[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13078-13080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3619]



[[Page 13078]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-412-801, A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
Pursuant to Final Court Decisions

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 19, 2005, in response to its action in SNR 
Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip 
Op. 05-67 (June 13, 2005), the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
remand redetermination concerning the final assessment rates for the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on antifriction 
bearings and parts thereof (AFBs) from France. On October 28, 2005, in 
response to its actions in NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. 
United States, Court No. 97-10-01800 (July 7, 2005), and FAG Italia 
S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Court No. 97-02-00260-S (July 7, 2005), 
the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination concerning the 
final assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and Italy. On November 4, 
2005, in response to its action in FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et 
al. v. United States, Court No. 97-02-00260 (July 7, 2005), the CIT 
affirmed the Department's remand redetermination concerning the final 
assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty 
orders on AFBs from Germany.
    On April 27, 2001, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
redetermination with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs 
from France. See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 97-02-00269-S1, Slip. Op. 01-54 (April 27, 2001). On December 21, 
2000, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination with 
respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the United Kingdom. 
See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-
00217, Slip Op. 00-168 (December 21, 2000). The periods covered by 
these administrative reviews are May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, 
and May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996. The merchandise covered by 
these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical 
roller bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical plain bearings 
and parts thereof (SPBs). Because the time period for filing an appeal 
has expired and there are now final and conclusive court decisions in 
these actions, we are amending our final results of the reviews and we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries 
subject to these reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3174 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 15, 1997, the Department published Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 
1997), as amended by Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 14391 (March 26, 1997) (collectively 
AFBs 6). On October 17, 1997, the Department published Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 62 FR 54043 (October 17, 1997), as amended by Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 61963 (November 20, 1997) (collectively 
AFBs 7). The periods of review for AFBs 6 and AFBs 7 are May 1, 1994, 
through April 30, 1995, and May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996, 
respectively. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these 
reviews are BBs, CRBs, and SPBs.
    The AFBs 6 respondents involved in the litigation are as follows:
    [ast] FAG Italia S.p.A. and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively 
FAG Italy)
    [ast] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG and FAG Bearings 
Corporation (collectively FAG Germany)
    [ast] INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. 
(collectively INA Germany)
    [ast] NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. and RHP Bearings Ltd. (collectively 
NSK/RHP)
    [ast] NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing 
Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany)
    [ast] SNR Roulements (SNR France)
    [ast] SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF 
France)
    [ast] SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany)
    [ast] SKF Industrie S.p.A. and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF 
Italy)
    The AFBs 7 respondents involved in the litigation are as follows:
    [ast] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG and FAG Bearings 
Corporation (collectively FAG Germany)
    [ast] INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. 
(collectively INA Germany)
    [ast] NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing 
Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany)
    [ast] SNR Roulements (SNR France)
    [ast] SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF 
France)
    [ast] SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany)

AFBs 6 from Germany and Italy / AFBs 7 from France and Germany

    In each of these proceedings, the Department had completed previous 
remand redeterminations:
    [ast] FAG Italia, S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 00-154 (November 21, 2000) (remanding AFBs 6 
with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Italy and 
instructing the Department to: (1) Attempt to match FAG's and SKF's 
U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to constructed 
value (CV); (2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by 
consideration from FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales databases; (3) include 
all expenses in ``total United expenses'' in the calculation of ``total 
expenses'' for FAG's constructed export-price (CEP) profit ratio; (4) 
remove the circumstance-of- sale adjustment for certain advertising 
expenses from FAG's normal value (NV); (5) reconsider the decision to 
calculate SKF's home-market credit-rate expense based upon price and 
then apply the rate to cost; and (6) re-examine the programming 
language used to make certain foreign-currency conversions)
    [ast] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 01-13 (February

[[Page 13079]]

2, 2001) (remanding AFBs 6 with respect to the antidumping duty orders 
on AFBs from Germany and instructing the Department to: 1) attempt to 
match FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before 
resorting to CV; 2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by 
consideration from FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales databases; 3) include all 
expenses in ``total United States expenses'' in the calculation of 
``total expenses'' for FAG's and INA's CEP-profit ratio; 4) reconsider 
the decision to calculate SKF's home-market credit-rate expense based 
upon price and then apply the rate to cost; and 5) convert certain 
expenses from the foreign currency in calculating export price and CEP 
for INA)
    [ast] SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-
10-01825, Slip Op. 00-131 (October 13, 2000) (remanding AFBs 7 with 
respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France and 
instructing the Department to (1) annul all findings and conclusions 
made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry and (2) include all 
expenses included in ``total United States expenses'' in the 
calculation of ``total expenses'' for SNR)
    [ast] NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-10-01800, Slip Op. 01-76 (June 22, 2001) (remanding AFBs 7 
with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and 
instructing the Department to: (1) Annul all findings and conclusions 
made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry; (2) attempt to match U.S. 
sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to CV; (3) 
reconsider the Department's decision to deny INA's downward home-market 
billing adjustments; (4) clarify how the Department complied with 
sections 776 and 782 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
for using facts available and applying an adverse inference and, if 
appropriate, give INA the opportunity to remedy or explain any 
deficiency regarding its alleged sample sales; and (5) include all 
expenses included in ``total United States expenses'' in the 
calculation of ``total expenses'' for INA)
    Although each remand redetermination involved multiple issues, the 
Department's methodology for calculating profit for CEP sales was a 
subject of each remand. Specifically, the CIT directed the Department 
to include all expenses included in ``total United States expenses'' in 
the calculation of ``total expenses'' when computing the CEP-profit 
rate. In each proceeding, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
results in their entirety. See SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 01-17 (February 23, 2001); FAG 
Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 01-107 (August 20, 2001); FAG Italia 
S.p.A. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 01-
108 (August 20, 2001); NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800, Slip Op. 01-136 (November 
27, 2001).
    The Department appealed the CIT's decisions concerning the 
Department's CEP-profit calculation methodology. The United States 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) determined that the CIT 
had erred in its decision that the Department was required to include 
imputed credit and inventory carrying costs in ``total expenses'' when 
they were included in ``total United States expenses.'' The CAFC 
reversed the CIT and remanded the cases with the instructions that 
respondents be provided an opportunity to make a showing that their 
dumping margins were determined wrongly because the Department's use of 
actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying 
costs in the calculation of total expenses. See SNR Roulements et al. 
v. United States, 402 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and FAG Italia 
S.p.A. v. United States, 402 F.3d 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 
(consolidated appeal). The CIT remanded the proceedings and directed 
the Department to allow respondents an opportunity to show that their 
margins were determined incorrectly because the Department's use of 
actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying 
costs. SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-
01825, Slip Op. 05-67 (June 13, 2005); FAG Kugelfischer Georg 
Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260 
(July 7, 2005); FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-02-00260-S (July 7, 2005); NTN Bearing Corporation of 
America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800 (July 7, 
2005). Because none of the respondents made the required showing, the 
Department determined that it had used actual expenses as a measure of 
total expenses in the CEP-profit calculation accurately. In each of the 
proceedings, the CIT affirmed the remand results. SNR Roulements et al. 
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 05-136 
(October 19, 2005); FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 05-143 (November 
4, 2005); FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 05-140 (October 28, 2005); NTN Bearing 
Corporation of America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-
10-01800, Slip Op. 05-141 (October 28, 2005).

AFBs 6 from France

    On October 11, 2000, the CIT remanded AFBs 6 with respect to the 
antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France to the Department. See SKF 
USA Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00269-S1, 
Slip Op. 00-128 (October 11, 2000). The CIT instructed the Department 
to: (1) Reconsider its decision to calculate SKF's home-market credit 
expense based upon price and then apply that rate to cost; (2) exclude 
any transactions that were not supported by consideration from SKF's 
U.S. sales database and to adjust the dumping margins accordingly; (3) 
first attempt to match SKF's U.S. sales to similar home-market sales 
before resorting to CV; (4) assign the correct level-of-trade code for 
SKF's export-price sales; (5) determine whether SKF's billing 
adjustment two is insignificant within the meaning of section 777A of 
the Act; (6) reconsider the treatment of depreciation expenses incurred 
in France in calculating CEP for SNR. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed 
the Department's remand redetermination. See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00269-S1, Slip. Op. 01-54 (April 
27, 2001).

AFBs 6 from the United Kingdom

    On May 27, 1997, the CIT granted NSK/RHP's motion for an expedited 
remand to correct clerical errors and the Department's cross-motion for 
leave to correct an additional clerical error and remanded AFBs 6 with 
respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the United Kingdom. 
See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-
00217, Slip Op. 97-63 (May 27, 1997). The CIT instructed the Department 
to: (1) Calculate credit for CV separately by class of merchandise; (2) 
calculate CV credit by converting the foreign currency values to U.S. 
dollars only once; (3) correct the programming language so that sales 
of CRBs were not sampled; (4) include credit insurance when calculating 
direct selling expenses for cost of production; (5) weight the values 
for total home-market selling expenses and total home-market movement 
expenses by a factor of two to establish uniform weighting of home-
market expenses; (6) apply the default credit period for those U.S. 
sales missing payment dates to net selling price; (7) multiply the 
entered value for

[[Page 13080]]

sampled U.S. sales by the weighting factor only once when calculating 
importer-specific duty rates. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the 
Department's remand redetermination. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 97-90 (July 7, 
1997).
    On December 16, 1999, the CIT remanded the case and instructed the 
Department to exclude from NSK/RHP's U.S. sales database any sample 
transactions that were not supported by consideration and to include 
imputed inventory carrying costs in the calculation of CEP offset when 
matching CEP sales to CV. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 99-134 at 54 (December 16, 
1999). Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
redetermination. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 00-168 (December 21, 2000).
    As there are now final and conclusive court decisions with respect 
to the companies affected by these remand orders, we are amending our 
final results of reviews for these companies. We will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate the relevant entries 
subject to these reviews in accordance with our remand results.

Amended Final Results of Reviews

    We are now amending the final results of the 1994-1995 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from 
France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom to reflect the revised 
weighted-average margins. We determine that the revised weighted-
average margins for the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, are 
as follows:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Litigation did not result in any changes to the weighted-
average margins for BBs from NTN Germany or SPBs from SKF France.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BBs ([percnt])      CRBs ([percnt])      SPBs ([percnt])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italy........................................                 4.12                   --                   --
SKF Italy........................................                 2.86                   --                   --
FAG Germany......................................                13.42                22.59                12.08
INA Germany......................................                19.43                18.31                   --
SKF Germany......................................                 2.33                 9.34                 6.19
SNR France.......................................                 4.29                 6.36                   --
SKF France.......................................                 5.08                   --                   --
NSK/RHP--United Kingdom..........................                15.76                15.50                   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, we are now amending the final results of the 1995-1996 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from 
Germany to reflect the revised weighted-average margins. We determine 
that the revised weighted-average margins for the period May 1, 1995, 
through April 30, 1996, are as follows\2\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The subsequent litigation did not result in any changes in 
the weighted-average margins for NTN Germany, SNR France, SKF 
France, and SKF Germany.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BBs ([percnt])      CRBs ([percnt])      SPBs ([percnt])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Germany......................................                13.25                19.53                10.32
INA Germany......................................                44.53                20.09                28.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department will determine and CBP will assess 
appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise 
produced and/or exported by the affected companies. Individual 
differences between U.S. price and normal value may vary from the above 
percentages. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP 
within 15 days of publication of this notice.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 7, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3619 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S