[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