intent 
to Participate on behalf of Timken and Torrington on April 16, 1999, 
within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. We received a complete substantive response from Timken 
and Torrington on May 3, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in 
the Sunset Regulations in section 351.218(d)(3)(i). Both Timken and 
Torrington claimed interested party status pursuant to section 
771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. manufacturers of TRBs. In addition, Timken 
stated that it participated in the original investigation and all 
administrative reviews of the order. Torrington, on the other hand, 
stated that it did not participate in the original investigation. On 
May 3, 1999, we received a waiver of participation from one respondent 
interested party to this proceeding, Tehnoimportexport S.A. As a 
result, pursuant to section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Sunset 
Regulations, the Department determined to conduct an expedited, 120-
day, review of this order.
    In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). On August 5, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from Romania is 
extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review until not later than October 28, 
1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Tapered Roller Bearings, 4 Inches and Under From Japan, 
et al.; Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 42672 (August 5, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent 
reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the 
period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping 
order, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the order is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, interested parties' comments with respect to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin 
are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

    Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1 
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
methodological and analytical issues, including the bases for 
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on 
an order-wide basis (see

[[Page 60271]]

section II.A.2). In addition, the Department indicated that normally it 
will determine that revocation of an antidumping order is likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where (a) dumping 
continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the 
order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance 
of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the 
order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined 
significantly (see section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
    In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above, 
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested party waives its 
participation in the sunset review. In the instant review, the 
Department did receive a waiver of participation from one respondent 
interested party and did not receive a response from any other 
respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of 
the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In their substantive response, Timken and Torrington argue that 
revocation of the order on TRBs from Romania would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping due to the fact that dumping 
margins above de minimis have been calculated after the issuance of the 
order. Timken and Torrington argue that the zero margins determined in 
the 1988-89 and 1993-94 reviews are not representative of the behavior 
of Romanian producers of TRBs because Romania lost its most-favored-
nation (MFN) status from 1989-1993 (see May 3, 1999, Substantive 
Response of Timken & Torrington at 7-8). During that time, imports 
declined sharply. Whenever there have been significant imports of TRBs 
from Romania, argue Timken and Torrington, they have been sold at less 
than fair value (see id. at 8).
    Timken and Torrington further assert that one major Japanese 
producer of TRBs, Koyo Seiko, has majority ownership of one of the 
Romanian bearings companies, Rulmenti Alexandria. Timken and Torrington 
suggest that since Koyo Seiko has a history of exporting TRBs from 
Japan to the U.S. at less than fair value, Koyo will not hesitate to 
sell its Romanian products at less than fair value, given the 
opportunity (see id. at 9).
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
immediately following the issuance of the order, Timken and Torrington 
do not provide any information in their substantive response. They do, 
however, maintain that in the years during which Romania lost its MFN 
status (1989-93), imports declined significantly (see id. at 8).
    In sum, Timken and Torrington maintain that Romania's focus on 
exports, history of sales in the U.S., the continuing importance of the 
U.S. market, and enhanced corporate resources provide Romanian 
producers with incentives to dump the subject merchandise in the U.S. 
if the order is revoked (see id. at 9). They conclude that the 
Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping 
would continue or recur if the order is revoked because above de 
minimis margins have existed throughout the life of the order.
    The Department agrees, based on an examination of the final results 
of administrative reviews, that dumping margins above de minimis 
levels, with the exception of one country-wide margin of zero 
6 and one company-specific margin of zero,7 have 
continued throughout the life of the order.8 Currently, 
dumping margins above de minimis exist on both a country-wide and 
company-specific basis. As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if 
companies continue dumping with the discipline of an order in place, 
the Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the 
discipline were removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 31075 (June 6, 1997).
    \7\ See Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 41518 (August 21, 
1991).
    \8\ See footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to import levels, the Department agrees that imports 
of the subject merchandise decreased in 1988, the year following the 
imposition of the order. However, since that time, imports of TRBs from 
Romania have fluctuated greatly, showing no overall trend.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Department bases this determination on information 
submitted by Timken and Torrington in their May 3, 1999, submission, 
as well as U.S. IM146 Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce 
statistics, U.S. Department of Treasury statistics, and information 
obtained from the U.S. International Trade Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate 
above a de minimis level continues in effect for exports of the subject 
merchandise for at least one known Romanian producer/exporter. Given 
that dumping has continued over the life of the order and respondent 
interested parties waived their right to participate in this review 
before the Department, and absent argument and evidence to the 
contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue 
or recur if the order were revoked.
    Because the Department based this determination on the continued 
existence of margins above de minimis and respondent interested 
parties' waiver of participation, it is not necessary to address Timken 
and Torrington's arguments concerning the Japanese bearing producer's 
ownership of one Romanian company.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will 
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in 
the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for 
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not 
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department 
normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from 
the investigation. (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) 
Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated 
margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption 
determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.)
    As noted above, the Department, in its final determination of sales 
at LTFV, published a country-wide weighted-average dumping margin for 
Romania (52 FR 17433, May 8, 1987). To date, the Department has not 
made any duty absorption findings in this case.
    In their substantive response, Timken and Torrington suggest that 
if economic conditions in Romania were normal, the Department should 
forward to the Commission the margin from the original investigation. 
However, they suggest that the Department deviate from its general 
practice of selecting the margin from the original investigation. They 
argue that the current economic conditions in Romania are not 
``normal'' conditions, and therefore, these abnormal circumstances 
warrant the use of a newly-calculated margin. They elaborate on their 
argument by stating that the Romanian economy is in a state of flux, 
such that industries, including the bearing industries, are undergoing 
significant change and responding to constantly changing circumstances 
(see May 3, 1999, Substantive Response of Timken & Torrington at 10-
11). They suggest that Koyo Seiko's twenty-five year history of 
dumping, at an average

[[Page 60272]]

margin above 25 percent, coupled with its majority ownership of 
Rulmenti Alexandria, makes it reasonable to conclude that this company 
would export TRBs to the United States with dumping margins 
significantly higher than the original Romania rate. Finally, they note 
that per kilogram values of Romanian exports of the subject merchandise 
dropped by over 25 percent between the 1994-95 and 1998-99 review 
periods (see id. at 11-12). In conclusion, Timken and Torrington urge 
the Department to identify a margin, based on the most recent data 
available, other than the calculated one for forwarding to the 
Commission (see id. at 11).
    As noted in the Sunset Regulations and Sunset Policy Bulletin, only 
under the most extraordinary circumstances will the Department rely on 
dumping margins other than those it calculated and published in its 
prior determinations. The Sunset Regulations, at section 
351.218(e)(2)(i), explain that ``extraordinary circumstances'' may be 
considered by the Department in the context of a full sunset review, 
where the substantive response from both domestic and respondent 
interested parties are adequate. In this case, however, the Department 
determined to conduct an expedited review because of a waiver of 
participation from respondent interested parties.
    Further, we are not persuaded that calculation of a new margin is 
appropriate based on the assertions by Timken and Torrington concerning 
the state of the Romanian economy, alleged changes in the Romanian 
bearings industry, Koyo Seiko's ownership of one of the Romanian 
companies, and whether per kilogram values of exports to the United 
States have radically declined.
    As explained above, the Department may consider the calculation of 
new margins only in full reviews. However, even if the Department had 
determined to conduct a full review of this order, Timken's and 
Torrington's assertions do not give rise to extraordinary circumstances 
that would warrant the calculation of a new dumping margin.
    Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department determines that the margin calculated in the original 
investigation is probative of the behavior of Romanian producers/
exporters if the order were revoked as it is the only rate that 
reflects the behavior of these producers and exporters without the 
discipline of the order. As such, the Department will report to the 
Commission the country-wide rate from the original investigation as 
contained in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margin listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/ Exporter                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country-wide rate..........................................         8.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 28, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-28768 Filed 11-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P