[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 131 (Friday, July 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41944-41950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 
1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Notice of Intent To Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 1998-1999 administrative 
review, partial rescission of the review, and notice of intent to 
revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China, were made below normal value during the period June 
1, 1998, through May 31, 1999. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs

[[Page 41945]]

Service to assess antidumping duties based on the differences between 
the U.S. price and normal value on all appropriate entries.
    China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, Wafangdian 
Bearing Group Corp. Import & Export Company, Wanxiang Group 
Corporation, and Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. have 
requested revocation of the antidumping duty order in part. Based on 
record evidence, we preliminarily find that three of the four companies 
qualify for revocation. As such, we intend to revoke the order with 
respect to the subject merchandise produced and exported by these 
companies.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or Melani Miller, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 and (202) 482-0116, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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, 
all references to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') 
regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Background

    On May 27, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(52 FR 19748) the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and 
parts thereof, finished and unfinished (``TRBs''), from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''). The Department notified interested parties 
of the opportunity to request an administrative review of this order on 
June 9, 1999 (64 FR 30962). On June 21, 1999, Wafangdian Bearing Group 
Corp. Import & Export Company (``Wafangdian'') and Zhejiang Machinery 
Import & Export Corp. (``ZMC'') requested administrative reviews. On 
June 24, 1999, Wanxiang Group Corporation (``Wangxiang'') and China 
National Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``CMC'') requested 
administrative reviews. Wafangdian, ZMC, Wangxiang, and CMC also 
requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order as it 
pertains to them. On June 30, 1999, the petitioner, The Timken Company, 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on hundreds of PRC TRB exporters. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review on July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41075).
    On September 1, 1999, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary 
General of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for 
Import & Export of Machinery and Electronics Products and requested 
that the questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in 
our initiation notice and to any subsidiary companies of the named 
companies that produce and/or export the subject merchandise. In this 
letter, we also requested information relevant to the issue of whether 
the companies named in the initiation notice are independent from 
government control. See the Separate Rates Determination section, 
below. Courtesy copies of the questionnaire were also sent to companies 
with legal representation.
    We received responses to the questionnaire from the following ten 
companies: CMC, Liaoning MEC Group Co. Ltd. (``Liaoning''), Luoyang 
Bearing Corp. (Group) (``Luoyang''), Premier Bearing & Equipment Ltd. 
(``Premier''), Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation and Hailin 
Bearing Factory (``Hailin''), Wafangdian, Wanxiang, Weihai Machinery 
Holding (Group) Co., Ltd. (``Weihai''), ZMC, and Zhuzhou Torch Spark 
Plug Co., Ltd. (``Torch'').
    In addition, on October 8, 1999, Zhejiang Changshan Changhe Bearing 
Corp. (``ZCCBC'') reported no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period of review (``POR''), June 1, 1997, 
through May 31, 1998, other than those shipments already being examined 
by the Department as part of ZCCBC's new shipper review. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of our regulations, we 
preliminarily conclude that there were no applicable shipments from 
ZCCBC to the United States during the POR and are rescinding the review 
with respect to this company. However, we will confirm with the Customs 
Service that ZCCBC had no shipments prior to issuing the final results.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    Merchandise covered by this review includes TRBs and parts thereof, 
finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and 
hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; 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 of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 
8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 
8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the order and this review is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

    As discussed below in the Normal Value section of this notice, we 
are treating the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') country within 
the meaning of section 773(c) of the Act. We allow companies in NMEs to 
receive separate antidumping duty rates for purposes of assessment and 
cash deposits when those companies can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to export 
activities.
    To establish whether a company operating in a NME is sufficiently 
independent to be entitled to a separate rate, 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 by the 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''). Evidence supporting, though not 
requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over 
export activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with the 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 over exports is 
based on four factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export 
prices independently of the government and without 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 the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other

[[Page 41946]]

agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management (see Silicon Carbide, 
59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589).
    In previous administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on 
TRBs from the PRC, we determined that CMC, Liaoning, Luoyang, Hailin, 
Wafangdian, Wanxiang, Weihai, and ZMC, should receive separate rates 
(see, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1996-
1997 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 63 FR 63842 (November 17, 
1998) (``TRBs X'')). We preliminarily determine that the evidence on 
the record of this review also demonstrates an absence of government 
control, both in law and in fact, with respect to these companies' 
exports according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. The evidence in question consisted of, among other things, the 
companies' business licenses and copies of relevant PRC laws on trade 
and incorporation. Therefore, we have continued to assign each of these 
companies a separate rate.
    Premier is a privately owned Hong Kong trading company which 
purchases TRBs from the PRC for resale throughout the world. Because 
Premier's PRC-based suppliers do not know the destination of their 
merchandise, we have determined that Premier, rather than its 
suppliers, is the proper respondent with respect to its sales of TRBs 
to the United States. Therefore, Premier's suppliers need not undergo a 
separate-rates analysis. See the United States Sales section, below.

Separate-Rate Determinations for Non-Responsive Companies

    We have preliminarily determined that companies which did not 
respond to the questionnaire should not receive separate rates. See the 
Use of Facts Otherwise Available section, below.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We preliminarily determine that companies which did not respond to 
our requests for information did not cooperate to the best of their 
ability. Thus, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, 
the use of adverse facts available is appropriate for such companies. 
Furthermore, because factors data for certain of Premier's U.S. sales 
were not provided by Premier's suppliers, we preliminarily determine 
that such parties did not demonstrate that they cooperated to the best 
of their ability, and we have applied adverse facts available to 
calculate a portion of Premier's margin.
    1. Companies that did not respond to the questionnaire: Where the 
Department must base its determination on facts available because a 
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act 
authorizes the Department to use inferences adverse to the interests of 
that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act 
also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record. Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information 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. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994)).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as total 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 
inappropriate. 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, e.g., 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).
    We have preliminarily assigned a margin of 33.18 percent to those 
companies for which we initiated a review and which did not respond to 
the questionnaire. This margin, calculated for sales by Xiangfan 
Machinery Import & Export (Group) Corp. during the 1996-97 review, 
represents the highest overall margin calculated for any firm during 
any segment of this proceeding. As discussed above, it is not necessary 
to question the reliability of a calculated margin from a prior segment 
of the proceeding. Further, there are no circumstances or documentation 
indicating that this margin is inappropriate as adverse facts 
available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 33.18 percent rate 
is corroborated.
    As noted in the Separate Rates Determination section above, we have 
also preliminarily determined that the non-responsive companies should 
not receive separate rates. Thus, they are viewed as part of the PRC-
wide entity. Accordingly, the facts available for these companies form 
the basis for the PRC rate, which is 33.18 percent for this review.
    2. Premier: Premier, a Hong Kong-based reseller of TRBs, obtains 
TRBs from numerous PRC suppliers. Because Premier is only a reseller of 
TRBs and does not produce the subject merchandise itself, factors data 
must be obtained from its suppliers. In response to our questionnaire, 
Premier provided factors data from three of its seventeen suppliers. In 
addition to requesting factors data from Premier, we also requested 
factors data directly from Premier's suppliers. However, none 
responded. Consequently, we do not have factors data for all TRB models 
sold by Premier in the United States.
    As in prior reviews, we have preliminarily determined that there is 
little variation in factor utilization rates among the TRB producers 
from which we have received FOP data (see, e.g., Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 1996-1997 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 63 FR 37339, 37342 (July 
10, 1998) (``Preliminary TRBs X'')). Therefore, for the models for 
which we have appropriate information, we are using, as facts 
available, the factors data we received from manufacturers which did 
not supply Premier during the POR but manufactured the same models of 
TRBs, in order to calculate normal value.

[[Page 41947]]

    For the sales of TRB models for which no factors data is available, 
we have preliminarily determined, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act, to use facts available. The use of facts available is 
necessary because the necessary factors data for these models is not 
available on the record. We also preliminarily find, in accordance with 
section 776(b) of the Act, that in determining the appropriate facts 
available an adverse inference is warranted because interested parties 
did not cooperate to the best of their ability. Interested parties did 
not cooperate to the best of their ability because they refused to 
provide information specifically requested by the Department.
    Thus, with respect to Premier's U.S. sales for which no 
corresponding factors data were reported, we are applying, as adverse 
facts available, a margin of 25.56 percent, the highest overall margin 
ever applicable to Premier. This approach is consistent with our final 
results in prior reviews (see, e.g., TRBs X 63 FR 63857). As discussed 
above, it is not necessary to question the reliability of a calculated 
margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, there are no 
circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate as adverse 
facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 25.56 
percent rate is corroborated.

United States Sales

    Premier reported that it maintains inventories of TRBs in Hong Kong 
and sells TRBs worldwide. Therefore, its PRC-based suppliers have no 
knowledge when they sell to the Hong Kong firm that the shipments are 
destined for the United States. Because Premier is the first party to 
sell the merchandise to the United States, we have calculated U.S. 
price of this merchandise based on Premier's sales data.
    For certain sales made by Premier and CMC we based the U.S. price 
on constructed export price (``CEP'') in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Act because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred 
after importation of the merchandise into the United States. For sales 
made by other respondents, as well as the other sales made by Premier 
and CMC, we based the U.S. sales on export price (``EP''), in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
prior to importation into the United States and because the CEP 
methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
    We calculated EP based on the FOB, CIF, or C&F port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers, as appropriate. From these prices we deducted 
amounts, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 
and marine insurance. We valued the deduction for foreign inland 
freight using surrogate data (Indian freight costs). (We selected India 
as the surrogate country for the reasons explained in the Normal Value 
section of this notice.) When marine insurance and ocean freight were 
provided by PRC-owned companies, we valued the deductions using the 
surrogate data (amounts charged by international providers). When 
marine insurance and ocean freight were provided directly by market 
economy companies and paid for in a market economy currency, we 
deducted the values reported by the respondents for these services.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse prices from the 
U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the starting price for CEP for international freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, marine 
insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight 
insurance and U.S. inland freight. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we made further deductions from the starting price for CEP 
for the following selling expenses that related to economic activity in 
the United States: Commissions to unaffiliated agents; credit expenses; 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs; and 
repacking in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act, we have deducted from the starting price an amount for profit.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (``NV'') using a factors-of-production (``FOP'') 
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME, and (2) 
the information does not permit the calculation of NV under section 
773(a) of the Act. The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market 
economy (``NME'') in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
Department. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such 
treatment in this review. Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not 
argued that the PRC TRB industry is a market-oriented industry. 
Consequently, we have no basis to determine that the information would 
permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or costs. Therefore, we 
calculated NV based on factors data in accordance with sections 
773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations.
    Similarly, we used factors data to calculate NV for Premier. 
Section 773(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides that when the merchandise is 
sold to the United States from an intermediate country, and the 
producer of subject merchandise knows, at the time of the sale, that 
its merchandise is destined for exportation, NV may be determined in 
the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we 
calculated NV for Premier on the basis of PRC production usage rates 
and surrogate country factor values.
    Under the FOP methodology, we are required to value the NME 
producer's inputs in a comparable market economy country that is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. We chose India as the 
surrogate on the basis of the criteria set out in section 351.408(b) of 
our regulations. See the January 31, 2000, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach 
from Jeff May ``Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of 
China: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection,'' and 
the June 29, 2000, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach ``Selection of a 
Surrogate Country and Steel Value Sources'' (``Steel Values 
Memorandum'') for a further discussion of our surrogate selection. We 
selected Indonesia as a second-choice surrogate based on the same 
criteria. Id. We note that, in past reviews of this and other orders, 
we have found that both India and Indonesia are significant producers 
of TRBs (see, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
1997-1998 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of 
New Shipper Review, 64 FR 61837, 61840 (November 15, 1999) (``TRBs 
XI'') and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, From Romania; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 11217 (March 6, 1998)).
    We used publicly available information on Indian imports and 
exports to India to value the various factors with the exception of the 
following: Cold-rolled steel rods used in the production of rollers and 
steel scrap from the production of rollers. To value cold-rolled steel 
rods used in the production of rollers we used publicly available 
Indonesian import data. We used these data because we found the Indian 
data for those inputs to be unreliable. (See Steel Values Memorandum.) 
We valued steel scrap

[[Page 41948]]

from the production of rollers using Indonesian data in order to value 
it consistently with the steel used to produce the rollers.
    We valued factors as follows (for a complete description of the 
factor values used, see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach: ``Factors of 
Production Values Used for the Preliminary Results,'' dated June 29, 
2000):
    1. Steel Inputs. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the 
production of cups and cones, consistent with TRBs XI, we used a 
weighted average of Japanese export values to India from the Harmonized 
Schedule (``HS'') category 7228.30.900 obtained from Official Japan 
Ministry of Finance statistics. For cold-rolled steel rods used in the 
production of rollers, we used Indonesian import data under Indonesian 
tariff subheading 7228.50000 obtained from Badan Pusat Statistik, 
Republik Indonesia. For cold-rolled steel sheet for the production of 
cages, we used Indian import data under Indian tariff subheading 
7206.1600 obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of 
India, Vol. II--Imports. (For further discussion of selection of steel 
value sources, see Steel Values Memorandum.)
    As in previous administrative reviews, we eliminated from our 
calculation steel imports from NME countries and imports from market 
economy countries that were made in small quantities. For steel used in 
the production of cups, cones, and rollers, we also excluded imports 
from countries that do not produce bearing-quality steel (see, e.g., 
TRBs XI). We made adjustments to include freight costs incurred using 
the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port 
to the TRBs factory or the domestic supplier to the TRBs factory (see 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 51410 
(October 1, 1997), and Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
    Certain producers in this review purchased steel from market 
economy suppliers and paid for the steel with market economy currency. 
Thus, in accordance with section 351.408(c)(1) of our regulations, we 
valued all appropriate steel inputs using the actual price reported for 
directly imported inputs from a market economy. For all other steel 
inputs, we used a surrogate to value that steel.
    We valued scrap recovered from the production of cups and cones 
using Indian import statistics from HS category 7204.2909. We valued 
scrap recovered from the production of rollers using Indonesian import 
data from Indonesian tariff category 7204.29000. Scrap recovered from 
the production of cages was valued using import data from the Indian 
tariff subheading 7204.4100.
    2. Labor. Section 351.408(c)(3) of our 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.
    3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead, we 
used information obtained from the fiscal year 1998-99 annual reports 
of five Indian bearing producers. We calculated factory overhead and 
selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses (exclusive of 
labor and electricity) as percentages of direct inputs (also exclusive 
of labor) and applied these ratios to each producer's direct input 
costs. For profit, we totaled the reported profit before taxes for the 
five Indian bearing producers and divided it by the total calculated 
cost of production (``COP'') of goods sold. This percentage was applied 
to each respondent's total COP to derive a company-specific profit 
value.
    4. Packing. As we did in TRBs XI (see Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China; Preliminary Results of 1997-1998 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
64 FR 36853 (July 8, 1999)), for producers that participated in the 
1996-1997 review, except for Wafangdian, we calculated packing costs as 
a percentage of COP for each respondent based on the information 
submitted in that review. This ratio was applied to the respondents' 
COP for the current review to derive a POR-specific, company-specific 
packing expense. Consistent with TRBs XI, we calculated the value of 
packing materials by using Indian import statistics concurrent with the 
POR from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Vol. 
II--Imports for (1) producers that did not participate in that review 
and do not have a packing cost percentage already calculated, and (2) 
Wafangdian since it reported different packing materials from those 
reported in the 1996-1997 review. We then multiplied these figures by 
the usage factor reported by the company to calculate company-specific 
packing costs.
    5. Electricity. Consistent with our approach in Manganese Metal 
from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 30067 (May 10, 2000), we calculated our 
surrogate value for electricity based on a simple average of rates 
across all Indian states, using the most contemporaneous electricity 
rate data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy and the 1995 
Conference of Indian Industries: Handbook of Statistics. For each 
Indian state's rate, we inflated the value from the effective date of 
the rate quote to the POR using the electricity-specific price index 
published by the Reserve Bank of India.
    6. Inland Freight. We valued truck freight using an average of 
November 1999 truck freight rate quotes collected from Indian trucking 
companies by the Department and used in the Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 116 (January 3, 2000) (``Bulk Aspirin 
from the PRC''). We valued rail freight using two November 1999 rate 
quotes for domestic bearing quality steel shipments within India that 
were also used in Bulk Aspirin from the PRC. We adjusted the rates for 
both truck and rail freight to the POR using wholesale price indices 
(``WPI'').
    7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a value for ocean freight based on 
July 1996 rate quotes from Maersk Inc. We adjusted the ocean freight 
rate to the POR using the U.S. purchase price index.
    8. Marine Insurance. We calculated a value for marine insurance 
based on the CIF value of shipped TRBs. We obtained the rate used 
through queries we made directly to an international marine insurance 
provider.
    9. Brokerage and Handling. We used the public version of a U.S. 
sales listing reported in the questionnaire response submitted by 
Meltroll Engineering in the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 12209 (March 8, 2000). Because this 
information is contemporaneous with the current POR, no adjustments 
were necessary.

Torch Spark Plug

    Torch shipped TRBs to an affiliated Canadian party during the POR. 
According to Torch, the TRBs were originally intended for shipment to 
Canada. However, they entered the United States and, according to 
Torch, were erroneously categorized as consumption entries. Torch has 
provided documentation demonstrating that the merchandise has not been 
sold to an unaffiliated party in the United

[[Page 41949]]

States. In situations where an affiliated importer enters merchandise 
during a review period, but does not sell that merchandise during the 
POR, our normal practice is to liquidate the entries based on other 
sales of the merchandise made by the affiliated importer during the POR 
\1\. In this case, however, the company has indicated that it does not 
intend to sell this merchandise in the United States. Consequently, we 
would have no basis to calculate a dumping margin for this merchandise. 
Accordingly, we intend to liquidate the merchandise in question without 
regard to any dumping liability if certain requirements are met. For a 
further discussion of this issue, please see the Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach from Team: ``Review of Zhuzhou Torch Spark Plug Company, 
Ltd.,'' dated June 29, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administration {sic} Review, 61 FR 46763 (September 5, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revocation

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), CMC, Wafangdian, Wangxiang, and 
ZMC requested revocation of the antidumping duty order, in part, based 
on an absence of dumping for at least three consecutive years. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), these companies' requests were 
accompanied by certifications that they had not sold the subject 
merchandise at less than normal value during the current period of 
review and would not do so in the future. They further certified that 
they sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial 
quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. The 
companies also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping 
duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the 
order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, 
the companies sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value.
    In light of the above and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222, as amended by 
Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 FR 51236 (September 22, 1999), we 
preliminarily find for CMC, Wangxiang, and ZMC that the subject 
merchandise was sold at not less than normal value for a period of at 
least three consecutive years and that dumping is not likely to resume 
in the future and consequently the continuing imposition of an 
antidumping duty is not necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that these three companies qualify for revocation of 
the order on TRBs pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b) and intend to revoke 
the order in part with respect to these companies in our final results. 
As indicated below, we preliminarily find that a dumping margin exists 
for Wafangdian. As such, we preliminarily find that Wafangdian does not 
qualify for revocation.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period June 1, 1998, through May 31, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wafangdian..................................................        4.54
Wangxiang...................................................        0.00
CMC.........................................................        0.00
ZMC.........................................................        0.00
Liaoning....................................................        0.00
Hailin......................................................        0.00
Weihai......................................................        0.00
Luoyang.....................................................        4.16
Premier.....................................................        5.27
PRC Rate....................................................       33.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised 
in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal 
briefs in this review 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.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. With respect to 
EP sales for these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping 
margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP) for each 
importer/customer by the total number of units sold to that importer/
customer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of administrative review, 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 order during 
the review period.
    For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for 
each importer/customer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will direct Customs to 
assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered Customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's/
customer's entries during the review period.
    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the PRC companies 
named above, the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms 
established in the final results of this review, except that, for 
exporters with de minimis rates, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no 
deposit will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the 
company-specific rate established for the most recent period during 
which they were reviewed; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate 
will be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 33.12 percent; and (4) for 
all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of 
that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of our regulations 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 these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 41950]]


    Dated: June 29, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-17246 Filed 7-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P