[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35937-35942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17230]


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

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 
1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 1999-2000 administrative 
review, partial rescission of the review, and notice of intent not 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, 1999 through May 31, 2000. We are also rescinding the review, in 
part, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
    Weihai Machinery Holding (Group) Co., China National Machinery 
Import & Export Corporation, 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 none of these companies qualifies for 
revocation. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine not to revoke the 
order with respect to the subject merchandise produced and exported by 
these four companies.
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties based on the differences between the export price or constructed 
export price and normal value on all appropriate entries. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarrod Goldfeder, Melani Miller, or 
Anthony Grasso, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0189, (202) 482-0116, or (202) 482-3853, 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, 
unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Department of 
Commerce's (``the Department'') regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 
(April 2000).

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 20, 2000 (65 FR 38242). On June 26, 2000, Wanxiang Group 
Corporation (``Wanxiang''), China National Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation (``CMC''), Liaoning MEC Group Co. Ltd. (``Liaoning''), 
Premier Bearing & Equipment Ltd. (``Premier''), Tianshui Hailin Import 
and Export Corporation and Hailin Bearing Factory (``Hailin''), and 
Weihai Machinery Holding (Group) Co., Ltd. (``Weihai'') requested 
administrative reviews. On June 30, 2000, Wafangdian Bearing Group 
Corp. Import & Export Company (``Wafangdian''), Luoyang Bearing 
Corporation (Group) (``Luoyang''), Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export 
Corp. (``ZMC''), and Zhejiang Changshan Changhe Bearing Corp. 
(``ZCCBC'') also requested administrative reviews. Weihai, Wafangdian, 
ZMC, Wanxiang, and CMC also requested that the Department revoke the 
antidumping duty order as it pertains to them. On June 30, 2000, 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 31, 2000 (65 FR 46687). We published a 
revision to this initiation notice on August 10, 2000 (65 FR 48968).
    On August 16, 2000, 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

[[Page 35938]]

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 in September and October 
2000 from the following seven companies: CMC, ZMC, Wafangdian, 
Wanxiang, Hailin, Weihai, and Luoyang. We sent out supplemental 
questionnaires in January, February, and May 2001, and received 
responses to these supplemental questionnaires in February, March, and 
May 2001.
    On September 22 and November 3, 2000, ZCCBC and Liaoning, 
respectively, requested that the Department rescind the review with 
respect to these companies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), because 
ZCCBC and Liaoning withdrew their requests for reviews within 90 days 
of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of this review 
and no other party requested a review of these companies, we are 
rescinding the review with respect to ZCCBC and Liaoning.
    In addition, on September 8 and 11, 2000, respectively, Premier and 
Chin Jun Industrial Ltd. (``Chin Jun'') reported that they had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
of review (``POR''), June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000. With respect to 
Chin Jun, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily 
conclude that there were no shipments from Chin Jun to the United 
States during the POR and are preliminarily rescinding the review with 
respect to this company. However, prior to issuing the final results, 
we will confirm with the Customs Service that Chin Jun had no shipments 
during the POR. With respect to Premier, on January 17, 2001, Premier 
reported to the Department that it did, in fact, have sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and it 
submitted a questionnaire response. Because Premier's deadline for 
submitting a response was in October 2000, and no further extensions 
were requested or granted on behalf of Premier, we rejected Premier's 
submission. See the Facts Available section, below, for a further 
discussion of Premier.
    Finally, because the order with respect to Wafangdian was revoked 
in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results of 1998-1999 
Administrative Review and Determination to RevokeOrder in Part, 66 FR 
11562 (February 26, 2001) (``TRBs XII Amended Final''), we are 
terminating this review with respect to Wafangdian.

Scope of the Order

    Merchandise covered by this order 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 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 is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') 
country 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.
    Therefore, we are treating the PRC as an NME country within the 
meaning of section 773(c) of the Act. We allow companies in NME 
countries 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 an NME country 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 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, Luoyang, Hailin, 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 1998-1999 Administrative 
Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke 
Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and TRBs XII Amended Final 
(collectively, ``TRBs XII'')). 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.
    Additionally, 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 
abilities. Thus, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, 
the use of

[[Page 35939]]

adverse facts available is appropriate for such companies.
    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 an inference that is 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 in the investigation, a previous administrative review, 
or any 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 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 (February 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expenses 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 
(Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1996-1997 
Antidumping Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 63 FR 63842 (November 17, 
1998)), represents the highest overall margin 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: As noted above, on August 16, 2000, the Department 
issued the antidumping duty questionnaire for this review to all PRC 
manufacturers of TRBs, including Premier. This questionnaire noted that 
responses to Section A of the questionnaire were due on September 25, 
2000, and that all other sections were due on October 10, 2000. The due 
dates for several companies, including Premier, were extended by the 
Department to October 2, 2000, for the Section A response and to 
October 27, 2000, for the remaining sections. (See September 20, 2000 
and October 23, 2000 memos to the file, both entitled ``Request for 
Extension,'' which are on file in the Department's Central Records Unit 
in Room B-099 (``CRU'').)
    On September 8, 2000, Premier submitted a letter to the Department 
stating that it had made no shipments of the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. Accordingly, Premier did not submit a 
questionnaire response by the deadlines noted above. However, on 
January 17, 2001, Premier submitted a letter stating that it did, in 
fact, make sales of TRBs to the United States during the POR. Enclosed 
with the letter was a questionnaire response for Premier.
    Under 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2), the deadline for submitting information 
requested by the Department is the deadline specified by the 
Department. As noted above, Premier's extended deadline for submitting 
a Section A response was October 2, 2000; the extended deadline for 
submitting the remainder of Premier's response was October 27, 2000. No 
other extensions were requested or granted on behalf of Premier. 
Moreover, no further request for information was made to Premier by the 
Department. Finally, 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2) states that the deadline for 
submission of factual information in a review is 140 days after the 
last day of the anniversary month. In this case, that date was November 
17, 2000, two months prior to the January 17, 2001 submission made by 
Premier. Based on these facts, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d)(2), on 
January 19, 2001, the Department returned to Premier its January 17, 
2001 submission.
    Pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we have determined that 
the use of facts available is warranted with respect to Premier. As 
noted above, and discussed in section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, Premier 
failed to provide information requested by the Department by the 
deadlines for submission of this information. Moreover, as Premier did 
not provide a response to the Department's questionnaire by the 
deadlines for submission of this information, we have determined that 
Premier failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with a request for information. Thus, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Act, we have determined that the use of an adverse inference is 
appropriate in choosing from among the facts available for Premier. 
Additionally, as noted above, we have preliminarily determined that 
companies which did not respond to the questionnaire should not receive 
separate rates. Thus, consistent with our methodology noted in the Use 
of Facts Otherwise Available section above, we have preliminarily 
assigned a margin of 33.18 percent to Premier.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For certain sales made by CMC to the United States, we used 
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 remaining sales made by CMC, 
we used export price (``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the

[[Page 35940]]

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 or CIF prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers, as appropriate. From these prices we deducted amounts, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, international freight, and marine insurance. We valued the 
deductions for foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling 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, below.) When marine insurance and ocean freight were 
provided by PRC-owned companies, we valued the deductions using 
surrogate data (amounts charged by market-economy providers). However, 
when some or all of a specific company's ocean freight was provided 
directly by market economy companies and paid for in a market economy 
currency, we used the reported market economy ocean freight values for 
all U.S. sales made by that company.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse prices from 
CMC's U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, from the starting price for CEP for foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine 
insurance, and customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of 
the Act, we made further deductions for the following selling expenses 
that related to economic activity in the United States: credit expenses 
and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs). 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 
methodology if: (1) the subject merchandise is exported from an NME 
country, and (2) the Department finds that the available information 
does not permit the calculation of NV under section 773(a) of the Act. 
We have no basis to determine that the available 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 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    Under the factors-of-production methodology, we are required to 
value, to the extent possible, the NME producer's inputs in a market 
economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development 
and that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We chose 
India as the surrogate on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 
351.408(b). See the November 14, 2000, Memorandum to John Brinkmann 
from Jeff May ``Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of 
China: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection,'' and 
the June 29, 2001, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach ``Selection of a 
Surrogate Country and Steel Value Sources'' (``Steel Values 
Memorandum'') for a further discussion of our surrogate selection. 
(Both memoranda are on file in the Department's CRU.)
    We used publicly available information from India to value the 
various factors. Because some of the Indian import data was not 
contemporaneous with the POR, unless otherwise noted, we inflated the 
data to the POR using the Indian wholesale price index (``WPI'') 
published by the International Monetary Fund.
    Pursuant to the Department's factors-of-production methodology, we 
valued the respondent's reported factors of production by multiplying 
them by the following values (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, 
2001, which is on file in the Department's CRU):
    1. Steel Inputs. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the 
production of cups and cones, consistent with TRBs XII, we used an 
adjusted weighted-average of Japanese export values to India from the 
Japanese 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 and for cold-rolled steel 
sheet used in the production of cages, we utilized Indian import data 
under Indian tariff subheadings 7228.5009 and 7209.1600, respectively, 
obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, 
Vol. II--Imports. (For further discussion of selection of steel value 
sources, see the 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 rollers, we also 
excluded imports from countries that do not produce bearing-quality 
steel (see, e.g., TRBs XII). 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 used to make TRBs 
or TRB parts from market economy suppliers and paid for the steel with 
market economy currency. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we 
generally valued these steel inputs using the actual price reported for 
directly imported inputs from a market economy. However, in TRBs XII, 
we found a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that certain market 
economy steel inputs purchased by PRC TRB manufacturers and used to 
manufacture TRBs were subsidized. Consistent with our treatment of 
subsidized inputs in TRBs XII, we have not used the actual prices paid 
by PRC producers of TRBs for steel which we have continuing reason to 
believe or suspect is subsidized. Instead, we relied on surrogate 
values. (See individual company calculation memoranda for a more 
detailed company-specific discussion of this issue.)
    We valued scrap recovered from the production of cups, cones, and 
rollers using Indian import statistics from Indian HS category 
7204.2909. Scrap recovered from the production of cages was valued 
using import data from Indian HS category 7204.4100.
    2. Labor. 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-
based wage rate. We have used the regression-based wage rate available 
on Import Administration's internet website at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.
    3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead, we 
used information obtained from the fiscal year 1999-2000 annual reports 
of five Indian bearing producers. We calculated factory overhead and 
selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses (exclusive of 
labor--but, including employer provident funds and welfare expenses not 
reflected in the Department's regressed wage-rate--and electricity) as 
percentages of direct inputs (also exclusive of labor) and applied 
these ratios to each producer's direct input costs. This is consistent 
with the methodology we utilized in TRBs XII. For profit, we totaled 
the

[[Page 35941]]

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. Consistent with our methodology in prior reviews (see, 
e.g., TRBs XII), we calculated packing costs as a percentage of COP for 
each respondent based on company-specific information submitted in 
previous reviews. This ratio was applied to the respondents' COPs for 
the current review.
    5. Electricity. Consistent with Manganese Metal from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 15076 (March 15, 2001), we calculated our surrogate value 
for electricity based on a simple average of the 1998/1999 rates for 
the ``industrial'' category listed for 19 Indian states or electricity 
boards. The source of this data was the Energy Data Directory and 
Yearbook published by Tata Energy Research Institute.
    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. Because this information 
is contemporaneous with the current POR, no further calculations were 
necessary. For inland freight expenses incurred by boat, we used August 
1993 shipping freight data used in Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers 
From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 31143 (May 16, 2000). We inflated this 
inland shipping rate to the POR using the Indian WPI.
    7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a value for ocean freight based on 
May 2000 rate quotes from Maersk Inc. Because this information is 
contemporaneous with the current POR, no further calculations were 
necessary.
    8. Marine Insurance. We calculated a value for marine insurance 
based on the CIF value of shipped TRBs. This rate was obtained for TRBs 
XII through queries made directly to an international marine insurance 
provider. We adjusted the marine insurance rate to the POR using the 
U.S. purchase price index.
    9. Brokerage and Handling. We used the public version of a U.S. 
sales listing reported in the questionnaire response submitted by 
Meltroll Engineering for Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 
2000). Because this information is contemporaneous with the current 
POR, no adjustments were necessary.

Revocation

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), Weihai, CMC, Wanxiang, and ZMC 
requested revocation of the antidumping duty order, in part, based on 
an absence of dumping for each company for at least three consecutive 
years. Wafangdian also requested revocation of the antidumping duty 
order with respect to its sales. However, because the order with 
respect to Wafangdian was revoked in TRBs XII, we do not need to 
address Wafangdian's request for revocation in this review.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), Weihai, CMC, Wanxiang, and 
ZMC's requests were accompanied by certifications that they had sold 
the subject merchandise at not less than normal value during the 
current period of review and would not sell the subject merchandise at 
less than normal value 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 the immediate reinstatement of the antidumping 
duty order if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the 
revocation, the companies sold the subject merchandise at less than 
normal value.
    In TRBs XII, CMC and ZMC were found to have made sales below normal 
value. Because CMC and ZMC do not have three consecutive years of sales 
at not less than normal value, we preliminarily find that these two 
companies do not qualify for revocation of the order on TRBs pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.222(b). Therefore, we intend not to revoke the order in 
part with respect to these companies in our final results.
    Weihai first participated in this proceeding as a new shipper. See 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of New Shipper 
Review, 64 FR 45511 (August 20, 1999); 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 (November 
15, 1999) (``TRBs NSR''). TRBs NSR covered the period June 1, 1998 
through November 30, 1998. Subsequently, Weihai participated in TRBs 
XII, which covered the period June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999. See 
TRBs XII. Finally, Weihai is participating in the instant review, which 
covers the period June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000. Since the time 
period covered by TRBs NSR is included in the time period covered by 
TRBs XII, the Department has reviewed only two years of Weihai's 
shipments. Thus, we preliminarily find that Weihai has not sold the 
subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at 
least three consecutive years and, accordingly, does not qualify for 
revocation in this review.
    Finally, with respect to Wanxiang, in TRBs XII we determined that 
Wanxiang did not qualify for revocation because it did not sell the 
subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in 
each of the three years underlying its request for revocation. Based on 
our determination that Wanxiang did not make sales in commercial 
quantities during the PORs of TRBs XII and 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 (November 
15, 1999), we do not need to examine whether Wanxiang made sales in 
commercial quantities during the instant review. Because Wanxiang did 
not make sales in commercial quantities in each of the three years 
cited by the company to support its revocation request, we 
preliminarily find that Wanxiang does not qualify for revocation of the 
order on TRBs (see 19 CFR 351.222(b)).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weihai Machinery Holding (Group) Co........................         0.00
China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation.......         4.79
Wanxiang Group Corporation.................................         0.00

[[Page 35942]]

 
Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation and Hailin            0.00
 Bearing Factory...........................................
Luoyang Bearing Corporation (Group)........................         0.12
Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp....................         0.00
PRC-wide rate (including Premier Bearing & Equipment Ltd.).        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 approximately 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 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. To calculate the 
amount of duties to be assessed with respect to EP sales, 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 the Customs 
Service 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 33.18 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 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 these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 2, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-17230 Filed 7-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P