[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6404-6409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-801, A-428-801,[ A-475-801, A-559-801]


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, and 
Singapore: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews, and Notice of 
Intent To Revoke Order In Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews, 
and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part.

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

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, and 
Singapore. The merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings 
and parts thereof. The reviews cover nine manufacturers/exporters. The 
period of review is May 1, 2001, through April 30, 2002.
    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: February 7, 2003.

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
Minoo Hatten (SNR Roulements), Dunyako Ahmadu (SKF), Mark Ross, or 
Richard Rimlinger.
Germany
Dunyako Ahmadu (FAG), Sochieta Moth (SKF), Catherine Cartsos (Paul 
Mueller), Jeffrey Frank (Torrington), Mark Ross, or Richard Rimlinger.
Italy
Fred Aziz (FAG), Janis Kalnins (SKF), Mark Ross, or Richard Rimlinger.
Singapore
Yang Jin Chun (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs) 
from France (54 FR 20902), Germany (54 FR 20900), Italy (54 FR 20903), 
and Singapore (54 FR 20907). On June 25, 2002, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative 
reviews of these orders (67 FR 42753).
    On October 23, 2002, the Department rescinded the following 
administrative reviews: INA-Schaeffler KG (INA) and Sachs Handel GmbH 
and ZF Sachs (collectively Sachs) with respect to ball bearings from 
Germany; SKF France S.A. with respect to spherical plain bearings from 
France; Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., with respect to ball bearings 
from the United Kingdom. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al: Partial and Full 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 65089 
(Oct. 23, 2002).
    Subsequent to the publication of our rescission notice, we received 
withdrawals of the requests we had received for reviews of Ringball 
Corporation (France, Germany, and Italy) with respect to BBs. Because 
there were no other requests for review of the above-named firm and no 
other interested party objected, we are rescinding the reviews with 
respect to this company in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d).

Scope of Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts 
thereof (BBs). 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) 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 Memorandum) from the Antifriction 
Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated April 1, 2002, and hereby 
adopted by this notice. The Scope Memorandum 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 01/02 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, Room B-099. We will 
also be verifying certain companies (SKF France, SKF Germany, and SNR) 
shortly after

[[Page 6405]]

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 Torrington 
Nadellager. The firm did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire 
and, consequently, we find that it has not provided ``information that 
has been requested by the administering authority'' under section 
776(a)(1) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are making an 
adverse inference in our application of the facts available. This is 
appropriate because Torrington Nadellager has not acted to the best of 
its ability in providing us with relevant information which is under 
its control. As adverse facts available for this firm, we have applied 
the highest rate we have calculated for any company under review in any 
segment of the relevant proceedings on BBs from Germany. We have 
selected this rate because it is sufficiently high as to reasonably 
assure that Torrington Nadellager does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate. Specifically, this rate is 70.41 
percent.
    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 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA), 
provides that the word ``corroborate'' means that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 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 (Nov. 
6, 1996) (Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan), in 
order 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 (Feb. 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, 216 
F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2000), we also examine whether 
information on the record would support the selected rates as 
reasonable facts available.
    We find that the 70.41 percent rate which we are using for these 
preliminary results does have probative value. We compared the selected 
margins to margins calculated on individual sales of the merchandise in 
question made by German 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 rate under consideration. The details of this analysis 
are contained in the analysis memorandum for Torrington Nadellager 
dated January 31, 2003. This evidence supports an inference that the 
selected rate reflects the actual dumping margin for the firm in 
question.
    Furthermore, there is no information on the record that 
demonstrates that the rate we have selected is an inappropriate total 
adverse facts-available rate for the company in question. On the 
contrary, our existing record supports the use of this rate as the best 
indication of the export price and dumping margin for this firm as 
explained in our January 31, 2003, memorandum. Therefore, we consider 
the selected rate to have probative value with respect to the firm in 
question in this review and to reflect the appropriate adverse 
inference.

Intent to Revoke

    On May 31, 2002, Paul Mueller requested the revocation of the order 
covering BBs from Germany as it pertains to its sales of these 
bearings.
    Under section 751 of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, in whole 
or in part'' an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review. 
Although 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 set forth under 19 CFR 351.222. Under 
subsection 351.222(b), the Department may revoke an antidumping duty 
order in part if it concludes that: (i) An exporter or producer has 
sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at 
least three consecutive years; (ii) the exporter or producer has agreed 
in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order if the Secretary 
concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, 
sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value; and (iii) the 
continued application of the antidumping duty order is no longer 
necessary to offset dumping. Subsection 351.222(b)(3) states that, in 
the case of an exporter that is not the producer of subject 
merchandise, the Department normally will revoke an order in part under 
subsection 351.222(b)(2) only with respect to subject merchandise 
produced or supplied by those companies that supplied the exporter 
during the time period that formed the basis for revocation.
    A request for revocation of an order in part must address three 
elements. The company requesting the revocation must do so in writing 
and submit the following statements with the request: (1) The company's 
certification that it sold the subject merchandise at not less than 
normal value during the current review period and that, in the future, 
it will not sell at less than normal value; (2) the company's 
certification that, during each of the consecutive years forming the 
basis of the request, it sold the subject merchandise to the United 
States in commercial quantities; (3) the agreement to reinstatement in 
the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to 
revocation, has sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value. 
See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    We preliminarily determine that the request from Paul Mueller meets 
all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). With regard to the 
criteria of subsection

[[Page 6406]]

351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations show that this firm 
sold BBs at not less than normal value during the current review 
period. See dumping margins below. In addition, it sold BBs at not less 
than normal value in the two previous administrative reviews in which 
it was involved. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation of Orders in 
Part, 65 FR 49219 (Aug. 11, 2000), covering the period May 1, 1998, 
through April 30, 1999, and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 
France, et al; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
and Revocation of Orders in Part, 67 FR 55780 (Aug. 30, 2002), covering 
the period May 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001. Based on our 
examination of the sales data submitted by Paul Mueller, we 
preliminarily determine that Paul Mueller sold the subject merchandise 
in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the 
consecutive years cited by Paul Mueller to support its request for 
revocation, including the intervening unreviewed years. See preliminary 
results calculation memorandum for Paul Mueller, dated January 31, 
2003, which is in the Department's CRU, Room B-099. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that Paul Mueller had zero or de minimis dumping 
margins for its last three administrative reviews and sold in 
commercial quantities in all years, including the unreviewed 
intervening years. Also, we preliminarily determine that application of 
the antidumping order to Paul Mueller is no longer warranted for the 
following reasons: (1) the company had zero or de minimis margins for a 
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed 
to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it 
has resumed making sales at less than fair value; and (3) the continued 
application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Paul Mueller qualifies 
for revocation of the order on BBs pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and 
that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by 
Paul Mueller should be revoked.
    If these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we 
will revoke this order in part for Paul Mueller and, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation 
for any of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 1, 2002, and will 
instruct Customs to refund any cash deposits for such entries.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price or 
constructed export price (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 
10,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States of 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: 
May 27 June 2, 2001; August 19 25, 2001; September 16 22, 2001; 
December 2 8, 2001; February 17 23, 2002; and March 24 30, 2002. 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, which includes 
commissions, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, and 
U.S. repacking expenses. 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 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 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 
all firms the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value 
of the subject merchandise. Also, for those 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. See analysis memoranda for SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF 
Italy, FAG Germany, Paul Mueller, and NMB/Pelmec dated January 31, 
2003. 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. 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

[[Page 6407]]

proper comparison, we determined 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.
    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 10,000 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 April, 
May, August, September, and December of 2001, and February, March, and 
June of 2002.
    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 ball 
bearings sold by SNR, SKF France, SKF Italy, Paul Mueller, and SKF 
Germany (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From France, et al; Final Results of Administrative 
Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part, 65 FR 49219, 49221 (Aug. 11, 
2000), or Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From France, et al: Final Results of Administrative 
Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part, 67 FR 55780, 55781 (Aug. 30, 
2002)), 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.
    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 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.
    With respect to adjustments for differences in payment terms and 
for inventory credit expenses, Paul Mueller claimed that it did not 
have any short-term borrowings in the United States upon which to base 
a short-term borrowing rate and used a prime lending rate. The record 
indicates, however, that a wholly owned subsidiary of Paul Mueller did 
have a short-term borrowing rate in the United States and we used this 
rate to calculate credit for all U.S. sales made by Paul Mueller. See 
analysis memorandum for Paul Mueller dated January 31, 2003.
    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.

[[Page 6408]]

    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.
    We found that NMB/Pelmec reported a small number of U.S. models for 
which it did not report CV data. We will obtain additional information 
to allow us to consider these transactions for our final results of 
administrative review. See analysis memorandum for NMB/Pelmec dated 
January 31, 2003.

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, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 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 January 31, 
2003, 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, 2001, through April 30, 2002:

                                 FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNR Roulements..........................................            3.49
SKF.....................................................            5.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG............................................................     1.44
Torrington.....................................................    70.41
Paul Mueller...................................................     0.19
SKF............................................................     3.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG............................................................     2.86
SKF............................................................     5.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                SINGAPORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB/Pelmec.....................................................     1.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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......................................                March 17, 2003                March 24, 2003
France..............................................                March 18, 2003                March 25, 2003
Germany.............................................                March 19, 2003                March 26, 2003
Italy...............................................                March 20, 2003                March 27, 2003
Singapore...........................................                March 21, 2003                March 28, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 6409]]

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. In order to 
derive a single weighted-average margin 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 (Jul. 26, 1993). 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 (Dec. 17, 1996). These rates are the ``All Others'' 
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: January 31, 2003.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-3090 Filed 2-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S