[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57034-57038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27686]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]
Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Tapered Roller
Bearings From the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: tapered
roller bearings from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on tapered roller bearings (64 FR 15727) pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of a
notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive comments filed
on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department
determined to conduct a full (240-day) review. As a result of this
review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the
antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary
Results of Review section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review is being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752
of the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset
reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year
(``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63
FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in CFR part 351
(1999) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues
relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in
the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3--Policies Regarding the Conduct
of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset
Policy Bulletin'').
Scope
The merchandise covered by this antidumping duty order (52 FR
22667, June 15, 1987) includes tapered roller bearings (``TRBs'') and
parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's Republic of
China (``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. The subject merchandise
was originally classified under item numbers 680.30, 680.39, 681.10,
692.32 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated
(``TSUSA''); currently, according to the U.S. Customs Service, they are
classifiable under item numbers 8482.20.00.10, 8482.20.00.20,
8482.20.00.30, 8482.20.00.40, 8482.20.00.50, 8482.20.00.60,
8482.20.00.70, 8482.20.00.80, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15.00,
8482.99.15.40, 8482.99.15.80, 8483.20.40.80, 8483.20.80.80,
8483.30.80.20, 8708.99.80.15 and 8708.99.80.80 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') (see June 8, 1999, Memorandum
to File: HTSUS Numbers for Tapered Roller Bearings). Although the above
HTSUS and TSUSA subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
In the ninth administrative review (62 FR 61276, 61289, November
17, 1997), the Department clarified the scope of the order when it
added two additional HTSUS numbers (8708.99.90.15 and 8708.99.80.80)
applicable to imports of the subject merchandise which previously had
not been included in the order. In addition, the Department clarified
under the HTSUS numbers that should correspond to subject merchandise
previously classified under TSUSA item number 692.32 in the original
antidumping order. We note that scope rulings are made on an order-wide
basis.
History of the Order
In the original investigation, covering the period September 1,
1985 through August 31, 1986 (55 FR 6669, February 26, 1990), the
Department determined a margin of 0.97 for Premier Bearing & Equipment,
Ltd. (``Premier''); 4.69 percent for China National Machinery &
Equipment Import & Export Corporation (``CMEC'') and 2.96 percent for
``all others.''
There have been ten administrative reviews for the subject
antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of review
Review (``POR'') Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)................. 6 Feb 1987-31 May 1988.. 56 FR 66 (January 2,
1991).
(2)................. 1 June 1988-31 May 1989. 56 FR 66 (January 2,
1991).
(3)................. 2 May 1989-31 May 1990.. 61 FR 29345 (June 10,
1 June 1989-31 May 1990. 1996).
61 FR 29345 (June 10,
1996).
(4)................. 1 June 1990-31 May 1991. 61 FR 65527 (December
13, 1996).
(5)................. 1 June 1991-31 May 1992. 61 FR 65527 (December
13, 1996).
(6)................. 1 June 1992-31 May 1993. 61 FR 65527 (December
13, 1996).
[[Page 57035]]
(7)................. 1 June 1993-31 May 1994. 62 FR 6189 (February 11,
1997).
(8)................. 1 June 1994-31 May 1995. 62 FR 6173 (February 11,
1997).
(9)................. 1 June 1995-31 May 1996. 62 FR 61276 (November
17, 1997).
(10)................ 1 June 1996-31 May 1997. 63 FR 63842 (December
28, 1998).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the life of this order the Department has investigated and/or
reviewed imports from 21 different producers/exporters. Although all 21
had, at some point, established the right to a separate rate, three of
these companies ceased participation in the more recent reviews, and
therefore, are no longer entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, the
order was revoked in part with respect to subject merchandise produced
by Shanghai General Bearing Company, Ltd. (62 FR 6173, February 11,
1997).
Background
On April 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping order on TRBs from the PRC (64 FR 15727), pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice of Intent
to Participate on behalf of domestic interested parties, The Timken
Company (``Timken'') and The Torrington Company (``Torrington'')
(``domestic interested parties'') within the applicable deadline (April
16, 1998) specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. The domestic interested parties each claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer of a
domestic like product. On May 3, 1999, Zheijiang Machinery Import &
Export Corporation (``Zheijiang Machinery''); Liaoning Mec Group, Ltd.
(``Liaoning''); Luoyang Bearing Corporation (Group) (``Luoyang'');
Zheijiang Changshan Changhe Bearing Co., Ltd. (``ZCCBC''); Zheijiang
Wanxiang Group (``Wanxiang''); China National Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (``CMC''); Xibei Bearing Group Import & Export Co., Ltd.
(``Xibei''); and Xiangyiang Bearing Factory (``Xiangyiang''); and the
China TRB Sunset Coalition (``China Coalition'') (collectively
``respondent interested parties'') notified the Department that they
intended to participate in this sunset review. CMC noted that it is a
different and distinct company from CMEC.
We received complete substantive responses from the domestic and
respondent interested parties on May 3, 1999. In response to a request
from respondent interested parties, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.302, granted an extension of the deadline for filing substantive
responses, and, on May 7, 1999, the respondent interested parties
submitted supplemental information to complete their substantive
response.
Timken claims that it was a petitioner in the original
investigation and a participant in the ten administrative reviews.
Torrington, however, did not participate in the original investigation
or any administrative review. The respondent interested parties claimed
interested party status under section 771(9)(B) of the Act, as foreign
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. As an association of
foreign producers/exporters of subject merchandise, the China Coalition
claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act.
None of the above respondent interested parties participated in the
original investigation. However, Zheijiang and CMC participated in the
seventh through tenth reviews; Liaoning and Luoyang participated in the
third through tenth reviews; and Wanxiang participated in the ninth and
tenth reviews. ZCCBC is currently the subject of a new shipper review.
On May 12, 1999, we received rebuttal comments from the domestic
and respondent interested parties. On May 24, 1999, the Department
determined to conduct an expedited sunset review of this order on the
basis that respondent interested parties accounted for significantly
less than 50 percent of the value of imports over the past five
years.1 On June 10, 1999, within the 70-day deadline
specified in 19 CFR 351.309(e)(ii), respondent interested parties
submitted comments on the Department's determination to conduct an
expedited sunset review. On July 20, 1999, we notified the
International Trade Commission that we had reconsidered our
determination of adequacy and, on the basis of complete substantive
responses from domestic and respondent interested parties to the notice
of initiation, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), the
Department determined to conduct a full (240-day) sunset review of this
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See May 24, 1999, Memorandum for Jeffrey A. May, Re: Sunset
Review of Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of
China: Adequacy of Respondent Interested Party Response to the
Notice of Initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1,
1995). Accordingly, on July 20, 1999, the Department determined that
the sunset review of the antidumping duty investigation on TRBs from
the PRC is extraordinarily complicated, and extended the time limit for
completion of the preliminary results of this review until not later
than October 18, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Five-Year
Review (July 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is
conducting this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making this
determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average
dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews
and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period
before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping order, and
shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail
if the order is revoked.
The Department's preliminary determination concerning continuation
or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. In addition, the domestic and respondent interested parties'
comments with respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the
magnitude of the margin are addressed within the respective sections
below.
Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping
Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically
the Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1
(1994) (``the SAA''), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the
[[Page 57036]]
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on
methodological and analytical issues, including the bases for
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2). In addition, the Department
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an
antidumping order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping where (a) dumping continued at any level above de minimis after
the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise
ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated
after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject
merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).
Domestic interested parties argue that revocation of the
antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. With respect to whether dumping continued at any
level above de minimis after the issuance of the order, domestic
interested parties assert in their substantive response that TRB
producers from the PRC have dumped subject merchandise into the United
States prior to 1987 (see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of
domestic interested parties at 7). Further, the domestic interested
parties assert that, throughout the history of the order, bearings
producers in China have had to sell at less than fair value in order to
export to the United States. Id. For example, the rate of dumping found
for ``all others'' increased from 8.83 percent in the 1990/91 review,
to 33.18 percent in the most recent 1996/97 review.
With respect to whether dumping was eliminated after the issuance
of the order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined
significantly, the domestic interested parties assert that the margins
of dumping for PRC imports have increased over the life of the order,
along with the volume of TRB imports. Further, the domestic interested
parties assert that Chinese producers have continued to increase their
exports of subject merchandise--despite increasing margins--because of
incentives unique to the PRC market. Their examples include government
incentives such as preferential loan and tax policies; triangular debt
in the bearings industry, in which government policies requiring full
employment with limited money supply result in a surge of exports to
attract hard currency; and PRC government reform of state-owned
enterprises (``SOEs''), in which their sale or liquidation results in
excess capacity that can be devoted to production for export. Id. at 8-
9.
Respondent interested parties argue that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on TRBs from China will not result in a
continuation or recurrence of dumping. With respect to whether dumping
continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the
order, the respondent interested parties assert that the weighted-
average margins of dumping have declined significantly in recent years
and that the margins of dumping for the 1997/98 review are likely to
decline to a de minimis level (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of
respondent interested parties at 21).
With respect to whether dumping was eliminated after the issuance
of the order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined
significantly, the respondent interested parties assert that, imports
of subject merchandise from China are dramatically higher during the
period following the issuance of the order. Id at 20. Specifically, the
respondent interested parties assert that annual imports of TRBs from
China during the period from 1994 to 1998 averaged over twenty times
the level in 1985, the year preceding the issuance of the order. Id.
Moreover, they note that China's import market share is substantially
higher during this more recent period than in 1985. Id. at 21.
In their rebuttal comments of May 12, 1999, domestic interested
parties assert that the respondent interested parties' submission
should not be deemed adequate because the Chinese government has not
indicated its willingness to participate in the sunset review (see May
12, 1999 Rebuttal Comments of domestic interested parties at 5). The
domestic interested parties argue that, absent government
participation, the Department will not obtain the kind of data that
would warrant a full review. Furthermore, domestic interested parties
reassert that, in every review in every year since the order was put in
place, the Department has found dumping. Id. at 7. As dumping has not
been eliminated, and significant margins continued to be found, dumping
is therefore likely to continue or recur.
In their May 12, 1999 rebuttal comments, respondent interested
parties assert that the domestic interested parties' distort the
effects of revocation and possible margins by using the PRC-wide review
rates to total PRC imports, when a substantial portion of these imports
are from Chinese companies that have received separate rates in past
administrative reviews (see May 12, 1999 Rebuttal comments of
respondent interested parties at 2).
With respect to the issue of government incentive programs raised
by domestic interested parties, respondent interested parties argue
that Chinese TRB producers and exporters do not receive benefits from
any export incentive programs. They assert that the only benefit
received by TRB producers and exporters is reimbursement of, and/or
exemption from, VAT taxation for exporting. Id. at 3. However, the
refunding of VAT is not deemed a subsidy under either U.S. law or under
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Moreover,
respondent interested parties argue that market economy countervailing
duty principles should not be applied to non-market economies in the
evaluation of fair market value. Id at 4.
With respect to the issue of triangular debt raised by domestic
interested parties, respondent interested parties assert that
triangular debt (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic
interested parties) has no bearing on the Chinese TRB companies, which,
as the Department has repeatedly recognized, are not state-owned (see
May 12, 1999 Rebuttal Comments of respondent interested parties at 4).
Respondent interested parties dispute the domestic interested
parties' assertion that there is reduced demand for TRBs in the PRC,
arguing that, on the contrary, Chinese government policies and SOE
reform are increasing the domestic demand for TRBs. Id. at 6. Moreover,
they dispute the argument of the domestic interested parties that
Chinese TRB producers maintain inventories of subject merchandise,
which they are stockpiling for U.S. export. Id. at 7.
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies continue to
dump despite the discipline of an order in place, the Department may
reasonably infer that dumping would continue were the discipline to be
removed. In this case, the Department finds that, although the margins
of four companies decreased below de minimis in the ninth and tenth
reviews, dumping by other producers/exporters nonetheless continued
since the issuance of an antidumping order. In addition, the PRC-wide
rate has increased steadily every year since the third review,
especially between the sixth and seventh reviews. Given that dumping
has continued over the life of the order, the Department preliminarily
determines that dumping is likely to continue if the order were
revoked.
[[Page 57037]]
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in
the final determination of the original investigation. Further, for
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department
normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from
the investigation (see section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated
margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption
determinations (see sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin).
As noted above, the Department published a rate of 0.97 percent for
Premier, 4.69 percent for CMEC and, 2.96 for ``all others'' in its
final determination of sale at less than fair value (55 FR 6669,
February 26, 1989). In addition, the Department has conducted ten
administrative reviews of this order. Further, we note that, to date,
the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this
case.
The domestic interested parties assert that the Department should
select the highest calculated rate that corresponds to the review
period in which the companies--Wanfangdian, Jilin, Lianoning and
Guizhou--had their highest import volumes. The domestic interested
parties argue that, for these companies, the increases in the dumping
margin correspond to increases in U.S. imports, indicating that these
companies increased dumping in order to expand their market share.
Furthermore, domestic interested parties argue that, because imports of
Chinese TRBs and PRC-wide dumping margins have increased almost every
year since the issuance of the order, the Department should determine
that the most recent PRC-wide rate of 33.18 percent is the rate likely
to prevail for imports from all producers that do not currently have a
separate rate (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic
interested parties at 13). Finally, the domestic interested parties
argue that companies that lost their status as independent companies
should be assigned the most recent PRC-wide rate.
Respondent interested parties argue that, in view of the
dramatically increased level of imports from China from the period
before the issuance of the antidumping order, and the declining
weighted-average dumping margins in the most recent two reviews, the
Department should provide to the Commission the weight average of the
most recent rates of 3.20 percent, 0.02 percent and 0.03 percent for
Luoyang, Liaoning, and CMC, respectively (i.e., rates from the 1996/97
administrative review) (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of
respondent interested parties at 22), as the margin likely to prevail
if the order were revoked.
In their May 12, 1999, rebuttal, the domestic interested parties
reassert that as Chinese TRB imports have increased during the life of
the subject order, margins have also increased, showing that producers/
importers from the PRC have had to increase dumping in order to
increase sales volume (see May 12, 1999 Rebuttal of domestic interested
parties at 7). In addition, the domestic interested parties disagree
with the respondent interested parties' argument that the Department
should calculate the weight average of the margins of Luoyang,
Liaoning, and China National in the 1996/97 review, as the margin
likely to prevail if the order were revoked, because, allegedly, these
respondents failed to identify extraordinary circumstances that would
warrant such revised rates. Id. at 9.
With respect to the domestic interested parties' argument that the
Department use the historical PRC-wide rate, respondent interested
parties assert that this argument ignores the fact that over 23
different companies were not participants in the original investigation
(see May 12, 1999 Rebuttal of respondent interested parties at 10).
Moreover, in one or more annual reviews, nearly all companies received
separate rates and lower margins than the determined PRC-wide rate. Id.
With respect to the issue of assignment of the PRC-wide rate to
companies previously eligible for separate rate, respondent interested
parties assert that certain companies dropped out of the review process
because they decided to leave the U.S. market and for no other reason.
Id at 7.
As stated above, the Department normally will provide to the
Commission the margin that was determined in the original
investigation. The SAA at 889-90 and the House Report at 63 state that
declining (or no) margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports
may indicate that foreign companies do not have to dump to maintain
market share in the United States, and that dumping is less likely to
continue or recur were the order to be revoked. Therefore, section
II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin states that in response to
argument from an interested party, the Department may provide to the
Commission a more recently calculated margin for a particular company
where, for that particular company, dumping margins declined or dumping
was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import volumes
remained steady or increased. Additionally, if a company chooses to
increase dumping in order to increase or maintain market share, the
Department may provide the Commission with a more recently calculated
margin for that company.
Based on our review of information submitted by the interested
parties, the U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, and data from our
original investigation and subsequent administrative reviews, the
Department preliminarily determines that:
(1) With respect to Wafangdian, Jilin and Liaoning, the Department
agrees with the domestic interested parties that company-specific
export volumes and company-specific dumping margins peaked
concurrently, during the 1994/95 period of review. Additionally,
company-specific exports and the dumping margin for Guizhou Machinery
peaked concurrently during the 1995/96 period of review. This trend
shows that these companies may be willing to increase dumping in order
to increase or maintain market share. Therefore, the Department, in
accordance with section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,
preliminarily intends to report to the Commission company-specific
rates from the periods of review during which their imports increased:
29.40 percent for Wafangdian, from the 1994/95 review period; 29.40
percent for Jilin, from the 1994/95 and 1995/96 periods of review; 9.72
percent for Lioaning, from the 1994/95 period of review, and 21.79
percent for Guizhou Machinery, from the 1995/96 period of review.
(2) At some time over the life of the order, CMEC, Guizhou
Automotive and Tianshui Hailin were subject to separate rates, but were
assigned the PRC-wide rate when they did not participate in subsequent
reviews. The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'
argument that it is not appropriate to assign a rate to these companies
based on a status they no longer enjoy. Therefore, the Department
preliminarily intends to report to the Commission the 1995/96 review
PRC-wide rate of 29.40 percent for CMEC, Guizhou Automotive and
Tianshui Hailin.
(3) With respect to CMC and Luoyang, the Department agrees with
respondent interested parties that as company-specific exports from
these companies increased from the period prior to issuance of the
order, their company-specific weighted-average dumping
[[Page 57038]]
margins have declined in the two most recent reviews. The Department
finds the same trend for Zheijiang Machinery and Waxiang, which shows
that each of these exporters are likely to continue dumping at the
lower rates found in more recent reviews. Thus, the Department, in
accordance with section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,
preliminarily intends to report to the Commission the company-specific
margin of 0.03 percent for CMC, 3.20 percent for Luoyang, and 0.11
percent for Zheijiang Machinery, each from the 1996/97 period of
review; and 0.03 percent for Waxiang from the 1995/96 review.
(4) Because three respondent interested parties--Xiangyiang, Xibei
and ZCCBC (a participant in the current new shipper review)--have never
been determined eligible for a company-specific rate, the Department
preliminarily intends to assign the PRC-wide rate of 29.40 percent to
these companies.
(5) The margins for Premier, a company subject to the original
investigation, have generally increased throughout the history of the
order. Premier's original margin of 0.97 percent peaked at 25.56
percent in the 1993/94 review, and then decreased to 7.22 percent in
the most recent 1996/97 review. Absent comments or information
regarding the margin and import volumes for Premier from domestic and
respondent interested parties, the Department, in accordance with
section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, preliminarily intends to
report to the Commission a more recent rate of 5.43 percent for
Premier. This rate is from the 1995/96 period of review, in which the
overall volume of imports peaked and then began to decline.
(6) With respect to the PRC ``all others'' rate, the Department
agrees with domestic interested parties' argument that, as import
volumes generally increased, with the highest volumes in the years with
the highest margins, companies have increased dumping in order to
maintain or increase market share. We note that the total volume of
imports less imports of those companies with separate rates increased
from fiscal years 1994 through 1996, then declined in fiscal years 1997
through 1998. During this five-year period, the PRC rate increased
approximately 30 percent, reaching a peak of 33.18 percent in FY 1997.
Following this margin increase, imports declined approximately 60
percent. Because overall imports increased through 1996 and then began
to decline, the Department preliminarily intends to report to the
Commission a rate of 29.40 percent for ``all others'', in accordance
with section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin. This is the PRC-wide
rate from the 1995/96 administrative review.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that
revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Producer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Machinery Import & Export Corp.(``CMC'').... 0.03
Zheijiang Wanxiang Group................................... 0.03
Zheijiang Machinery Import & Export Corp................... 0.11
Luoyang.................................................... 3.20
Premier.................................................... 5.43
Liaoning................................................... 9.72
Guizhou Machinery.......................................... 21.79
Wafangdian................................................. 29.40
Jilin...................................................... 29.40
China National Machinery Import & Export Corp.(``CMEC'')... 29.40
Guizhou Automotive......................................... 29.40
Tianshui Hailin............................................ 29.40
Xiangyiang................................................. 29.40
Xibei...................................................... 29.40
Zheijiang Changshan Changhe Bearing Co. (``ZCCBC'')........ 29.40
All Others................................................. 29.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held on December 14, 1999, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no
later than December 7, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than December 13,
1999. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this
sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such Policy Bulletin.
This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 18, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-27686 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
