[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 44 (Friday, March 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10424-10428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5008]



[[Page 10424]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
2002-2003 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 2002-2003 administrative 
review and partial rescission of the review.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China, were not made below normal value during the period 
June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003. We are also rescinding the review, 
in part, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries 
of tapered roller bearings from Shanghai United Bearing Co., Ltd. 
without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2004.

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

Background

    On June 15, 1987, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register (52 FR 22667) the antidumping duty 
order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and 
unfinished (``TRBs''), from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). 
The Department notified interested parties of the opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order on June 2, 2003 (68 FR 
32727). The period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 2002, through May 31, 
2003. On June 19, 2003, Shanghai United Bearing Co., Ltd. (``SUB'') 
requested an administrative review. On June 20, 2003, Peer Bearing 
Company--Changshan (``CPZ'') requested an administrative review. On 
June 30, 2003, Yantai Timken Co., Ltd. (``Yantai Timken'') requested an 
administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we 
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on July 29, 2003 (68 FR 44524).
    On August 6, 2003, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary General 
of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for Import & 
Export of Machinery and Electronics Products and requested that the 
questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in our 
initiation notice and to any subsidiary companies of the named 
companies that produce and/or export the subject merchandise. In this 
letter, we also requested information relevant to the issue of whether 
the companies named in the initiation notice are independent from 
government control. See the ``Separate Rates Determination'' section, 
below. On August 6, 2003, courtesy copies of the questionnaire were 
also sent to companies with legal representation.
    On August 20, 2003, Yantai Timken requested that the Department 
rescind its administrative review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 
because Yantai Timken withdrew its request for review within 90 days of 
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of this review and 
no other party requested a review of this company, we are rescinding 
the administrative review of Yantai Timken.
    We received responses to the questionnaire in August, September, 
and October 2003 from CPZ and SUB. We sent out supplemental 
questionnaires to CPZ and SUB in December 2003, and received responses 
to these supplemental questionnaires from both companies in December 
2003.
    On January 21, 2004, CPZ withdrew its request for an administrative 
review. Although CPZ's withdrawal was submitted to the Department after 
the 90 day deadline provided by 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), this section of 
the Department's regulations permits the Department to extend the time 
limit for rescission of administrative review if ``it is reasonable to 
do so.'' As no other party requested a review of CPZ, and the 
Department has not yet devoted extensive time and resources to this 
review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the 
administrative review of CPZ. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, 
``Partial Rescission of Review,'' dated January 29, 2004, which is on 
file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), which is 
located in Room B-099 of the main Department building.

Scope of the Review

    Merchandise covered by this review includes TRBs and parts thereof, 
finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and 
hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller 
housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or 
without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise 
is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 
8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 
8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') 
country in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), any 
determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the Department. None of the parties to this proceeding 
has contested such treatment in this review. Moreover, parties to this 
proceeding have not argued that the TRB industry in the PRC is a 
market-oriented industry. Therefore, we are treating the PRC as an NME 
country within the meaning of section 773(c) of the Act.
    We allow companies in NME countries to receive separate antidumping 
duty rates for purposes of assessment and cash deposits when those 
companies can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to export activities. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative 
Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 
2003). To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). As shown below, 
SUB meets both the de jure and de facto criteria and is entitled, 
therefore, to a separate rate.

[[Page 10425]]

Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to apply a rate separate from 
the PRC rate to SUB.

De Jure Analysis

    The Department considers three factors that support, though do not 
require, a finding of de jure absence of governmental control. These 
factors include: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any 
other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    During the POR, SUB was a foreign-joint venture formed under the 
laws of the PRC and controlled by a board of directors. SUB is a joint 
venture with majority interest held by a PRC company (that is not a 
state-owned enterprise) and minority interest held by a U.S. company.
    SUB submitted documents on the record that it claims demonstrates 
the absence of de jure governmental control, including ``Foreign Trade 
Law of the People's Republic of China'' (``Foreign Trade Law''), 
``Company Law of the PRC'' (``Company Law''), and the ``Administrative 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the 
Registration of Legal Corporations'' (``Administrative Regulations''). 
See SUB's August 26, 2003, submission at Exhibit 2. In prior TRB cases, 
the Department has analyzed similar PRC laws and regulations, and found 
that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 
66 FR 59569 (November 29, 2001).
    The Foreign Trade Law grants autonomy to foreign trade operators in 
management decisions and establishes accountability for their own 
profits and losses. In prior cases, the Department has analyzed the 
Foreign Trade Law and found that it establishes an absence of de jure 
control. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995); Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). We have no 
new information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider 
this determination.
    The Company Law is designed to meet the PRC's needs of establishing 
a modern enterprise system, and to maintain social and economic order. 
The Department has noted that the Company Law supports an absence of de 
jure control because of its emphasis on the responsibility of each 
company for its own profits and losses, thereby decentralizing control 
of companies. See Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review 68 FR 40244, 40245 (July 7, 2003) (``Apple Juice 
Preliminary Results'').
    As noted in Apple Juice Preliminary Results, the Administrative 
Regulations also safeguard social and economic order and established an 
administrative system for the registration of corporations. The 
Department has reviewed the Administrative Regulations and concluded 
that they show an absence of de jure control by requiring companies to 
bear civil liabilities independently, thereby decentralizing control of 
companies. See Apple Juice Preliminary Results, 68 FR at 40245.
    Moreover, according to SUB, TRB exports are not affected by quota 
allocations or export license requirements. The Department has examined 
the record in this case and does not find any evidence that TRB exports 
are affected by quota allocations or export license requirements. By 
contrast, the evidence on the record demonstrates that the producer/
exporter has the autonomy to set the price at whatever level it wishes 
through independent price negotiations with its foreign customers and 
without government interference. The business license issued to SUB 
authorizes the company to manufacture and sell bearings as outlined in 
the business scope section of the license.
    Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of 
de jure government control over export pricing and marketing decisions 
of the respondent.

De Facto Analysis

    The Department uses four factors to determine de facto absence of 
government control over export activities: (1) Whether each exporter 
sets its own export prices independently of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) 
whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts 
and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from 
the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    SUB asserted that it establishes its own export prices. The board 
of directors of SUB controls the company and chooses the general 
manager. Other high-level officials are selected within the company. 
SUB's sources of funds are its own revenues or bank loans. SUB retains 
sole control over, and access to, its bank accounts, which are held in 
SUB's own name. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on the use of 
the respondent's revenues or profits, including export earnings. SUB's 
general manager has the right to negotiate and enter into contracts, 
and may delegate this authority to other employees within the company. 
There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of 
governmental approval. See SUB's August 26, 2003 submission, at pages 
A-2 through A-11.
    Based on the record evidence in this case, the Department notes 
that SUB: (1) Establishes its own export prices; (2) negotiates 
contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) makes its own personnel decisions; (4) retains the 
proceeds from export sales and uses profits according to its business 
needs without any restrictions; and (5) does not coordinate or consult 
with other exporters regarding pricing decisions.
    The information on the record supports a preliminary finding that 
there is an absence of de facto governmental control of the export 
functions of SUB. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that SUB has 
met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

Export Price

    For all sales made by SUB to the United States, we used export 
price (``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because 
the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States prior to importation into the United States and because 
the CEP methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
    We calculated EP based on the CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers. 
From these prices we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine 
insurance. We valued the deductions for foreign inland freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling using surrogate data, which were based 
on Indian freight costs. (We selected

[[Page 10426]]

India as the surrogate country for the reasons explained in the 
``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below.) As the marine 
insurance and ocean freight were provided by PRC-owned companies, we 
valued the deductions using surrogate value data (amounts charged by 
market-economy providers).

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (``NV'') for NME countries using a factors-of-
production (``FOP'') methodology if: (1) The subject merchandise is 
exported from an NME country, and (2) the Department finds that the 
available information does not permit the calculation of NV under 
section 773(a) of the Act. We have no basis to determine that the 
available information would permit the calculation of NV using PRC 
prices or costs. Therefore, we calculated NV based on factors data in 
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.408(c).
    Under the FOP methodology, we are required to value, to the extent 
possible, the NME producer's inputs in a market-economy country that is 
at a comparable level of economic development and that is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. We chose India as the primary 
surrogate country on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 
351.408(b). See the October 16, 2003, Memorandum to File: ``Requests 
for Surrogate Values,'' which includes the September 2, 2003, 
Memorandum to John Brinkmann from Ron Lorentzen: ``Antidumping 
Administrative Review on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Request 
for a List of Surrogate Countries'' and the March 1, 2004, Memorandum 
to John Brinkmann: ``Selection of a Surrogate Country and Steel Value 
Sources'' (``Steel Values Memorandum'') for a further discussion of our 
surrogate selection. (Both memoranda are on file in the CRU.) However, 
where we were unable to find suitable Indian data to value factors of 
production, we have valued these inputs using public information on the 
record for Indonesia, one of the comparable economies identified by the 
Office of Policy. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003) and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China: Amended Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review, 68 FR 
75489 (December 31, 2003) (collectively, ``TRBs XV'').
    We used publicly available information from India and Indonesia to 
value the various factors. Pursuant to the Department's FOP 
methodology, we valued the respondent's reported factors of production 
by multiplying them by the values described below. For a complete 
description of the factor values used, see the Memorandum to John 
Brinkmann: ``Factors of Production Values Used for the Preliminary 
Results,'' dated March 1, 2004, which is on file in the Department's 
CRU.
    1. Steel and Scrap. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the 
production of cups and cones, we used an adjusted weighted-average of 
Japanese export values to Indonesia from the Japanese Harmonized 
Schedule (``HS'') category 7228.30.900 obtained from official Japan 
Ministry of Finance statistics. We adjusted this data to include costs 
incurred for ocean freight and marine insurance. This is the same 
valuation methodology used in TRBs XV and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of 2000-2001 Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission of Review, and Determination to Revoke Order, in Part, 67 FR 
68990 (November 14, 2002) and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Amended Final Results of 2000-2001 Administrative Review, 67 FR 72147 
(December 4, 2002) (collectively, ``TRBs XIV''). For cold-rolled steel 
rods used in the production of rollers, we used Indonesian import data 
under tariff subheading 7228.50.0000 obtained from the World Trade 
Atlas (Statistics Indonesia). For cold-rolled steel sheet used in the 
production of cages, we used Indian import data under Indian tariff 
subheading 7209.1600 obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II--Imports and the World Trade Atlas. For 
further discussion of selection of steel value sources, see Steel 
Values Memorandum.
    As in previous administrative reviews (see e.g., TRBs XIV), in this 
proceeding, we eliminated from our calculation steel imports from NME 
countries and imports from market economy countries that were made in 
small quantities. For steel used in the production of cups, cones, and 
rollers, we also excluded as necessary imports from countries that do 
not produce bearing-quality steel (see, e.g., TRBs XIII). We made 
adjustments to the import values to include freight costs using the 
shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to 
the PRC respondent or the domestic supplier to the PRC respondent. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 51410 
(October 1, 1997); Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 
(Fed. Cir. 1997); Sigma Corporation v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 2d 
1344, 1348 (CIT 2000).
    We valued steel scrap recovered from the production of cups, cones, 
and rollers using Indian import statistics from Indian HAS category 
7204.2909 (``Others''), which was renumbered 7204.2990 as of April 
2003. We relied on both HS numbers in our calculation. Scrap recovered 
from the production of cages was valued using import data from Indian 
HS category 7204.4100. This Indian trade data was obtained from the 
World Trade Atlas. For further discussion of our calculations of these 
values, see Steel Values Memorandum.
    2. Labor. Section 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's 
regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. We have 
used the regression-based wage rate available on Import 
Administration's internet Web site at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.
    3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead, 
selling, general, administrative expenses, and profit, we used 
information contemporaneous to the POR (e.g., fiscal year 2002-2003) 
obtained from the annual reports of three Indian bearing producers. We 
calculated factory overhead and selling, general, and administrative 
expenses as percentages of direct inputs and applied these ratios to 
the PRC respondent's direct input costs. These expenses were calculated 
exclusive of labor and electricity, but included employer provident 
funds and welfare expenses not reflected in the Department's regressed 
wage rate. This is consistent with the methodology we utilized in TRBs 
XV and TRBs XIV. For profit, we totaled the reported profit before 
taxes for two of the three Indian bearing producers and divided the 
resulting total by the total calculated cost of production (``COP'') of 
goods sold. Consistent with TRBs XV, we excluded from our profit 
calculation the Indian company that reported a loss. This percentage 
was applied to the respondent's total COP to derive a company-specific 
profit value.
    4. Packing. We calculated surrogate values for the packing 
materials reported by SUB (e.g., wooden pallet, plastic bag, steel 
strip) using import statistics reported in Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II--

[[Page 10427]]

Imports by Commodity. We multiplied these surrogate values by the 
reported usage factor to calculate SUB's packing costs.
    5. Electricity. We calculated the surrogate value for electricity 
based on an Indian electricity rate published in the Monthly Energy 
Review by the Energy Information Agency. Because this information is 
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the data to the POR using 
Indian wholesale price indices (``WPI'') published by the International 
Monetary Fund.
    6. Diesel Oil. We calculated the surrogate value for diesel oil 
based on the Indian high sulphur fuel oil for industry price published 
in Energy Prices & Taxes by the International Energy Agency. Because 
this information is not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the 
data to the POR using the Indian WPI.
    7. Foreign Inland Freight. To value truck freight rates, we used an 
average of trucking rates quoted in Indian Chemical Weekly. This data 
was contemporaneous to the POR.
    8. Brokerage and Handling. To value brokerage and handling, we used 
the public version of a U.S. sales listing reported in the 
questionnaire response submitted by Meltroll Engineering for Stainless 
Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative 
Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 2000). Because this information is not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the data to the POR by using 
the Indian WPI.
    9. Marine Insurance. Consistent with Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice 
Concentrate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of the 2001-2002 Administrative Review, and Final 
Results of the New Shipper Review, 68 FR 71062 (December 22, 2003), we 
calculated a value for marine insurance based on the CIF value of 
shipped TRBs based on a rate obtained by the Department through queries 
made directly to an international marine insurance provider. We 
adjusted this marine insurance rate to the POR using the U.S. purchase 
price indices as published by the International Monetary Fund.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists 
for the period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai United Bearing Co., Ltd...........................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the date 
of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs (see below). Interested parties may 
submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of 
filing the case briefs. Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings 
should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and 
a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case 
briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3).
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this 
review. We calculated an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem 
rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to that importer (or customer). In accordance with 
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), where an importer 
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is less than de minimis, we will 
direct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties. Where an 
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de 
minimis, and the entered value is not available, we will direct CBP to 
apply the resulting per-unit dollar assessment rate against each unit 
of merchandise in each of the importer's/customer's entries under the 
order during the review period. We will calculate the per unit 
assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margin (calculated as the 
difference between NV and EP) for the importer/customer by the total 
number of units sold to that importer/customer.
    All other entries of the subject merchandise during the POR will be 
liquidated at the antidumping duty rate in place at the time of entry.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the PRC company 
named above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for this firm 
established in the final results of this review, except if the exporter 
has a de minimis rate, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, then no deposit 
will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters 
with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific 
rate established for the most recent period during which they were 
reviewed; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC 
country-wide rate, which is 60.95 percent (the highest margin from the 
seventh administrative review of TRBs (1993-1994) pursuant the final 
results of redetermination on remand from the Court of International 
Trade, see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, signed on February 27, 
2004); and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the 
PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

[[Page 10428]]

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 1, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-5008 Filed 3-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P