[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32522-32527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13241]


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

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 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

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

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.

SUMMARY: On August 1, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') initiated a new shipper review of the antidumping duty 
order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished (``TRBs'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') 
covering sale(s) of subject merchandise produced and exported by GGB 
Bearing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (``GGB'') during the period of 
review (``POR'') of June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 76 FR 45777 (August 1, 2011) 
(``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department preliminary determines that GGB has not made sales 
at less than normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate all appropriate entries 
without assessing antidumping duties on those entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Apodaca or Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4551 
or (202) 482-2769, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 15, 1987, the Department published 
in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the 
PRC.\2\ On June 30, 2011, the Department received a timely request for 
a new shipper review from GGB. On August 1, 2011, the Department 
initiated this new shipper review. See Initiation Notice. On September 
7, 2011, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to 
GGB. Subsequently, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
GGB. From October 2011 through February 2012, the Department received 
timely questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses from GGB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987) (``TRBs 
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 28, 2011, Import Administration's Office of Policy 
issued a memorandum identifying six countries as being at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC for the instant POR. The 
countries identified in that memorandum are Colombia, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine.\3\ On November 14, 
2011, the Department released the Policy Memorandum to interested 
parties and provided parties with an opportunity to submit comments 
regarding the selection of a surrogate country in the instant 
review.\4\ On November 28, 2011, the Petitioner in this proceeding, the 
Timken Company (``Petitioner'') provided comments on surrogate country 
selection and publicly-available information to value

[[Page 32523]]

factors of production (``FOP'').\5\ No other party provided comments on 
surrogate country selection. On December 5, 2011, GGB provided 
publicly-available data to value its FOP and also submitted rebuttal 
comments concerning Petitioner's surrogate value comments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum regarding Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries for New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished 
(``TRBs'') from the People's Republic of China (``China''), dated 
September 28, 2011 (``Policy Memorandum'').
    \4\ See Letter from Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4, to 
All Interested Parties regarding Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China, New Shipper Review: Request for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments and Information, dated November 14, 2011.
    \5\ See Letter from Petitioner regarding, New Shipper Review: 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: The Timken Company's Surrogate 
Country Comments, dated November 28, 2011 (``Petitioner's Surrogate 
Value Submission'').
    \6\ See Submission from GGB regarding, GGB Bearing Technology 
Submission of Pre-Prelim Surrogate Values: Tapered Roller Bearings 
from the People's Republic of China (New Shipper Review: 6/1/2010-5/
31/2011), dated December 5, 2011 (``GGB's Surrogate Value 
Submission'') and submission from GGB regarding, GGB Bearing 
Technology Submission of Pre-Prelim Rebuttal Surrogate Values, dated 
December 5, 2011 (``GGB's Rebuttal SV Submission'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 26, 2012, the Department issued a memorandum providing 
interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding the 
information already on the record for the Department to consider in the 
preliminary results.\7\ On April 2, 2012, Petitioner provided comments 
regarding the information already on the record, and on April 12, 2012, 
GGB submitted rebuttal comments concerning Petitioner's submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum regarding Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 
of Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China- 
Deadline to submit comments on information, dated March 26, 2012.
    \8\ Letter from Petitioner regarding, New Shipper Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order Covering Tapered Roller Bearings (``TRBs'') 
and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From The People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') (06/01/2010-05/31/2011); The Timken 
Company's Comments on the Department's Preliminary Determination, 
dated April 2, 2012 (``Petitioner's Preliminary Results Comments'') 
and letter from GGB regarding, GGB Response to The Timken Company's 
Comments on the Upcoming Preliminary Results of Review in Tapered 
Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China (New Shipper 
Review: 6/1/2010-5/31/2011), dated April 12, 2012 (GGB's Rebuttal of 
Preliminary Results Comments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller 
bearings 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. These products are currently classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') item 
numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 
8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 
8708.99.80.15 \9\ and 8708.99.80.80.\10\ Although the HTSUS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Effective January 1, 2007, the HTSUS subheading 8708.99.8015 
is renumbered as 8708.99.8115. See United States International Trade 
Commission (``USITC'') publication entitled, ``Modifications to the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Under Section 1206 
of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,'' USITC 
Publication 3898 (December 2006) found at www.usitc.gov.
    \10\ Effective January 1, 2007, the HTSUS subheading 
8708.99.8080 is renumbered as 8708.99.8180; see Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bona Fides Sale Analysis

    For this review, consistent with the Department's practice, the 
Department investigated the bona fide nature of the sales made by GGB 
during the POR. In evaluating whether or not a sale in a new shipper 
review is commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the 
Department considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1) The timing of 
the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the 
transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) 
whether the transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. See, e.g., 
Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. 
Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT 2005). Accordingly, the Department considers a 
number of factors in its bona fides analysis, ``all of which may speak 
to the commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject 
merchandise.'' See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) (citing Fresh Garlic From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 
(March 13, 2002)).
    The Department preliminarily finds that the sales of subject 
merchandise made by GGB were made on a bona fide basis. Specifically, 
the Department preliminarily finds that: (1) While the sales under 
review were made late in the POR, the timing of the sales by itself 
does not indicate that the sales might not be bona fide; (2) record 
evidence indicates that overall the price and quantity of the sales are 
commercially reasonable and not atypical of normal business practices 
of TRBs exporters; (3) GGB and its customers did not incur any 
extraordinary expenses arising from the transactions; and (4) the new 
shipper sales were made between unaffiliated parties at arm's length. 
While GGB was not able to obtain information from unaffiliated 
customers demonstrating that the subject merchandise was resold by 
those customers at a profit,\11\ the Department does not find that this 
failure overcomes the totality of evidence described above 
demonstrating GGB's sales were bona fide. Therefore, the Department has 
preliminarily found that GGB's sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States were bona fide for purposes of this new shipper review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum regarding, ``Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Sales 
Analysis for GGB Bearing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every antidumping case conducted by the Department involving the 
PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') 
country.\12\ 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 country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has 
contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., 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) (unchanged in 
the final results, Tapered Rolling 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent 
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over export activities. The Department analyzes each 
entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 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 further developed

[[Page 32524]]

in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 
22586-7 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). However, if the Department 
determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a 
market economy, then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to 
determine whether it is independent from government control. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 
Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 
(December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, 
thus, qualified for a separate rate).

Separate Rate Recipient

    GGB reported that it is wholly owned by a market-economy entity. 
Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, a separate-rates 
analysis is not necessary to determine whether GGB's export activities 
are independent from government control. We have preliminarily granted 
a separate rate to GGB.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department conducts an antidumping duty new shipper review 
of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs 
the Department to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's 
FOP valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries 
considered appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value FOP using ``to the 
extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or 
more market economy countries that are--(A) at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) significant 
producers of comparable merchandise.'' Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value all FOP in a single 
country.
    As stated previously, the Department identified Colombia, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine as 
being at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.\13\ 
Petitioner argued that Thailand is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise, and provided data from the United Nations Commodity Trade 
Database (``UN COMTRADE''). No other parties commented on the selection 
of a surrogate country. Based on the above, we have determined that 
Thailand is a significant producer of merchandise that is comparable to 
the merchandise under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Policy Memorandum. The Department notes that these six 
countries are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries that are at 
a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to data considerations in selecting a surrogate 
country, both Petitioner and GGB have submitted publicly-available Thai 
data for valuing FOP.\14\ The parties did not place data from other 
potential surrogate countries on the record. Therefore, the Department 
finds that Thailand has publicly-available data for valuing the FOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Petitioner's Surrogate Value Submission and GGB's 
Surrogate Value Submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Department has preliminarily selected Thailand as the 
primary surrogate country because the record shows that Thailand is at 
a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a 
significant producer of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise. 
Moreover, the record indicates that sufficient, contemporaneous, public 
Thai data are readily-available.\15\ Accordingly, we have calculated NV 
using Thai prices to value GGB's FOP.\16\ In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly-available 
information to value the FOP until 20 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary results.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ See Memorandum regarding, ``New Shipper Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Value Memorandum for the Preliminary Results, dated 
concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
    \17\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
results of this new shipper review, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The 
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional, 
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2. Additionally, for each piece of factual information 
submitted with surrogate value rebuttal comments, the interested 
party must provide a written explanation of what information that is 
already on the record of the ongoing proceeding that the factual 
information is rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d) of the Department's 
regulations, to determine whether GGB sold TRBs to the United States at 
less than NV, the Department compared the constructed export price 
(``CEP'') of U.S. sales to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in 
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping 
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final 
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (``Final Modification 
for Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Petitioner's Preliminary Results Comments, Petitioner states 
that the Department ``intends to compare average export prices and 
average normal values and will grant offsets'' in administrative 
reviews, citing the Final Modification for Reviews.\19\ Petitioner 
states that, in the Final Modification for Reviews, the Department 
indicated that there may be cases in which the application of a 
different comparison method is more appropriate. Petitioner states 
that, in this case, evidence of price differentiation supports using 
average-to-transaction comparisons without permitting offsets for all 
sales of the respondent during the POR. Specifically, Petitioner notes 
that it conducted its own targeted dumping analysis of GGB's U.S. sales 
using the Department's targeted dumping methodology as applied in Steel 
Nails and modified in Wood Flooring.\20\ Based on its analysis, 
Petitioner argues, the Department should conduct a targeted dumping 
analysis and employ average-to-transaction comparisons without offsets 
should the Department find that the record supports it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Petitioner's Preliminary Results Comments at 4.
    \20\ See Petitioner's Preliminary Results Comments at 5, citing 
Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 76 FR 68129 (Nov. 3, 2011) and Multilayered 
Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 
18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In GGB's Rebuttal of Preliminary Results Comments, GGB argues that 
the Department does not have the statutory authority to apply a 
targeted dumping analysis in an administrative review. Moreover, GGB 
argues that Petitioner's targeting analysis is flawed. Thus, GGB 
contends the Department should use an average-to-average comparison 
methodology or, if it does use an average-to-transaction comparison 
methodology, it should not apply zeroing but should grant offsets for 
non-dumped comparisons.
    For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department did not 
conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary 
weighted-

[[Page 32525]]

average dumping margin the Department applied the calculation 
methodology adopted in Final Modification for Reviews. In particular, 
the Department compared monthly weighted-average export prices (or 
constructed export prices) with monthly weighted-average normal values 
and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of 
the weighted average dumping margin. Application of this methodology in 
these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to 
meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this 
recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative 
review. The Department intends to continue to consider, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.414(3)(c), whether another method is appropriate in this 
administrative review in light of both parties' pre-preliminary 
comments and any comments on the issue that parties may include in 
their case briefs.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for GGB's sales on CEP. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as 
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to 
be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation 
by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise 
or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under 
subsections (c) and (d) of section 772 of the Act. Pursuant to section 
772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for GGB's U.S. sales because the first 
sale to an unaffiliated customer was made by GGB's U.S. affiliate.
    We calculated CEP for GGB based on sales invoice prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.\21\ We made deductions 
from the U.S. sales price, where applicable, for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted credit expenses, 
inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. 
price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. 
In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based movement 
expenses on either surrogate values (``SVs'') if the expense was paid 
to an NME company in RMB, or on actual expenses.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See GGB's submission regarding, GGB Bearing Technology 
(Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Stemco LP Section C Questionnaire Response, 
dated October 14, 2011, at 3.
    \22\ For details regarding our CEP calculations, see Analysis 
Memorandum. See also Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) The merchandise is 
exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. When determining 
NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOP, because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the 
Act, FOP include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; 
(2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and 
other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The 
Department based NV on FOP reported by GGB for materials, energy, labor 
and packing.

Factor Valuation

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP reported by GGB for the POR. To calculate NV, the 
Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly-available Thai SVs. In selecting the SVs, the Department 
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 
As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, the 
Department added to SVs based on Thai import statistics a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the respondent's factory or the distance from the 
nearest seaport to the respondent's factory, where appropriate. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all 
SVs used to value GGB's reported FOP, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    For the preliminary results, except where noted below, we used Thai 
import statistics as provided by the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') and 
other publicly available Thai sources in order to calculate SVs for 
GGB's FOPs (i.e., direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and 
certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available information 
for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs 
which are non-export average values, contemporaneous with, or closest 
in time to, the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\23\ The 
record shows that Thai import statistics from the GTA are 
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\24\ 
For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram or per-cubic-meter 
values obtained from the GTA and made adjustments to account for 
freight costs incurred between the PRC suppliers and GGB and its 
intermediate product producers' plants.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
    \24\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2-3.
    \25\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available 
information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value factors, we 
adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Thai Wholesale Price 
Index (``WPI'') as published in the IMF's International Financial 
Statistics.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in 
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\27\ In Labor 
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to 
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the 
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that 
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: 
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization 
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these preliminary results, the Department has calculated the 
labor

[[Page 32526]]

input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value 
the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by 
Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. Although the 
Department further finds the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 
3.1 (``Manufacture of Machinery and Equipment NEC'') to be the best 
available information on the record because it is specific to the 
industry being examined, and is therefore derived from industries that 
produce comparable merchandise, Thailand has not reported data specific 
to the two-digit description since 2000. However, Thailand did report 
total manufacturing wage data in 2005. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 
6A of the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using 
total labor data reported by Thailand to the ILO in 2005, in accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these preliminary results, the 
calculated wage rate is 136.85 baht/hour. A more detailed description 
of the wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate 
Value Memorandum.
    We used Thai transport information in order to value the freight-in 
cost of the raw materials. To value inland truck freight, we obtained 
data from: (1) Consulting and Business Development in Southeast Asia 
(2005),\28\ and (2) distances from Google Maps, at http://maps.google.com. We calculated the per-kilometer price to transport one 
kilogram (``kg'') of merchandise from Bangkok to five cities in 
Thailand. We inflated this value to a POR value.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Petitioner's Surrogate Value Comments at Attachment 9.
    \29\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, we used the financial statements of 
NSK Bearing Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (``NSK''), JTEKT 
(Thailand) Co. Ltd. (``JTEKT''), and Koyo Joint (Thailand) Co. Ltd. 
(``Koyo''). We find that NSK, JTEKT and Koyo are the best available 
information with which to determine factory overhead as a percentage of 
the total raw materials, labor and energy (``ML&E'') costs; SG&A 
expenses as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of 
manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of 
manufacture plus SG&A. All three financial statements cover a period 
overlapping the POR and are thus contemporaneous with the POR.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, which was used to 
value labor, reflects all costs related to labor, including wages, 
benefits, housing, training, etc. The financial statements used to 
calculate the surrogate financial ratios do not include itemized 
details regarding the indirect labor costs incurred. Therefore, the 
Department has not made adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2010, 
through May 31, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                      Exporter/producer                         dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GGB Bearing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (producer and             0.00
 exporter)..................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttals to written comments must be 
limited to the issues raised in the written comments and may be filed 
no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments and 
rebuttal comments are requested to provide the Department with an 
additional copy of those comments on a compact disk. Any interested 
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing 
normally will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission 
of rebuttal comments. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of any issues 
raised in written comments, within 90 days of the date on which these 
preliminary results are issued, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.214(i)(1), unless the time limit is extended. See 19 CFR 
351.214(i)(2).

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. If the weighted-average dumping margin is above 
de minimis, we will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific 
assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review.\31\ Given 
that the respondent has reported entered values, we will calculate 
importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or 
customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the 
sales to each importer (or customer). Where an importer- (or customer-) 
specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' 
entries during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 
importer (or customer)-specific per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for 
Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-to-average 
comparisons using only the transactions associated with that 
importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper 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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be 
required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, 
the cash

[[Page 32527]]

deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 92.84 percent; and 
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this POR. 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.
    The Department is issuing and publishing this determination in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: May 22, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-13241 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P