[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45451-45456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17033]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
2000-2001 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 2000-2001 administrative 
review, partial rescission of the review, and notice of intent to 
revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China, were made below normal value during the period June 
1, 2000, through May 31, 2001. We are also rescinding the review, in 
part, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
    Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation and Hailin Bearing 
Factory, 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 only 
Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation and Hailin Bearing 
Factory qualifies for revocation. Accordingly, we preliminarily 
determine to revoke the order with respect to the subject merchandise 
produced and exported by Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation 
and Hailin Bearing Factory, but not with respect to the subject 
merchandise produced and exported by the other two 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 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melani Miller, S. Anthony Grasso, or 
Andrew Smith, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0116, (202) 482-3853, or (202) 482-1276, 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 2001).

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 11, 2001 (66 FR 31203). On June 28, 2001, Zhejiang Machinery 
Import & Export Corp. (``ZMC'') requested an administrative review, and 
also requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order as 
it pertains to that company. On June 29, 2001, Wanxiang Group 
Corporation (``Wanxiang''), China National Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation (``CMC''), Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation 
and Hailin Bearing Factory (``Hailin''), Luoyang Bearing Corporation 
(Group) (``Luoyang''), and Weihai Machinery Holding (Group) Co., Ltd. 
(``Weihai'') also requested administrative reviews. Hailin, Weihai, and 
Wanxiang also requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty 
order as it pertains to them. Also on June 29, 2001, the petitioner, 
The Timken Company, requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hundreds of PRC 
TRBs exporters. The petitioner revised its request on July 10, 2001. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on July 23, 
2001 (66 FR 38252).
    On August 6, 2001, Chin Jun Industrial Ltd. (``Chin Jun'') reported 
that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period of review (``POR''), June 1, 2000, through May 31, 
2001. 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.
    On August 14, 2001, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary 
General of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for 
Import & Export of Machinery and Electronics Products and requested 
that the questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in 
our initiation notice and to any subsidiary companies of the named 
companies that produce and/or export the subject merchandise. In this 
letter, we also requested information relevant to the issue of whether 
the companies named in the initiation notice are independent from 
government control. See the ``Separate Rates Determination'' section, 
below. Courtesy copies of the questionnaire were also sent to companies 
with legal representation.
    We received responses to the questionnaire in September and October 
2001 from the following seven companies: Liaoning MEC Group Co. Ltd. 
(``Liaoning''), CMC, ZMC, Wanxiang, Hailin, Weihai, and Luoyang. With 
respect to Liaoning, on September 21, 2001, we rejected Liaoning's 
Section A questionnaire response because neither the petitioner nor 
Liaoning had requested an administrative review and we did not consider 
Liaoning to be a respondent in the instant proceeding. The petitioner 
submitted comments on the remaining questionnaire responses in November 
2001. We sent out supplemental questionnaires to CMC, ZMC, Wanxiang, 
Hailin, Weihai, and Luoyang in November and December 2001, and January, 
March, and April 2002, and received responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires in December 2001 and January, March, April, and May 
2002.

[[Page 45452]]

    On April 4, 2002, Weihai withdrew its request for a review. The 
petitioner did not request a review for Weihai. While Weihai's 
rescission request was made more than 90 days after initiation, 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1) provides that the Department may extend this deadline, 
and it is the Department's practice to do so where it poses no undue 
burden on the parties or on the Department. Therefore, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we have rescinded the review with respect to 
Weihai. For a complete discussion of this decision see the Memorandum 
from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Partial Rescission of Review,'' dated May 
20, 2002.

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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in May 2002, we verified 
information provided by Hailin using standard verification procedures, 
including onsite inspection of manufacturers' facilities, the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information.

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 TRBs 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, 
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 1999-2000 Administrative Review, 
Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in 
Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001) (``TRBs XIII'')). 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 consists 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 that 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 adverse facts available is appropriate for such companies.
    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 with 
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

[[Page 45453]]

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 that did not respond to the 
questionnaire. This margin, calculated for sales by Xiangfan Machinery 
Import & Export (Group) Corp. during the 1996-1997 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.

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 
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, international freight, 
and marine insurance. We valued the deductions for foreign inland 
freight using surrogate data (Indian freight costs). (We selected India 
as the surrogate country for the reasons explained in the ``Normal 
Value'' section of this notice, 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 delivered and duty paid 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, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, 
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 (``FOP'') 
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 FOP 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 
country on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 351.408(b). See 
the October 19, 2001, 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 
July 1, 2002, 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 Central Records Unit, which is located in Room 
B-099 of the main Department building (``CRU'').)
    We used publicly available information on Indian imports and 
exports to 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 FOP methodology, we valued each 
respondent's reported factors of production by multiplying them by the 
values described below. 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 July 1, 2002, 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 XIII and Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper Reviews, 67 FR 10665 
(March 8, 2002) (``TRBs 2000 NSR''), 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. We used this same value for the hot-
rolled steel bar used in the production of spacers. For cold-rolled 
steel rods used in the production of rollers and for cold-rolled steel 
sheet used in the production of cages, we used 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

[[Page 45454]]

further discussion of selection of steel value sources, see the Steel 
Values Memorandum.
    As in previous administrative reviews in this proceeding, we 
eliminated from our calculation steel imports from NME countries and 
imports from market economy countries that were made in small 
quantities. For steel used in the production of cups, cones, spacers, 
and rollers, we also excluded as necessary imports from countries that 
do not produce bearing-quality steel (see, e.g., TRBs XIII). 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 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 Notice of Intent to Revoke 
Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and 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 Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 11562 (February 
26, 2001) (collectively, ``TRBs XII'') and TRBs XIII, we found a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that certain market economy 
steel inputs purchased by PRC TRBs manufacturers and used to 
manufacture TRBs were subsidized. Consistent with our treatment of 
subsidized inputs in TRBs XII and TRBs XIII, 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, 
rollers, and spacers 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 2000-2001 annual reports of 
five Indian bearing producers. We calculated factory overhead and 
selling, general, and administrative expenses as percentages of direct 
inputs and applied these ratios to each producer's direct input costs. 
These expenses were calculated exclusive of labor and electricity, but 
included employer provident funds and welfare expenses not reflected in 
the Department's regressed wage rate. This is consistent with the 
methodology we utilized in TRBs XIII and TRBs 2000 NSR. For profit, we 
totaled the reported profit before taxes for the five Indian bearing 
producers and divided 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 XIII), 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 each respondent's COP for 
the current review.
5. Electricity. We calculated our surrogate value for electricity based 
on electricity rate data from the Energy Data Directory and Yearbook 
(1999/2000) published by Tata Energy Research Institute. We calculated 
a simple average of the rates for the ``industrial'' category listed 
for 19 Indian states or electricity boards. We adjusted the electricity 
value to the POR using the Reserve Bank of India electricity-specific 
price index.
6. Foreign 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 Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic 
of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000) (``Bulk Aspirin from the PRC'') 
and in past TRBs reviews (see, e.g., TRBs XIII and TRBs 2000 NSR). We 
valued rail freight using two November 1999 rate quotes for domestic 
bearing quality steel shipments within India which were also used in 
Bulk Aspirin from the PRC. 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 these inland shipping rates to the POR using the Indian 
WPI.
7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a value for ocean freight based on 
December 2000 rate quotes from Maersk Sealand, Inc. Because this 
information is contemporaneous with the POR, no adjustments were 
necessary.
8. Marine Insurance. Consistent with TRBs XIII and TRBs 2000 NSR, we 
calculated a value for marine insurance based on the CIF value of 
shipped TRBs based on a rate obtained by the Department through queries 
made directly to an international marine insurance provider. We 
adjusted this 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 not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
adjusted the data to the POR by using the Indian WPI.

Revocation

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation 
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review 
period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the 
future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject 
merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the request 
in commercial quantities; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement of the 
order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the 
revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1).

[[Page 45455]]

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), Hailin, Wanxiang, and ZMC 
requested revocation of the antidumping duty order as it pertains to 
them. As noted above, Weihai also requested revocation of the 
antidumping duty order, in part, on this same basis. However, as we are 
rescinding this review with respect to Weihai, as discussed above, no 
further analysis is required with respect to partial revocation of the 
antidumping duty order as it pertains to Weihai.
    According to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), upon receipt of such a request, 
the Department may revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) 
the company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than 
NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the continued 
application of the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate 
reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less 
than NV.
    With respect to ZMC, as noted below, we preliminarily find that a 
dumping margin exists for ZMC in the instant review. Moreover, in TRBs 
XII, ZMC was found to have made sales below NV. Because ZMC does not 
have three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV, we 
preliminarily find that ZMC does not qualify for revocation of the 
order on TRBs pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b).
    As for Wanxiang, in TRBs XII and TRBs XIII, 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, 
specifically TRBs XII. In the instant review, based on our previous 
determination that Wanxiang did not make sales in commercial quantities 
during at least one of the three years forming the basis of the 
revocation request, TRBs XII, we do not need to examine whether 
Wanxiang made sales in commercial quantities in either of the other two 
years underlying Wanxiang's request for revocation. Thus, 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 pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b).
    Finally, with respect to Hailin, Hailin sold the subject 
merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three 
consecutive years. Hailin has also agreed in writing to the immediate 
reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that Hailin, 
subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than 
NV. Finally, based on our examination of the sales data submitted by 
Hailin (see Hailin's July 1, 2002, preliminary results calculation 
memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU, for our 
commercial quantities analysis with respect to this data), we 
preliminarily determine that Hailin sold the subject merchandise in the 
United States in commercial quantities in each of the three years cited 
by Hailin to support its request for revocation. Therefore, based on 
the above facts, and absent evidence on the record that the continued 
application of the antidumping order is otherwise necessary to offset 
dumping from Hailin, we preliminarily determine that Hailin qualifies 
for revocation of the order on TRBs pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), 
and that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by 
Hailin should be revoked.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period June 1, 2000, through May 31, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National.......................................               0.67
Machinery Import.....................................
& Export Corporation.................................
Wanxiang Group.......................................               0.00
Corporation..........................................
Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation and                   0.00
 Hailin Bearing Factory..............................
Luoyang Bearing......................................  0.05 (de minimis)
Corporation (Group)..................................
Zhejiang Machinery...................................               0.55
Import & Export Corp.................................
PRC-wide rate........................................              33.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held 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

[[Page 45456]]

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 1, 2002
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
[FR Doc. 02-17033 Filed 7-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S