[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53323-53329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25620]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-054, A-588-604]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Intent to Revoke in-Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner and one respondent,
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller
bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from Japan
(A-588-604), and of the antidumping finding on TRBs, four inches or
less in outside diameter, and components thereof, from Japan (A-588-
054). The review of the A-588-054 finding covers two manufacturers/
exporters and one reseller/exporter of the subject merchandise to the
United States during the period October 1, 1997, through September 30,
1998. The review of the A-588-604 order covers three manufacturers/
exporters and the period October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.
We preliminarily determine that sales of TRBs have been made below
the normal value (NV) for all respondents except Fuji. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping
duties based on the difference between United States price and the NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Ranado (NSK), Stephanie Arthur
(Koyo), Deborah Scott (NTN or Fuji), or Robert James, AD/CVD
Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone : (202)
482-3518, (202) 482-6312, or (202) 482-2657, respectively.
APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all
citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements
Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the
Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR
Part 351 (1998).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 18, 1976, the Treasury Department published in the
Federal Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping finding on TRBs from
Japan, and on October 6, 1987, the Department published the antidumping
duty order on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On October 9, 1998, the
Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' for both TRB cases covering the period October
1, 1997 through September 30, 1998 (63 FR 54440).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 (b)(1), the petitioner, the
Timken Company (Timken), requested that we conduct a review of Koyo
Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo) and NSK Ltd. (NSK) in both the A-588-054 and A-
588-604 cases. Timken also requested that we conduct a review of NTN
Corporation (NTN) in the A-588-604 TRB case. In addition, Fuji Heavy
Industries (Fuji) requested that the Department conduct a review in the
A-588-054 case, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e) requested that
this finding be revoked with respect to Fuji. On November 30, 1998, we
published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of these
antidumping duty administrative reviews covering the period October 1,
1997 through September 30, 1998 (63 FR 65748).
[[Page 53324]]
Because it was not practicable to complete these reviews within the
normal time frame, on May 7, 1999 we published in the Federal Register
our notice of the extension of the time limits for both the A-588-054
and A-588-604 1997-98 reviews (64 FR 24577). As a result of this
extension, we extended the deadline for these preliminary results to
September 20, 1999.
Scope of the Reviews
Imports covered by the A-588-054 finding are sales or entries of
TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter when assembled, including
inner race or cone assemblies and outer races or cups, sold either as a
unit or separately. This merchandise is classified under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.15.
Imports covered by the A-588-604 order include TRBs and parts
thereof, finished and unfinished, which are flange, take-up cartridge,
and hanger units incorporating TRBs, and roller housings (except pillow
blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles,
whether or not for automotive use. Products subject to the A-588-054
finding are not included within the scope of this order, except those
manufactured by NTN. This merchandise is currently classifiable under
HTS item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45,
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and
8483.90.80. The HTS item numbers listed above for both the A-588-054
finding and the A-588-604 order are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
The period for each 1997-98 review is October 1, 1997, through
September 30, 1998. The review of the A-588-054 case covers TRB sales
by two manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and NSK) and one reseller/exporter
(Fuji). The review of the A-588-604 case covers TRBs sales by three
manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NTN, and NSK).
Duty Absorption
On December 15, 1998, Timken requested that the Department
determine with respect to all respondents whether antidumping duties
had been absorbed during the POR. This request was filed pursuant to
section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Section 751(a)(4) provides for the
Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review
initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter
subject to the order if the subject merchandise is sold in the United
States through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer
or exporter (see also 19 CFR 351.213(j)(1)). Section 751(a)(4) was
added to the Act by the URAA.
For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's antidumping regulations provides that
the Department will make a duty-absorption determination, if requested,
for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. This approach
ensures that interested parties will have the opportunity to request a
duty-absorption determination prior to the time for sunset review of
the order under section 751(c) of the Act on entries for which the
second and fourth years following an order has already passed. Because
the finding and order on TRBs have been in effect since 1976 and 1987,
respectively, they are transition orders in accordance with section
751(c)(6)(C) of the Act; therefore, based on the policy stated above,
the Department will consider a request for an absorption determination
during a review initiated in 1998. Accordingly, we are making a duty-
absorption determination as part of these administrative reviews.
The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated
importer. In these cases, NTN, Koyo, NSK, and Fuji sold through
importers that are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of
the Act. Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that there are
margins for the following firms with respect to the percentages of
their U.S. sales, by quantity, indicated below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
U.S.
affiliates'
Manufacturer/exporter reseller sales with
dumping
margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Case:
Koyo Seiko............................................ 16.46
NSK................................................... 19.52
For the A-588-604 Case:
NTN................................................... 33.69
NSK................................................... 24.76
Koyo Seiko............................................ 98.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of Koyo, the firm did not respond to our request for
further-manufacturing information and the dumping margins for those
sales were determined on the basis of adverse facts available (see
``Use of Facts Available'' below). Lacking other information, we find
duty absorption on all such sales of further-processed TRBs. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 2558 (January 15,
1998)(1995-96 TRB Final). Where Koyo's margins were not determined on
the basis of adverse facts available (i.e., for non-further
manufactured sales), we must presume that duties will be absorbed for
those sales which were dumped. Id.
With respect to other respondents with affiliated importers for
whom we did not apply adverse facts available (NSK and NTN), we must
presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales which were
dumped. This presumption of duty absorption can be rebutted with
evidence that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay
any ultimately assessed duty. Id. However, there is no such evidence on
the record. Under these circumstances, we preliminarily find that
antidumping duties have been absorbed by NSK and NTN on the percentages
of U.S. sales indicated. If interested parties wish to submit evidence
that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay any
ultimately assessed duties, they must do so no later than 15 days after
publication of these preliminary results.
Because we preliminarily determine that sales of TRBs have not been
made below the normal value by Fuji, a duty absorption determination is
not applicable.
Vertification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by Fuji and NSK, using standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of
original documentation containing relevant information. Our
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the
verification reports, on file in Room B-099 in the main Commerce
building.
Intent To Revoke
On October 30, 1998, Fuji submitted a request, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the order covering TRBs
from Japan with respect to its sales of this merchandise. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.222(e), this request was accompanied by certification
from Fuji that it had sold the subject merchandise to the United States
in commercial quantities at not less than NV for a three-year period,
including this review
[[Page 53325]]
period,1 and would not sell subject merchandise at less than
NV in the future. Fuji also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in
the relevant antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the
order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to revocation, it
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition, on March 22, 1999 Fuji provided information to
the Department supporting its claim that it sold TRBs to the United
States in commercial quantities during this three-year period. That
submission included estimated sales information for the 1996-97 POR,
during which the Department did not conduct a review of Fuji (see
footnote 2). The information provided therein is consistent with the
information from both the 1995-96 and current POR, and there is no
evidence on the record calling into question Fuji's 1996-97
estimated sales information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department conducted verifications of Fuji's responses for this
period of review. In the two prior reviews of this order, we determined
that Fuji sold TRBs from Japan to the United States in commercial
quantities at de minimis margins (1995-96 POR) or did not conduct a
review with respect to Fuji (1996-97 POR) 2. See 1995-96 TRB
Final and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 63860
(November 17, 1998) (1996-97 TRB Final). We preliminarily determine
that Fuji sold TRBs at not less than NV during the current review
period. Based on Fuji's three consecutive years of zero or de minimis
margins and the absence of evidence to the contrary, we preliminarily
determine that it is not likely that Fuji will in the future sell TRBs
at less than NV. Therefore, if these preliminary findings are affirmed
in our final results, we intend to revoke the order on TRBs from Japan
with respect to Fuji.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the 1996-97 POR, Fuji requested and then timely withdrew
a request for review. Additionally, petitioner did not request a
review of Fuji for this period. Therefore, we rescinded the 1996-97
review for Fuji.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Available
In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, in these
preliminary results we find it necessary to use partial facts available
in those instances were a respondent did not provide us with certain
information necessary to conduct our analysis. This occurred with
respect to certain sales and cost information Koyo failed to report for
its sales of U.S. further-manufactured merchandise subject to the A-
588-604 order.
On February 17, 1999, Koyo requested that it not be required to
submit a response to Section E of our questionnaire regarding its U.S.
further-manufactured sales. We informed Koyo on March 11, 1999 that it
was required to supply further-manufacturing data by responding to
section E of the Department's questionnaire by April 5, 1999. Koyo
notified the Department on April 5, 1999 that it would not file a
further-manufacturing response. Therefore, as in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 47455 (January 15, 1998), we have
preliminarily determined that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
it is appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of Koyo
because it failed to cooperate by not responding to the Department's
request for information. The Department is authorized, under section
776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is adverse to the interest
of a party if the Department finds that the party has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the
Department's request for information. We examined whether Koyo had
acted to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for
information. We took into consideration the fact that, as an
experienced respondent in reviews of the TRB orders, it can reasonably
be expected to know which types of information we request in each
review. Because Koyo has submitted to the Department in previous TRB
reviews complete further-manufacturing responses, we have determined
that it failed to act to the best of its ability in providing the data
we requested and that adverse inferences are warranted. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review, 61 FR 25200, 25202 (May 20, 1996). As a result,
we have used the highest rate determined for Koyo from any prior
segment of the A-588-604 proceedings as partial adverse facts
available, which is secondary information within the meaning of section
776(c) of the Act. See 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1)(iii).
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used as facts
available from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate''
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value (see H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol.
1, at 870 (1994); 19 CFR 351.308(d)).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for
calculated dumping margins. The only source for calculated margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if
the Department chooses as adverse facts available a calculated dumping
margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to
question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With
respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant.
Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers
from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 60 FR 49567 (February 22, 1996), where we disregarded the
highest margin in the case as best information available because the
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an extremely high margin).
For these preliminary results, we have examined the history of the
A-588-604 case and have determined that 41.04 percent, the rate we
calculated for Koyo in the 1993-94 A-588-604 review, is the highest
rate for this firm in any prior segment of the A-588-604 order. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review and Termination in Part, 63 FR 20585, (April 27,
1998). In the absence of information on the administrative record that
application of this 41.04 percent rate would be inappropriate, that the
margin is not relevant, or that leads us to re-examine this rate as
adverse facts available in the instant review, we find the margin
[[Page 53326]]
reliable and relevant. As a result, for these preliminary results we
have applied as adverse facts available, a margin of 41.04 percent to
Koyo's further-manufactured U.S. sales.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
Because all of Koyo's and NSK's sales and certain of NTN's and
Fuji's sales of subject merchandise were first sold to unaffiliated
purchasers after importation into the United States, in calculating
U.S. price for these sales we used constructed export price (CEP) as
defined in section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed,
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We
made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, billing adjustments,
freight allowances, and rebates. Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, we reduced this price for movement expenses (Japanese pre-sale
inland freight, Japanese post-sale inland freight, international air
and/or ocean freight, marine insurance, Japanese brokerage and
handling, U.S. inland freight from the port to the warehouse, U.S.
inland freight from the warehouse to the customer, U.S. duty, post-sale
warehousing, pre-sale warehousing, and U.S. brokerage and handling). We
also reduced the price, where applicable, by an amount for the
following expenses incurred in the selling of the merchandise in the
United States pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act: commissions to
unaffiliated parties, U.S. credit, payments to third parties, U.S.
repacking expenses, and indirect selling expenses (which included,
where applicable, inventory carrying costs, indirect advertising
expenses, and indirect technical services expenses). Finally, pursuant
to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced U.S. price by an
amount for profit to arrive at CEP.
NTN claimed an offsetting adjustment to U.S. indirect selling
expenses to account for the cost of financing cash deposits during the
POR. For the reasons set out in the 1996-97 TRB Final, we have
continued to deny such an adjustment. See 1996-97 TRB Final, 63 FR at
63865.
Because certain of NTN's and Fuji's sales of subject merchandise
were made to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to
importation into the United States and the CEP methodology was not
indicated by the facts of record, in accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act we used export price (EP) for these sales. We calculated EP as
the packed, delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we reduced
this price, where applicable, by Japanese pre-sale inland freight,
Japanese post-sale inland freight, international air and/or ocean
freight, marine insurance, Japanese brokerage and handling, U.S.
brokerage and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S. inland freight.
Where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act,
the Department also deducts from CEP the cost of any further
manufacture or assembly in the United States, except where the special
rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act is applicable. Section
772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject merchandise is
imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or producer and the
value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to
exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, and if there
is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for
comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate,
we shall determine the CEP for such merchandise using the price of
identical or other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer
to an unaffiliated person. If there is not a sufficient quantity of
such sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, or if we
determine that using the price of identical or other subject
merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis
to determine CEP. See sections 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act.
In judging whether the use of identical or other subject
merchandise is appropriate, the Department must consider several
factors, including whether it is more appropriate to use another
``reasonable basis.'' Under some circumstances, we may use the standard
methodology as a reasonable alternative to the methods described in
sections 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act. In deciding whether it is more
appropriate to use the standard methodology, we have considered and
weighed the burden on the Department in applying the standard
methodology as a reasonable alternative and the extent to which
application of the standard methodology will lead to more accurate
results. The burden on the Department of using the standard methodology
may vary from case to case depending on factors such as the nature of
the further-manufacturing process and the finished products. The
increased accuracy gained by applying the standard methodology will
vary significantly from case to case, depending upon such factors as
the amount of value added in the United States and the proportion of
total U.S. sales that involve further manufacturing. In cases where the
burden on the Department is high, it is more likely that the Department
will determine that potential gains in accuracy do not outweigh the
burden of applying the standard methodology. Thus, the Department
likely will determine that application of the standard methodology is
not more appropriate than application of the methods described in
paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2), or some other reasonable alternate
methodology. By contrast, if the burden is relatively low and there is
reason to believe the standard methodology is likely to be more
accurate, the Department is more likely to determine that it is not
appropriate to apply the methods described in paragraphs 772(e)(1) or
(2) of the Act in lieu of the standard methodology. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 47452, 47455 (September 9, 1997) (1995-96
TRB Prelim).
With respect to Fuji, its two U.S. affiliates, Subaru of America
(SOA) and Subaru-Isuzu Automotive (SIA), both import TRBs into the
United States which were first purchased by Fuji from Japanese
producers in Japan. SOA imported TRBs during the review period
primarily for the purpose of reselling the bearings as replacement
parts for Subaru automobiles in the United States. SOA also imported
TRB's which were further-manufactured into vehicle transmissions prior
to resale to SOA's dealers. In addition, SIA imported TRBs for the sole
purpose of using them in its production of Subaru automobiles in the
United States, the final product sold by SIA to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States. Based on information provided by Fuji
about this further manufacturing, we have determined that the special
rule for merchandise with value added after importation under section
772(e) of the Act applies to this respondent.
To determine whether the value added in the United States by SIA
and SOA is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject
merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the differences
between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated
U.S. customer for the final merchandise sold (the automobiles or
vehicle transmissions) and the averages of the prices paid for the
subject merchandise (the imported TRBs) by the affiliated person. Based
on this analysis and information on the record, we determined that the
value of the TRBs
[[Page 53327]]
further processed by SIA and SOA in the United States was a minuscule
amount of the price charged by SIA and SOA to the first unaffiliated
customer for the automobiles and vehicle transmissions sold in the
United States. See Exhibit A-26 of Fuji's February 11, 1999
questionnaire response. Therefore, we determined that the value added
is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise.
In addition, we have determined that those sales of TRBs made by SOA as
replacement parts in the United States, which constitute sales of
merchandise identical and/or most similar to those TRBs imported by SIA
for use in the manufacture of Subaru automobiles and by SOA for use in
the manufacture of vehicle transmissions, were made in sufficient
quantities to provide a reasonable basis for comparison. Therefore, for
purposes of determining dumping margins for the TRBs entered by SIA
used in the production of automobiles and for those entered by SOA to
be incorporated into vehicle transmissions, we have used the weighted-
average dumping margins we calculated on sales of identical or other
subject merchandise sold by SOA as replacement TRBs to unaffiliated
persons in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c).
Also, NTN imported subject merchandise (TRB parts) which was
further processed in the United States. NTN further manufactured the
imported scope merchandise into merchandise of the same class or kind
as merchandise within the scope of the A-588-604 order. Based on
information provided by NTN in its December 22, 1998 and January 11,
1999 letters to the Department, we first determined whether the value
added in the United States was likely to exceed substantially the value
of the subject merchandise. We estimated the value added based on the
differences between the averages of the prices charged to the first
unaffiliated U.S. customer for the final merchandise sold (finished
TRBs) and the averages of the prices paid by the affiliated party for
the subject merchandise (imported TRB parts), and determined that the
value added was likely to exceed substantially the value of the
imported TRB parts.
We then examined whether it would be appropriate to use sales of
identical or other subject merchandise to unaffiliated persons as a
basis for comparison, as stated under paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2) of
the Act. Based on the information provided by NTN in Exhibit A-1 of its
February 9, 1999 questionnaire response and its December 22, 1998
letter, we determined that sales of identical or other subject
merchandise to unaffiliated persons were in sufficient quantity for the
purpose of determining dumping margins for NTN's imported TRBs which
were further manufactured in the United States prior to resale.
Furthermore, the proportion of NTN's further-manufactured merchandise
to its total imports of subject merchandise was relatively low. In
NTN's case, any potential gains in accuracy gained from examining NTN's
further-manufactured sales are outweighed by the burden of the applying
the standard methodology. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to apply
one of the methodologies specified in the statute with respect to NTN's
imported TRB parts. Therefore, we have used the weighted-average
dumping margins we calculated on NTN's sales of identical or other
subject merchandise to unaffiliated persons in the United States. See
19 CFR 351.402(c).
With respect to Koyo, while we determined that the value added to
the United States was likely to exceed the value of the imported
products, we have determined that the use of either of the two proxies
specified in the statute is not appropriate. See Facts Available
section for further information.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
A. Viability
Based on (1) the fact that each company's quantity of sales in the
home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S.
market and (2) the absence of any information that a particular market
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison,
we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product for all
respondents sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a
proper comparison with the sales of subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at
which the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the
exporting country.
B. Arm's-Length Sales
For all respondents we have excluded from our analysis those sales
made to affiliated customers in the home market which were not at arm's
length. We determined the arm's-length nature of home market sales to
affiliated parties by means of our 99.5 percent arm's-length test in
which we calculated, for each model, the percentage difference between
the weighted-average prices to the affiliated customer and all
unaffiliated customers and then calculated, for each affiliated
customer, the overall weighted-average percentage difference in prices
for all models purchased by the customer. If the overall weighted-
average price ratio for the affiliated customer was equal to or greater
than 99.5 percent, we determined that all sales to this affiliated
customer were at arm's length. Conversely, if the ratio for a customer
was less than 99.5 percent, we determined that all sales to the
affiliated customer were not at arm's length because, on average, the
customer paid less than unaffiliated customers for the same
merchandise. Therefore, we excluded all sales to the customer from our
analysis. Where we were unable to calculate an affiliated customer
ratio because identical merchandise was not sold to both affiliated and
unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine if these sales were
at arm's length and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis (see
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915 (March 6, 1996).
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded sales that failed the cost test in our last
completed A-588-054 review for Koyo and NSK, and in our last completed
A-588-604 review for NTN, Koyo, and NSK we have reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of NV in this review for these
companies may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act (see 1995-96 TRB Final and 1996-97
TRB Final). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we
initiated a COP investigation of sales by Koyo, NTN, and NSK for both
TRB cases.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and
administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental
to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for
shipment. We relied on the home market sales and COP information
provided by Koyo, NTN, and NSK except in those instances where the data
was not appropriately quantified or valued (see company-specific
preliminary results analysis memoranda).
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of TRBs
[[Page 53328]]
were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities and whether such prices permit the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-
specific COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable
movement charges, discounts, or rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's home market sales for a model are at prices
less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that
model because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made
within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where
20 percent or more of a respondent's home market sales of a given model
are at prices less than COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because
they are (1) made within an extended period of time in substantial
quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act,
and (2) based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the
POR, were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
The results of our cost test for Koyo, NTN, and NSK indicated that
for certain home market models less than 20 percent of the sales of the
model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of
these market models in our analysis and used them as the basis for
determining NV. Our cost test for these respondents also indicated that
within an extended period of time (one year, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), for certain home market models, more than 20
percent of the home market sales were sold at prices below COP. In
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded
these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-
cost sales as the basis for determining NV.
D. Product Comparisons
For all respondents we compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous
sales of the foreign like product in the home market. We considered
bearings identical on the basis of nomenclature and determined most
similar TRBs using our sum-of-the-deviations model-match methodology
which compares TRBs according to the following five physical criteria:
inside diameter, outside diameter, width, load rating, and Y2 factor.
For Koyo, NTN, and NSK we used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise
(difmer) cost deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable
for similar merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of
the difference between the U.S. and home market variable costs of
manufacturing divided by the U.S. total cost of manufacturing. Because
Fuji, a reseller, was unable to provide the variable and total costs of
manufacturing for the TRBs they purchased from Japanese producers, it
instead provided its acquisition cost for each TRB model purchased from
Japanese producers. As a result, consistent with our practice in past
TRB reviews for Fuji, we used these acquisition costs as the basis for
our 20-percent difmer cap (see, e.g., 1995-96 Prelim, 62 FR at 47458).
E. Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determined NV for sales at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there were no
sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to home market
sales at a different level of trade. The NV level of trade is that of
the starting-price sales in the home market. When NV is based on
constructed value (CV), the level of trade is that of the sales from
which we derived SG&A and profit.
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a
different level of trade and the differences affected price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we made a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
We determined that for respondents Koyo and NSK, there were two
home market levels of trade and one U.S. level of trade (CEP). For
Fuji, we determined that only one level of trade existed in the home
market and three distinct levels of trade existed in the U.S. market
(one CEP and two EP levels of trade). Because there was no home market
level of trade equivalent to the U.S. level(s) of trade for Koyo, NSK,
and Fuji, and because NV for these firms represented a price more
remote from the factory than CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment to
NV. For NTN we found that there were three home market levels of trade
and two (EP and CEP) levels of trade in the U.S. Because there were no
home market levels of trade equivalent to NTN's CEP level of trade, and
because NV for NTN represented a price more remote from the factory
than CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment to NV in our CEP comparisons.
We also determined that NTN's EP level of trade was equivalent to one
of NTN's home market levels of trade. Because we determined that there
was a pattern of consistent price differences due to differences in
levels of trade, we made a level of trade adjustment to NV for NTN in
our EP comparisons where the U.S. EP sale matched to a home market sale
at a different level of trade. For more detailed company-specific
descriptions of our level-of-trade analyses for these preliminary
results, see the preliminary results analysis memoranda to Robert
James, on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-
099 of the main Commerce building).
F. Home Market Price
We based home market prices on the packed, ex-factory or delivered
prices to affiliated purchasers (where an arm's-length relationship was
demonstrated) and unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In addition,
we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences
in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for differences in circumstances of
sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.410. For comparison to EP we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments to NV
by deducting home market direct selling expenses. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations. No
other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV
if we were unable to find a contemporaneous home market match for the
U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and
profit. In accordance with 772(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A
expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign
like product in the
[[Page 53329]]
ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For
selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling
expenses. To the extent possible, we calculated CV by LOT, using the
selling expenses and profit determined for each LOT in the comparison
market. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for COS adjustments and
LOT differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling
expenses to offset commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October
1, 1997, through September 30, 1998, to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter/ reseller (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Case:
Koyo Seiko.......................................... 12.97
Fuji................................................ 0.05
NSK................................................. 4.03
For the A-588-604 Case:
Fuji................................................ \3\--
Koyo Seiko.......................................... 23.20
NTN................................................. 20.28
NSK................................................. 1.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b). A party may request a hearing within thirty days of
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the
Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Case briefs and/or
written comments from interested parties may be submitted no later than
30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and
comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these
proceedings are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement
of the issues and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The Department
will issue final results of these administrative reviews, including the
results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or
at a hearing, within 120 days of issuance of these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has
no rate from any prior segment of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made
during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to
calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the
Customs Service upon completion of the review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews
for all shipments of TRBs from Japan entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of these administrative reviews, 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
shall 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 these reviews, a prior
review, or the LTFV investigations, 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) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate for the A-588-054 case will be 18.07 percent, and 36.52
percent for the A-588-604 case (see Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished and
Unfinished, and Parts Thereof, from Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings,
Four Inches or less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From
Japan, 58 FR 51061 (September 30, 1993)).
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.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 24, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-25620 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
