[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17361-17367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8559]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administation

[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-559-801, A-412-801]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and The 
United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, and Partial Rescission of Administrative 
Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered 
roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The merchandise covered by these 
orders are ball bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain 
bearings and parts thereof. The reviews cover 40 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review is May 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value by various companies subject to these reviews. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
reviews, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the appropriate case 
analysts for the various respondent firms, as listed below, at Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
France
    Dmitry Vladimirov (SKF), Lyn Johnson (Bearing Discount Int. - 
Germany, Rodamientos Rovi - Venezuela, Rovi-Valencia - Venezuela, Rovi-
Marcay - Venezuela, RIRSA - Mexico, DCD - Northern Ireland, EuroLatin 
Ex. Services - United Kingdom (collectively, Resellers)), or Mark Ross.
Germany
    Dunyako Ahmadu (Paul Mueller, FAG), Thomas Schauer (Torrington 
Nadellager), Lyn Johnson (Resellers), Mark Ross, or Richard Rimlinger.
Italy
    David Dirstine (SKF), Janis Kalnins (FAG), Lyn Johnson (Resellers), 
Mark Ross, or Richard Rimlinger.
Japan
    Edythe Artman (Nachi, Isuzu), Minoo Hatten (NSK), Lyn Johnson 
(Koyo, Asahi), Katja Kravetsky (Nankai Seiko), Janis Kalnins (NPBS), 
David Dirstine (NTN), George Callen (Osaka Pump, Takeshita), Mark Ross, 
or Richard Rimlinger.United Kingdom Thomas Schauer (RHP/NSK), Dmitry 
Vladimirov (Barden), Katja Kravetsky (FAG), Mark Ross, or Richard 
Rimlinger.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts 
thereof (BBs) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the 
United Kingdom and on spherical plain bearings and parts thereof (SPBs) 
from France. On June 19, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we 
published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of these 
orders (66 FR 32934).
    Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely 
withdrawals of the requests we had received for review of SNR (France), 
NMB (Singapore), and SNFA (UK) with respect to BBs and SKF (France) 
with respect to SPBs. Because there were no other requests for review 
of the above-named firms, we are rescinding the reviews with respect to 
these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d). Because there is 
no other request for reviews of the orders on BBs from Singapore and on 
SPBs from France, we are rescinding the reviews of these orders in 
full.

Scope of Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings 
(other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) and 
constitute the following merchandise:
    Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all AFBs 
that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are 
classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball 
bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball 
bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units 
and parts thereof.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTSUS)

[[Page 17362]]

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 
6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 
8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 
8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 
8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 
8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 
8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 
8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by the order. For a listing of scope 
determinations which pertain to the orders, see the ``Scope 
Determinations Memorandum'' (Scope Memo) from the Antifriction Bearings 
Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated April 1, 2002, and hereby adopted by 
this notice. The Scope Memo is on file in the Central Records Unit 
(CRU), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, in the General Issues record 
(A-100-001) for the 99/00 reviews.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, written descriptions of the scope of these 
proceedings remain dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by certain respondents using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection 
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports, which are on file in the CRU. We will also be 
verifying certain companies (Barden Corporation and SKF Italy) shortly 
after publication of these preliminary results of reviews.

Use of Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we preliminarily 
determine that the use of facts available as the basis for the 
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for Isuzu Motors, Ltd. 
(Japan). We also preliminarily determine that the use of facts 
available is appropriate with respect to three of the Resellers 
(Bearing Discount International, DCD, and RIRSA) in the reviews 
covering BBs from France, Germany, and Italy. None of the above firms 
responded, or responded fully, to our antidumping questionnaire (see 
the analysis memoranda to the file for these firms dated April 1, 2002) 
and, consequently, we find that they have not provided ``information 
that has been requested by the administering authority'' (section 
776(a)(1) of the Act). Although RIRSA claimed that it did not export 
subject merchandise during the period of review, we found that, based 
on our examination of the Customs Service database for imports of 
entered merchandise, RIRSA had shipped merchandise that is classified 
under the HTSUS subheadings for BBs. Unless RIRSA provides us with more 
details about the shipped merchandise for the final results of this 
administrative review, we will continue to use facts available as the 
basis for the weighted-average dumping margin for RIRSA.
    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are making an 
adverse inference in our application of the facts available. This is 
necessary because the above firms have not acted to the best of their 
ability in providing us with relevant information which is under their 
control. As adverse facts available for these firms, we have applied 
the highest rate we have calculated for any companies under review in 
any segment of the relevant proceedings (i.e., BBs from Germany, 
France, Italy, and Japan). We have selected these rates because they 
are sufficiently high as to reasonably assure that the firms named 
above do not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate. 
Specifically, these rates are 66.18 percent for BBs from France, 70.41 
percent for BBs from Germany, 68.29 percent for BBs from Italy, and 
73.55 percent for BBs from Japan.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding or from 
another company in the same proceeding constitutes secondary 
information. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA), provides that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. SAA at 870. As 
explained in Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 
Japan), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will 
examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of 
the information used. However, unlike other types of information, such 
as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources 
for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as 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 not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the 
highest dumping margin as best information available because the margin 
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin). Further, in accordance with 
F.LII De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, No. 
99-1318 (CAFC June 16, 2000), we also examine whether information on 
the record would support the selected rates as reasonable facts 
available.
    We find that the above rates that we are using for these 
preliminary results do have probative value. We compared the selected 
margins to margins calculated on individual sales of the merchandise in 
question made by companies covered by the instant review. We found a 
substantial number of sales, made in the ordinary course of trade and 
in commercial quantities, with dumping margins near or exceeding the 
rates under consideration. (The details of this analysis are contained 
in the proprietary versions of the analysis memoranda for the covered 
firms dated April 1, 2002.) This evidence supports an inference that 
the selected rates might reflect the actual dumping margins for the 
firms in question.
    Furthermore, there is no information on the record that 
demonstrates that the rates selected are inappropriate total adverse 
facts-available rates for the companies in question. On the contrary,

[[Page 17363]]

our existing record supports the use of these rates as the best 
indications of the export prices and dumping margins for these firms as 
explained in our April 1, 2002, memoranda. Therefore, we consider the 
selected rates to have probative value with respect to the firms in 
question in these reviews and to reflect appropriate adverse 
inferences.
    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we have also applied 
partial facts available to Nankai Seiko (Japan). Late in the review, 
while doing a cursory review of the website of one of Nankai Seiko's 
customers, we learned of a possible connection between the two 
companies, and asked Nankai Seiko further questions in a supplemental 
questionnaire. From Nankai Seiko's response, we learned of its 
consignment arrangement with this company. The antidumping 
questionnaire instructs respondents specifically to describe any 
consignment arrangements and the functions of the consignee. Nankai 
Seiko did not report its consignment sales to the United States as 
constructed export-price (CEP) sales. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, 
subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) significantly 
impedes a determination under the antidumping statute, or (D) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department 
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination. Since Nankai Seiko 
neither mentioned its consignment arrangements nor provided any 
necessary CEP data associated with such sales, we have preliminarily 
determined that Nankai Seiko did not act to the best of its ability to 
provide information and have applied adverse facts available to its 
consignment sales, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As adverse 
facts available, we selected the highest rate we have calculated for 
any companies under review in any segment of the relevant proceedings 
(i.e., 73.55 percent for BBs from Japan) and, in our calculation of 
Nankai's weighted-average margin, applied this rate to the value of the 
consignment sales.
    In addition, we applied partial facts available to Asahi. In our 
original questionnaire and in a letter dated March 18, 2002, we 
requested that Asahi provide constructed value (CV) data for all of its 
U.S. products. Although Asahi provided significantly more CV data in 
response to our March 18, 2002, letter, it did not provide all of the 
requested data. Therefore, we have preliminarily concluded that Asahi 
has not acted to the best of its ability to comply with our request and 
we have made an adverse inference for applying facts available. When we 
could not find an appropriate identical or similar home-market match 
for sales of U.S. products and no CV was available for determining 
normal value, we used 73.55 percent as the transaction-specific margin, 
which is the highest rate we have calculated for any Japanese companies 
under review in any segment of the relevant proceedings (see 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings and 
Spherical Plain Bearings, and Parts Thereof From Japan, 54 FR 20904 
(May 15, 1989)). We have selected this rate because it is sufficiently 
higher than the average transaction-specific margin for other sales by 
Asahi in which we used CV to determine normal value.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price or CEP as 
defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act, as appropriate. Due to 
the extremely large volume of transactions that occurred during the 
period of review and the resulting administrative burden involved in 
calculating individual margins for all of these transactions, we 
sampled CEP sales in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a 
firm made more than 2,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States 
for merchandise subject to a particular order, we reviewed CEP sales 
that occurred during sample weeks. We selected one week from each two-
month period in the review period, for a total of six weeks, and 
analyzed each transaction made in those six weeks. The sample weeks are 
as follows: June 11-17, 2000; August 13-19, 2000; September 24-30, 
2000; October 29-November 4, 2000; December 31, 2000-January 6, 2001; 
and March 18-24, 2001. We reviewed all export-price sales transactions 
made during the period of review.
    We calculated export price and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., 
C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 
exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, 
for discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA, at 
823-824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States, including 
commissions, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, and 
repacking expenses in the United States. When appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also deducted the cost 
of any further manufacture or assembly, except where we applied the 
special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act (see below). 
Finally, we made an adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses 
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, e.g., parts 
of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters 
and then further processed into other products which were then sold to 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for 
merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of 
the Act applied to all firms, except NPBS, that added value in the 
United States.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when the subject 
merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in 
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine 
the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other 
subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use 
of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of 
such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or 
other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other 
reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
    To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the 
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold 
in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the 
subject merchandise by the affiliated purchaser. Based on this 
analysis, we determined that the estimated value added in the United 
States by all firms, with the exception of NPBS, accounted for at least 
65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for 
the merchandise as sold in the United States. (See 19 CFR 351.402(c) 
for an explanation of our practice on this issue.) Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that, for the firms other than NPBS, the value 
added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise. Also, for those

[[Page 17364]]

companies, we determine that there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
remaining to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and that the use 
of these sales is appropriate. Accordingly, for purposes of determining 
dumping margins for the sales subject to the special rule, we have used 
the weighted-average dumping margins calculated on sales of identical 
or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons.
    For NPBS, we determined that the special rule did not apply because 
the value added in the United States did not exceed substantially the 
value of the subject merchandise. Consequently, NPBS submitted a 
complete response to our further-manufacturing questionnaire which 
included the costs of the further processing performed by its U.S. 
affiliate. Since the majority of NPBS's products sold in the United 
States were further processed, we analyzed all sales.
    No other adjustments to export price or CEP were claimed or 
allowed.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined, with the exception of Takeshita Seiko Co., that the 
quantity of foreign like product sold by all respondents in the 
exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to 
section 773(a) of the Act. Each company's quantity of sales in its home 
market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
based normal value on the prices at which the foreign like products 
were first sold for consumption in the exporting country.
    With respect to Takeshita Seiko Co., we found that, although its 
home market was viable under section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the firm 
made no sales of foreign like product in its home market that we were 
able to compare to its U.S. sales. Therefore, we based normal value on 
constructed value.
    Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred 
during the period of review and the resulting administrative burden 
involved in examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to 
calculate normal value in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When 
a firm had more than 2,000 home-market sales transactions on a country-
specific basis, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the 
sample weeks that we selected for U.S. CEP sales, sales in the month 
prior to the period of review, and sales in the month following the 
period of review. The sample months were March, June, August, 
September, and November of 2000, and January, March and May of 2001.
    With respect to the sample months, Koyo reported home-market sales 
for the incorrect sample months of October and December. Although our 
June 28, 2001, questionnaire had listed the incorrect months, we 
corrected this error in a letter dated June 29, 2001. For purposes of 
these preliminary results, we used Koyo's reported months, March, June, 
August, September, October, and December of 2000, and March and May of 
2001, as the sample months. We will request from Koyo revised home-
market sales data with the correct sample months for use in the final 
results.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unaffiliated 
customers.
    Because we disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act in the last completed review with respect to Asahi, 
Barden, Koyo, Nachi, NPBS, NSK, NTN, and NSK/RHP, SKF France, and SKF 
Italy (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, 
Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Administrative Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part, 65 FR 49219, 
49221 (August 11, 2000), or Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Administrative Reviews 
and Revocation of Orders in Part, 66 FR 36551, 36552 (July 12, 2001)), 
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the 
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of 
normal value in these reviews may have been made at prices below the 
cost of production (COP) as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted 
COP investigations of sales by these firms in the home market. Also, we 
received allegations in proper form that Nankai Seiko and Paul Mueller 
had made home-market sales below their COP and we conducted COP 
investigations of home-market sales of these firms as well.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental 
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-
market sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses.
    After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared 
model-specific COPs to the reported home- market prices less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were 
at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales 
because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and 
because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for 
the period of review, we determined that these sales were at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on 
this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of the 
above-mentioned companies.
    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market. We considered all non-identical products within a 
bearing family to be equally similar. As defined in the questionnaire, 
a bearing family consists of all bearings which are the foreign like 
product that are the same in the following physical characteristics: 
load direction, bearing design, number of rows of rolling elements, 
precision rating, dynamic load rating, outer diameter, inner diameter, 
and width.
    Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or 
delivered

[[Page 17365]]

prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When applicable, we 
made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also 
made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in circumstances of 
sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. For comparisons to export price, we made circumstances-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. For comparisons to 
CEP, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market 
direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made adjustments, 
when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset 
U.S. commissions in export-price and CEP calculations.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the export price or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a 
different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if 
possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level 
of Trade section below.)
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no 
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We 
calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the 
Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, 
and profit in the calculation of constructed value. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on 
the amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade for consumption in the home market.
    When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for 
circumstances-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. For 
comparisons to export price, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments 
by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses to normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we 
made circumstances-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct 
selling expenses from normal value. We also made adjustments, when 
applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 
commissions in export-price and CEP comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of 
trade as the export price or CEP. If constructed value was calculated 
at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate 
and if possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and (8) of the 
Act. (See Level of Trade section below.)

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either export price or CEP). 
When there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. 
sales to home-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-
value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home 
market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of 
trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit.
    To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a 
different level of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference 
affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and 
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analysis 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from 
Antifriction Bearings Team regarding Level of Trade, dated April 1, 
2002, on file in the CRU, Room B-099.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
following percentage weighted--average dumping margins on BBs for the 
period May 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001:

                                 FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.....................................................            8.09
Bearing Discount Int....................................           66.18
Rodamientos Rovi........................................             (2)
Rovi Valencia...........................................             (2)
Rovi-Marcay.............................................             (2)
RIRSA...................................................           66.18
DCD.....................................................           66.18
EuroLatin Ex. Services..................................             (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.....................................................            0.33
Torrington..............................................            1.22
Bearing Discount Int....................................           70.41
Paul Mueller............................................            0.04
Rodamientos Rovi........................................             (2)
Rovi Valencia...........................................             (2)
Rovi Marcay.............................................             (2)
RIRSA...................................................           70.41
DCD.....................................................           70.41
EuroLatin Ex. Services..................................             (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.....................................................            2.52
SKF.....................................................            3.70
Bearing Discount Int....................................           68.29
Rodamientos Rovi........................................             (2)
Rovi Valencia...........................................             (2)
Rovi Marcay.............................................             (2)
RIRSA...................................................           68.29
DCD.....................................................           68.29
EuroLatin Ex. Services..................................             (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo....................................................            7.70
NSK Ltd.................................................           12.22
NTN.....................................................            9.13
Osaka Pump..............................................            0.98
Takeshita...............................................            2.88
Asahi Seiko.............................................            7.22
Isuzu Motors............................................           73.55
Nachi-Fujikoshi9.52.....................................
Nankai Seiko............................................            1.13
Nippon Pillow Block.....................................            4.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSK/RHP Bearings........................................           17.89
FAG.....................................................             (1)
Barden..................................................            5.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The deposit rate 
remains unchanged from the last relevant segment of the proceeding in 
which the firm had shipments/sales.

[[Page 17366]]

    \2\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no 
individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.

Resellers

    With respect to EuroLatin Export Services Limited, Rodamientos Rovi 
C.A., Rovi Marcay, and Rovi Valencia and the reviews of France, 
Germany, and Italy, we have determined that these respondents had no 
shipments during the period of review. We have based our determination 
on letters from these respondents indicating that they had no shipments 
and on our examination of the Customs Service database for imports of 
entered merchandise involving these respondents. Based upon the record 
and our methodology of reviewing Customs Service information, we have 
determined that the respondents at issue had no shipments during the 
period of review, and we have not established margins for use as future 
cash-deposit rates.
    It is impossible to establish with certainty, however, from Customs 
Service data the accuracy of respondents' statements. Therefore, we 
will instruct the Customs Service at the time of liquidation to review 
all documentation for suspended entries of subject merchandise. If the 
Customs Service finds that any of the four above-named ``no-shipment'' 
respondents in fact had shipments of subject merchandise during the 
period of review, we will instruct the Customs Service to apply a 
facts-available rate to such respondents based on the adverse facts-
available rate we have determined for the applicable country of origin 
(France, Germany, or Italy).

Comments

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 21 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. A general-issues hearing, if 
requested, and any hearings regarding issues related solely to specific 
countries, if requested, will be held at the main Commerce Department 
building at a time and location to be determined.
    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than the dates shown 
below for general issues and the respective country-specific cases. 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version 
included.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Case                      Briefs due     Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues..........................     May 6, 2002    May 13, 2002
Germany.................................     May 6, 2002    May 13, 2002
Italy...................................     May 7, 2002    May 14, 2002
United Kingdom..........................     May 7, 2002    May 14, 2002
France..................................     May 8, 2002    May 15, 2002
Japan...................................     May 8, 2002    May 15, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will publish the final results of these 
administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs. The Department will issue final 
results of these reviews within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an 
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for 
subject merchandise.

Export-Price Sales

    With respect to export-price sales, for these preliminary results 
we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference 
between normal value and export price) for each exporter's importer/
customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that 
importer/customer. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the 
resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in 
each of that importer's/customer's entries under the relevant order 
during the review period.

Constructed Export Price Sales

    For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total 
dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of 
those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct the Customs 
Service to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered 
customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's 
entries under the relevant order during the review period (see 19 CFR 
351.212(a)).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each respondent (i.e., each 
exporter and/or manufacturer included in these reviews), we divided the 
total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales of merchandise during the review period subject to each 
order.
    In order to derive a single deposit rate for each order for each 
respondent, we weight-averaged the export-price and CEP deposit rates 
(using the export price and CEP, respectively, as the weighting 
factors). To accomplish this when we sampled CEP sales, we first 
calculated the total dumping margins for all CEP sales during the 
review period by multiplying the sample CEP margins by the ratio of 
total days in the review period to days in the sample weeks. We then 
calculated a total net value for all CEP sales during the review period 
by multiplying the sample CEP total net value by the same ratio. 
Finally, we divided the combined total dumping margins for both export-
price and CEP sales by the combined total value for both export-price 
and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate.
    Entries of parts incorporated into finished bearings before sales 
to an unaffiliated customer in the United States will receive the 
respondent's deposit rate applicable to the order.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative 
reviews for all shipments of AFBs entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit rates for the 
reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results 
of reviews; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-
fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``All Others'' 
rate for the relevant order made effective by the final results of 
review published on July 26, 1993 (see Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation 
in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993), and, 
for BBs from Italy, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Orders, 61 FR 66472 (December 17, 1996)). These rates are the ``All 
Others''

[[Page 17367]]

rates from the relevant less-than-fair-value investigations.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
reviews.
    This notice also serves as a 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these determinations in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 1, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-8559 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S