[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11357-11361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-804]


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review, and Notice of Intent To Rescind Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review, partial rescission of administrative review, and 
notice of intent to rescind administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan. 
The review covers six manufacturers/exporters and the period 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 this review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, 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 this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733; Thomas 
Schauer (Koyo), Lyn Johnson (NTN), David Dirstine (NPBS), Dmitry 
Vladimirov (Sapporo), Catherine Cartsos (Taisei Trading Company), 
Kristin Case (NSK), Mark Ross, or Richard Rimlinger.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from 
Japan (54 FR 20904). On June 25, 2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative 
review of this order (67 FR 42753).
    On October 23, 2002, the Department rescinded the administrative 
review with respect to Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., and Nachi-Fujikoshi 
Corporation with respect to ball bearings from Japan. 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).
    On August 9, 2002, we received a timely withdrawal of the request 
for review of Shinyei Kaisha from Japan. Because there were no other 
requests for review of this firm, we are rescinding the review with 
respect to this company in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d). The 
Department inadvertently neglected to include this firm in its October 
23, 2002, notice.
    We also initiated administrative reviews of Kitanihon Seiko, Co. 
Ltd., Sapporo Precision, Inc., and Sanbi Co., Ltd. In response to our 
questionnaires to these three entities, we received one consolidated 
response in which the companies explained their affiliations with one 
another. Given these affiliations, we have calculated a single weighted 
average margin for their sales in the United States and refer to them 
collectively as ``Sapporo'' throughout this notice. See analysis 
memorandum dated March 3, 2003, for a more detailed explanation.
    We intend to rescind the administrative reviews we initiated of 
Jiro Okayama, Eisho Trading Co., Ltd., and Phoenix International 
Corporation (collectively ``Japanese trading companies'') with respect 
to subject merchandise from Japan. These Japanese trading companies 
informed us that, although they are the resellers of Japanese-
manufactured ball bearings, their suppliers knew at the time of sale 
that the merchandise was destined for exportation to the United States. 
If in fact the suppliers had knowledge that

[[Page 11358]]

the sales they made to these trading companies were destined for 
exportation to the United States, then the suppliers would be the 
proper parties to an administrative review since their sales would be 
the point in the sales chain at which merchandise ``is first sold (or 
agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or 
exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States * * *'' pursuant to 
section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    Although another firm, Taisei Industries, Ltd. (Taisei), claimed 
that its suppliers ``generally'' have knowledge at the time of sale to 
Taisei that the ball bearings were destined for exportation to the 
United States, information on the record indicates that one of Taisei's 
suppliers did not know that the merchandise was being exported to the 
United States. Therefore, we have preliminarily included these sales in 
our administrative review of Taisei. We will seek further clarification 
concerning Taisei's sales to the United States and the knowledge of its 
suppliers concerning the ultimate disposition of the ball bearings 
prior to completing our final results of review.
    On January 31, 2003, the Department extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results of this review to March 3, 2003. See Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof from Japan; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 
6113 (Feb. 6, 2003).

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are ball bearings and parts 
thereof. These products include all antifriction bearings 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 order, 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 review.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
proceeding remains 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.

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 subject 
merchandise, 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 Statements 
of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 823-824 (1994), 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. For NPBS, 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 sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 
person 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

[[Page 11359]]

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 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 Koyo, NSK, and NTN dated February 28, 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.
    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, and 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 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, 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 Koyo, NPBS, NSK, and NTN (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 by these companies of the foreign like 
product under consideration for the determination of normal value in 
this review 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, 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 our questionnaire, 
a bearing family consists of all ball bearings 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

[[Page 11360]]

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 home-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 
home-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 March 3, 
2003, on file in the CRU, Room B-099.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings from Japan 
for the period May 1, 2001, through April 30, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo.......................................................         4.95
NTN........................................................        10.47
NPBS.......................................................         6.17
Sapporo....................................................         7.59
NSK, Ltd...................................................         2.68
Taisei.....................................................        35.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a 
hearing within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice. If 
requested, a hearing will be held at the main Commerce Department 
building at a time and location to be determined.
    Issues raised in a hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), 
interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Furthermore, as discussed in 19 CFR 
351.309(d), rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in 
the case briefs, may be filed within 5 days after the time limit for 
filing the case brief. Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding 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.
    We are also conducting administrative reviews of the orders on ball 
bearings from other countries. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 
France, et al.: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews, and Notice of 
Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 6404 (Feb. 7, 2003). Parties in 
the Japan-specific review who wish to raise general issues affecting 
all ongoing reviews of ball bearings from various countries should meet 
the following schedule regarding requests for a general issues hearing 
and briefs:

Request for Hearing: March 17, 2003
Case Briefs: March 24, 2003
Rebuttal Briefs: March 31, 2003

    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. The Department will issue final 
results of this review 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 during the review period.

Constructed Export Price Sales

    For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total 
dumping

[[Page 11361]]

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 
during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each respondent (i.e., each 
exporter and/or manufacturer included in this review), 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 
review for all shipments of ball bearings from Japan 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 review; (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 45.83 percent, the ``All Others'' rate 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.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 3, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-5635 Filed 3-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P