[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 115 (Monday, June 16, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35623-35626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15148]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

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


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, and Singapore: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Determination 
Not To Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
reviews, rescission of administrative review in part, and determination 
not to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: On February 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping 
duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, 
Italy, and Singapore. On March 10, 2003, the Department of Commerce 
published the preliminary result of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on ball bearings from Japan. The reviews cover 
14 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is May 1, 2001, 
through April 30, 2002.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes, including corrections of certain programming and other 
clerical errors, in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final 
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average 
dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section 
entitled ``Final Results of the Reviews.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 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.

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.

Japan

    Thomas Schauer (Koyo), Lyn Johnson (NTN), David Dirstine (NPBS), 
Dmitry Vladimirov (Sapporo), Kristin Case (NSK), Mark Ross, or Richard 
Rimlinger.

Singapore

    Yang Jin Chun (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof (ball 
bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, and Singapore (68 FR 6404) 
(Preliminary Results for France, et al). On March 10, 2003, the 
Department published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings from Japan (68 FR 
11357) (Preliminary Results for Japan). The period of review (POR) is 
May 1, 2001, through April 30, 2002. We invited interested parties to 
comment on the preliminary results. At the request of certain parties, 
we held hearings for Germany-specific issues on April 2, 2003, and for 
Japan-specific issues on April 22, 2003. The Department has conducted 
these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews 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 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, the written descriptions of the scope of these 
proceedings remain dispositive.

Analysis of the Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
these concurrent administrative reviews of the

[[Page 35624]]

orders on ball bearings are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) from Laurie Parkhill, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, to Jeffrey May, Acting Assistant Secretary, dated 
June 9, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the 
issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of 
which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. This Decision Memo, which is a public document, is on file in 
the Central Records Unit (CRU), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and 
is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market

    The Department disregarded home-market sales that failed the cost-
of-production test for the following firms for these final results of 
reviews:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Country                              Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France.............................  SNR Roulements and SKF.
Germany............................  FAG, Paul Mueller, and SKF.
Italy..............................  FAG and SKF.
Japan..............................  Koyo, NTN, NPBS, and NSK.
Singapore..........................  NMB/Pelmec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information by the submission due date or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, significantly impedes a 
proceeding under the Act, or provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider submitted information that is necessary to the 
determination but not meeting all of the established requirements only 
if the information is submitted by the established deadline, the 
information can be verified, the information is not so incomplete that 
it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination, the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to 
the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the 
established requirements with respect to the information, and the 
information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Koyo's affiliates knew or had reason to know that their sales of 
ball bearings were destined for the United States, but Koyo did not 
report these sales in its original questionnaire response. Moreover, in 
a supplemental questionnaire dated January 31, 2003, we asked Koyo to 
``explain whether any of your affiliated resellers * * * sold ball 
bearings to distributors but had knowledge at the time of sale that the 
bearings were destined to the United States,'' and, if so, to ``report 
all such sales as U.S. sales and all expenses associated with such 
sales at this time.'' Koyo's response was that neither Koyo nor its 
affiliates knew or had reason to know at the time of sale that these 
ball bearings were destined to the United States, but the 
administrative record demonstrates otherwise. Therefore, we find that 
Koyo significantly impeded this proceeding by not reporting these sales 
and associated expenses as we requested. Because of Koyo's non-response 
to our inquiry, we do not have the data we need to calculate a margin 
on these U.S. sales. Therefore, we find it appropriate to rely on the 
facts available in order to establish a duty margin for the sales in 
question. Please see the Koyo Final Results Analysis Memorandum dated 
June 6, 2003 (Koyo Final Memo), for a complete description of the facts 
of this case. (Section 777(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits us from 
disclosing the proprietary business information demonstrating that the 
affiliated resellers knew or had reason to know at the time of sale 
that these ball bearings were destined to the United States in this 
notice.)
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. Because Koyo 
and its affiliates knew or had reason to know that the ultimate 
destination of their sales of ball bearings was the United States but 
did not report these sales in the response to our supplemental 
questionnaire, we have determined that Koyo has not acted to the best 
of its ability in reporting these sales. Therefore, we find it 
appropriate to use an adverse inference in establishing the antidumping 
margin applicable for these sales. As adverse facts available, we 
calculated the margins for these sales using a rate of 73.55 percent, 
which is the margin we calculated for Koyo in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation (see Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical 
Roller Bearings, and Spherical Plain Bearings, and Parts Thereof from 
Japan, 54 FR 20904-20905 (May 15, 1989)) and which we were able to 
corroborate. Because section 777(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits us from 
discussing the business proprietary information we used in our 
corroboration of this rate in this notice, please see the Koyo Final 
Memo for a complete description of our corroboration methodology.
    We also find that SKF France did not provide information we 
requested at verification, thus significantly impeding this proceeding 
we requested in our January 24, 2003, verification outline, which we 
issued to SKF France ten days prior to the verification, that SKF 
France ``have at hand all company records and worksheets used in 
responding to the questionnaire and supplemental requests.'' In it we 
also stated that we would ``review the computer programs [SKF France] 
used to identify the sales for reporting and explain the underlying 
methodology used to compile the home-market sales quantity and value 
reported in [SKF France's] submissions.''
    In addition, the verification outline indicated that, ``[i]f your 
client is not prepared to support or explain a response item at the 
appropriate time, then we will move on to another topic. If, due to 
time constraints, returning to that item is not possible, we may 
consider the item unverified. Furthermore, if information requested for 
verification is not supplied, or is unverified, pursuant to section 
776(a) of the Tariff Act (the Act), we may use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.''
    At verification, however, SKF France was unprepared to segregate 
sales of Sarma (an affiliated company within the SKF France entity) 
product by market, class, or kind of merchandise. Since SKF France did 
not provide the necessary information during the verification in the 
form and manner we requested, we find it appropriate to use partial 
facts available under section 776(a)(2) of the Act.
    We find it appropriate to apply adverse partial facts available 
also to SKF France because SKF France did not act to the best of its 
ability by not providing information we requested. We issued our 
verification outline to SKF France in a timely manner. SKF France 
selected Paris as the verification site and notified us only at the 
verification that the information that we requested was unavailable in 
Paris but was located at St. Vallier, France. See Verification of SKF 
France's Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France and Sarma's Home-
Market and Export Price Sales Data dated March 7, 2003. SKF France

[[Page 35625]]

explained to us that the requested information at its Sarma facility 
could not be transported to Paris for the purpose of verification. SKF 
France had ample opportunity to notify us in advance so we could plan a 
visit to these two locations for a further verification but it did not 
do so.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
adverse facts available information derived from the petition, a final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, any previous review, or 
any other information placed on the record. The statute does not 
provide a clear obligation or preference for relying on a particular 
source in choosing information to use as adverse facts available, but 
the Department may use as facts available a final determination in an 
less-than-fair-value proceeding even if the less-than-fair-value 
determination is based on the best information available (BIA). See 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden: Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18396, 18402 (April 15, 1997), and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 48181, 48183 (September 
9, 1998).
    For SKF France, we used the highest rate from a prior segment of 
the hearing, 66.42 percent, and applied it exclusively to Sarma's U.S. 
sales as adverse facts available. This rate was calculated for SKF 
France in the less-than-fair-value investigation. See Antidumping Duty 
Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Spherical Plain 
Bearings, and Parts Thereof from France, 54 FR 20902 (May 15, 1989). In 
this case, we were able to corroborate the 66.42 percent margin. 
Because section 777(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits us from discussing 
the business proprietary information we used in our corroboration of 
this rate in this notice, please see the SKF France Final Results 
Analysis Memorandum dated June 6, 2003, for a complete description of 
our corroboration methodology.

Other Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made revisions 
that have changed the results for certain firms. We have corrected 
programming and clerical errors in the preliminary results, where 
applicable. Any alleged programming or clerical errors about which we 
or the parties do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of 
the Decision Memo, which is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html and is on file in the CRU, Room B-099.

Final Results of the Reviews

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
on ball bearings exist for the period of May 1, 2001, through April 30, 
2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------
SNR Roulements.............................................         3.52
SKF........................................................        10.08
------------------------------------------------------------
                          GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------
FAG........................................................         1.45
Torrington.................................................        70.41
Paul Mueller...............................................         0.19
SKF........................................................         3.38
------------------------------------------------------------
                           ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------
FAG........................................................         2.87
SKF........................................................         5.08
------------------------------------------------------------
                           JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo.......................................................         4.98
NTN........................................................         4.51
NPBS.......................................................         4.21
Sapporo....................................................         5.97
NSK, Ltd...................................................         2.68
------------------------------------------------------------
                         SINGAPORE
------------------------------------------------------------
NMB/Pelmec.................................................         1.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rescission of the Review in Part

    In the Preliminary Results for Japan, we stated our intent 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 ball bearings from 
Japan. See 68 FR at 11357-58. We hereby affirm our preliminary findings 
regarding this matter and we are rescinding the reviews with respect to 
these Japanese trading companies in these final results.
    We are also rescinding the administrative review we initiated of 
Taisei Industries, Ltd. (Taisei). Since the preliminary results, Taisei 
has supplied information to the Department supporting its claim that 
its suppliers had knowledge at the time of sale to Taisei that their 
ball bearings were destined for exportation to the United States. 
Subsequently, we find that Taisei is not the proper party to review 
with respect to the sales in question. Therefore, we are also 
rescinding the administrative review with respect to sales made by 
Taisei.
    The discussion of issues and comments pertaining to these trading 
companies is contained in the ``Resellers'' section of the Decision 
Memo, which is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html and is on file in the CRU, Room B-009.

Revocation of Order in Part

    In the Preliminary Results for France, et al, we stated our intent 
to revoke the order on ball bearings from Germany in part with respect 
to Paul Mueller. See 68 FR at 6405-06. We find that, because Paul 
Mueller did not sell ball bearings to the United States in commercial 
quantities during the first period for which we conducted an 
administrative review (1998-1999), the regulatory requirement for 
revocation has not been satisfied. See 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1). 
Accordingly, we reverse our preliminary intent to revoke the order in 
part with respect to Paul Mueller and are not revoking the antidumping 
duty order in part with respect to Paul Mueller in these final results 
of review.
    The discussion of issues and comments pertaining to our decision 
not to revoke is contained in the ``Revocation'' section of the 
Decision Memo, which is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html and is on file in the CRU, Room B-009.

Assessment Rate

    The Department will determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (Customs), formerly known as the U.S. Customs 
Service, shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
We will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs 
within 15 days of publication of these final results of reviews. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever 
possible, an exporter/importer-specific assessment rate or value for 
subject merchandise.

a. Export Price

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

b. Constructed Export Price

    For constructed export-price (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

[[Page 35626]]

importer. We will direct Customs 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(b)(1).

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 of that 
company's sales of merchandise during the review period subject to each 
order.
    To derive a single deposit rate for each respondent, we weight-
averaged the EP and CEP deposit rates (using the EP 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 EP and CEP sales by the combined total value for both 
EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate.
    We will direct Customs to collect the resulting percentage deposit 
rate against the entered customs value of each of the exporter's 
entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice. 
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 this notice of final results of administrative 
reviews for all shipments of ball bearings 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 shown above except that, 
for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis, the Department will not require a deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties; (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 original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation 
but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 
established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers 
or exporters will continue to be the ``All Others'' rate for the 
relevant order made effective by the final results of review published 
on July 26, 1993. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an 
Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993). These ``All 
Others'' rates are the ``All Others'' rates from the relevant LTFV 
investigation.
    These deposits requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative reviews.
    This notice serves as a 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 these review periods. 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.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the 
return of destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO are sanctionable violations.
    We are issuing and publishing these determinations in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: June 9, 2003.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Comments and Responses

1. Model Matching
2. Margin-Calculation Methodology
3. CV Profit
4. Price Adjustments
    A. Direct and Indirect Selling Expenses
    B. Discounts and Rebates
    C. CEP Profit
5. Level of Trade
6. Sample Sales, Prototype Sales, and Sales Outside the Ordinary 
Course of Trade
7. Movement Expenses
8. Cost Issues
9. Miscellaneous
    A. Facts Available
    B. Separate Assessment Rates
    C. Revocation
    D. Arm's-Length Test
    E. Resellers

[FR Doc. 03-15148 Filed 6-13-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P