[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 194 (Friday, October 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52376-52380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52377]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-559-802]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof (AFBs) From Singapore; Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 4, 1995 (60 FR 39933), the Department of Commerce
(the Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary
results of administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on
antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts
thereof (AFBs) from Singapore for the periods January 1, 1992 through
December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. We
have completed these reviews and determine the net subsidy to be zero
during both periods for the Minebea group of companies (Pelmec
Industries (Pte.) Ltd., NMB Singapore Ltd, and Minebea Co. Ltd.
Singapore Branch), and 9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies.
The Department will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate, without
regard to countervailing duties, all shipments of the subject
merchandise from Singapore exported by the Minebea group of companies
on or after January 1, 1992 and on or before December 31, 1993. For all
other companies, will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess
countervailing duties as indicated above.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Cameron Cardozo,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 4, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 39933) the preliminary results of its administrative reviews of
the countervailing duty orders on AFBs from Singapore. The Department
has now completed these administrative reviews in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. On September 5, 1995, a case brief was submitted jointly by
respondents, the Government of Singapore (GOS) and the Minebea group,
producers of the subject merchandise which exported to the United
States during the review period. On September 12, 1995, the petitioner,
the Torrington Company, submitted rebuttal comments.
The reviews cover the periods January 1, 1992 through December 31,
1992 and January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. The 1992 reviews
involve three related companies and 16 programs. The 1993 reviews cover
the same companies and 17 programs.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless otherwise indicated,
all citations to the statute and to the Department's regulations are in
reference to the provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994.
However, references to the Department's Countervailing Duties; Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 54 FR 23366
(May 31, 1989) (Proposed Regulations), are provided solely for further
explanation of the Department's countervailing duty practice. Although
the Department has withdrawn the particular rulemaking proceeding
pursuant to which the Proposed Regulations were issued, the subject
matter of these regulations is being considered in connection with an
ongoing rulemaking proceeding which, among other things, is intended to
conform the Department's regulations to the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act. See 60 FR 80 (Jan. 3, 1995).
Scope of the Reviews
Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of antifriction
bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. The
subject merchandise covers five separate classes or kinds of
merchandise, each of which is described in detail in Appendix A to this
notice. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule item numbers listed in Appendix
A are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
descriptions remain dispositive.
On October 30, 1992, the Department received a request for a scope
determination from Sundstrand Pacific (Sundstrand). Specifically,
Sundstrand asked the Department to find its part number 742973, an
outer-race of the cylindrical roller bearing, not within the scopes of
the countervailing duty orders. The request was subsequently evaluated
in accordance with section 355.29(i)(1) of the Department's
regulations. On February 4, 1993, the Department determined that the
product in question was within the scope of the order on cylindrical
roller bearings (58 FR 27542, 27543; May 10, 1993). Because the product
descriptions detailed in Sundstrand's request for a scope determination
were dispositive as to whether part number 742973 was within the scope
of the order on cylindrical roller bearings, the Department did not
initiate a formal scope inquiry. Accordingly, the U.S. Customs Service
has been instructed to continue to suspend liquidation of part 742973
exported by Sundstrand.
Best Information Available
During the investigation, Sundstrand, an exporter of the subject
merchandise which was identified by the Government of Singapore (GOS),
refused to participate, and consequently received a rate based entirely
on best information available (BIA)(see Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determinations and Countervailing Duty Orders:
Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
thereof from Singapore (54 FR 19125, 19126; May 3, 1989)). Section
776(c) of the Act requires the Department to use BIA ``whenever a party
or any other person refuses or is unable to produce information
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise
significantly impedes an investigation * * *'' See also 19 CFR
Sec. 355.37.
In determining what rate to use as BIA, the Department follows a
two-tiered methodology. The Department normally assigns lower BIA rates
to those respondents who cooperate in an administrative review (tier
two) and rates based on more adverse assumptions for respondents who do
not cooperate in the review, or who significantly impede the proceeding
(tier one). Cf. Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F. 2d
1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 28 F. 3d 1188, cert. denied, 1995 U.S.
Lexis 100 (1995) (Allied-Signal).
In these reviews, only the three related Minebea companies, which
account for the majority of Singaporean exports to the United States of
the subject merchandise, responded to the Department's questionnaires.
Sundstrand did not respond to our questionnaires. Furthermore, during
the course of verification of the GOS questionnaire response for 1992,
we examined a list of companies which exported subject merchandise to
the United States but, for reasons unknown
[[Page 52378]]
to the Department, did not respond to our questionnaire (See April 8,
1994, memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman (Public Version) regarding
Verification of Questionnaire Response in 1992 Administrative Review of
CVD Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof From Singapore--Covering the Period January 1, 1992
through December 31, 1992, at 4, which is on file in the public file of
the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce).
The GOS did not provide any information regarding Sundstrand or the
other companies' sales or exports of the subject merchandise, or the
extent to which Sundstrand or these companies participated in the
programs reviewed. During the course of the 1993 verification of the
GOS questionnaire response, we again examined a list of companies which
exported subject merchandise to the United States but did not respond
to our questionnaire (See April 9, 1995, memorandum to Barbara E.
Tillman (Public Version) regarding Verification of Questionnaire
Responses in the 1993 Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty
Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)
From Singapore, at 3, which is on file in the public file of the
Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce). Again,
the GOS did not provide any information regarding Sundstrand or the
other companies' sales or exports of the subject merchandise, or the
extent to which they participated in the programs reviewed. Therefore,
in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act and Allied-Signal, we are
assigning to Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies a first-
tier uncooperative BIA rate for both periods of review. The rate we are
applying for the periods January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992,
and January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, is 9.11 percent ad
valorem. This rate is the rate that has been assigned to Sundstrand in
each review since the first administrative review (see Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (other
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from Singapore (56 FR
26384; June 7, 1991)).
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
In accordance with our standard practice, for both periods of
review, we calculated the net subsidy on a country-wide basis by first
calculating the subsidy rate for each company subject to the
administrative review. We then weight-averaged the rate received by
each company using as the weight the company's share of total exports
from Singapore to the United States of subject merchandise, including
all companies, even those with de minimis and zero rates. To determine
the value of exports for the Minebea group of companies, we added the
reported total exports of subject merchandise to the United States by
the two related producers/exporters, NMB Singapore Ltd. and Pelmec
(Pte.) Ltd., to the total net mark-up on exports of subject merchandise
to the United States reported by the related trading company
respondent, Minebea Singapore Ltd. To determine the value of exports
for Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies based on BIA (see
Best Information Available, above), we subtracted the value of the
Minebea companies' exports of subject merchandise to the United States
from the total value of exports of subject merchandise to the United
States, as reported by the GOS.
We then summed the individual weight-averaged rates to determine
the subsidy from all programs benefitting Singaporean exports of
subject merchandise to the United States. Because the country-wide rate
calculated using this methodology was above de minimis, as defined by
19 CFR Sec. 355.7, for both periods of review, we next examined the net
subsidy rate calculated for each company to determine whether
individual company rates differed significantly from the weighted-
average country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 355.22(d)(3).
For both periods of review, we found that the Minebea group of
companies and the non-respondent companies had significantly different
net subsidy rates (zero and 9.11 percent ad valorem, respectively).
Under the Department's practice, any companies which did not have a
significantly different rate would be assigned the country-wide rate.
See Ceramica Regiomontana v. United States 853 F. Supp. 431,439 (CIT
1994). However, because we are applying BIA to all other companies
besides the Minebea group (See Best Information Available, above), we
are not issuing a weighted-average country-wide rate.
Analysis of Programs
Based upon our analysis of the questionnaire responses,
verification, and written comments from petitioner and respondents we
determine the following:
I. Program Found Not to Confer Subsidies
In the preliminary results we found the following program to be
non-countervailable:
Investment Allowances Under Part X of the Economic Expansion Incentives
Act (EEIA)
Our analysis of the comments submitted by the interested parties,
summarized below, has not led us to change our findings in the
preliminary results.
II. Programs Found Not To Be Used
In the preliminary results we found the following programs to be
not used during both the 1992 and 1993 review periods:
A. Production for Export under Part VI of the EEIA
B. Monetary Authority of Singapore Rediscount Facility
C. Other Tax Incentives under the EEIA
Part IV: Expansion of Established Enterprises
Part VII: International Trade Incentives
Part VIII: Foreign Loans for Productive Equipment
Part IX: Royalties, Fees and Development Contributions
Part XI: Warehousing and Servicing Incentives
D. Incentives Under the Income Tax Act
Sections 14B and 14C: Double Deduction of Export Promotion
Expenses
Section 14E: Double Deduction for Research and Development
Section 19B: Write-Offs of Payments for ``Know-How'',
Patents and Manufacturing Licenses
E. Programs Administered by the Economic Development Board
Capital Assistance Scheme
Productive Development Assistance Scheme
Initiatives in New Technology Program
F. Program Administered by the National Science Technology Board:
Research & Development Assistance Scheme
In addition, for the 1993 review, we found that the producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or receive
benefits under Part IIIA of the EEIA (post-pioneer status).
Analysis of Comments
Comment: The petitioner argues that the record evidence does not
support the Department's preliminary conclusion that Part X of the EEIA
is not limited to a specific enterprise or industry or a group of
enterprises or industries. Petitioner states that AFBs, accounting for
only a fraction of the production and sales of one of 69 industry
categories, represented less than one percent of all industries; as
such, it accounted for a disproportionate
[[Page 52379]]
share of the allowances received by all industries. Petitioner also
points out the Department's analysis showing that AFBs producers, who
received two (or 0.6 percent) of the 329 grants made under the program
over a four-year period, accounted for 6.3 percent of the total value
of those grants. (See December 30, 1994 Memorandum to Barbara E.
Tillman Regarding 1992 and 1993 Administrative Reviews of Antifriction
Bearings (AFBs) from Singapore--Investment Allowance Program, Part X of
the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA), on file in the public
file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of
Commerce) (Analysis Memo). Moreover, petitioner argues, the fact that
one industry sector (electronics) received more benefits under Part X
than the sector which includes AFBs (fabricated metal products) does
not preclude the Department from finding that the AFBs is a dominant
user. Congress' intention with respect to the specificity test,
petitioner states, is to differentiate between government assistance
that is broadly available and widely used and subsidies provided to
discrete segments of the economy, and not to function as a loophole
through which narrowly focused subsidies provided to discrete segments
of an economy could escape the purview of the CVD law. (See Statement
of Administrative Action, H. Doc. 103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 929-30
(1994)). Petitioner again refers to the Department's Analysis Memo
showing that three industry sectors (electronics, fabricated metal
products, and non-electrical machinery) accounted for 71 percent of the
total allowances provided. As such, petitioner argues that benefits
bestowed to AFBs producers under Part X are countervailable subsidies.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. The Department
conducts its specificity test on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account all information on the record. The test requires, among other
things, that the Department consider several factors. See 19 U.S.C.
1677(5)(B), and Proposed Regulations, at section 355.43(b)(2). The
factors of our analysis, listed in the order of consideration, are the
following: (i) the extent to which a government acts to limit the
availability of a program (the Department has consistently interpreted
this factor as providing for the de jure analysis. See, e.g. Fresh,
Chilled, and Frozen Pork from Canada, 54 FR 30744, 30777 (1989)); (ii)
the number of enterprises, industries, or groups thereof that actually
use a program; (iii) whether there are dominant users of a program, or
whether certain enterprises, industries, or groups thereof receive
disproportionately large benefits under a program; and (iv) the extent
to which a government exercises discretion in conferring benefits under
a program. Proposed Regulations, at Sec. 355.43(b)(2).
Petitioner's comments address the third factor of specificity
analysis, whether there are dominant or disproportionate users of the
program. Petitioner suggests two comparisons as being indicative of
disproportionality, one between the number of industry categories
receiving allowances and the value of the allowances received, and the
other between the number of allowances and the value of the allowances.
Petitioner's use of these comparisons is neither indicative nor
informative of whether disproportionate benefits have been bestowed.
The fact that AFBs received only 0.6 percent of the number of
allowances under Part X (or represented less than one percent of the
number of industries) but 6.3 percent of the total value of allowances
bestowed is not evidence of disproportionality under the Department's
practice.
In prior cases where the Department has found disproportionality
(See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain
Steel Products from Brazil (Certain Steel), 58 FR 37295 (July 9, 1993);
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented
Electrical Steel From Italy (Electrical Steel), 59 FR 18357, 18360
(April 18, 1994); Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (Live Swine), 59 FR 12243
(March 16, 1994), we analyzed whether respondents received a
disproportionate share of benefits by comparing their share of benefits
to the collective or individual share of benefits provided to all other
users of the program in question. Similarly, in this case, we compared
the share of benefits received by AFBs under Part X to the individual
and collective share of benefits provided to all others. The share of
Part X benefits received by AFBs was only 6.3 percent of the total
value of allowances received by all users. In Certain Steel, by
contrast, steel producers accounted for more than 50 percent of the
benefits under the examined program. The small amount of benefits
received by AFBs producers is also distinguishable from Electrical
Steel, in which steel producers received 34 percent of the benefits,
and Live Swine, in which hog producers received 70 percent of the total
benefits under the examined program.
Moreover, we do not find persuasive petitioner's argument that, as
part of one of three industry categories which collectively received 71
percent of the allowances approved, AFBs received a disproportionate
share. While it is possible for a group of industries to be a
``disproportionately large'' recipient of benefits based on the facts
of a given case (See Certain Steel and Electrical Steel), in this
instance we are dealing with three industry categories which include a
wide variety of distinct and diverse products, not variations of the
same product or the same product at different stages of production. As
petitioner has acknowledged in its comments, AFBs are only part of the
fabricated metal products category. This category also includes
toolings, fasteners, springs, wireforms, stamping equipment, and many
other products, all of which received allowances. Furthermore, the
products with approved allowances in the electronics category include
circuit boards, television components, microwave units, semiconductors,
telephones, audio webs, and other products. See Verification Report
(Public Version) for the 1992 Administrative Review, May 8, 1995, at
19, which is on file in the public file of the Central Records Unit,
Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce. Thus, while the fact that
three industry categories collectively accounted for 71 percent of the
value of total allowances may, on its face, appear significant, when
all of the information regarding the usage of the program is analyzed,
this number alone is not sufficient to find that AFBs received a
disproportionate share.
We agree with petitioner's assertion that the specificity test is
not intended to function as a loophole through which narrowly focused
subsidies provided to discrete segments of an economy escape the
purview of the CVD law. However, in our analysis, we found no evidence
that Part X is a narrowly focused subsidy provided to AFBs. Rather, the
Department has found the broad distribution of Part X benefits among
companies and industries in Singapore to be indicative that the program
is widely available and used by more than just ``discrete segments'' of
the economy. Therefore, our preliminary finding regarding Part X
remains unchanged.
Final Results of Review
For the periods January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 and
January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, we determine the net subsidy
to be zero for the Minebea group of companies and
[[Page 52380]]
9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies.
The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the
following countervailing duties:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Rate (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minebea Companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB)...... 0.00
All Other Companies percent................... 9.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will also instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
collect zero cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all
shipments of the subject merchandise from Singapore by the Minebea
group of companies, and 9.11 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all
shipments of the subject merchandise from all other companies, entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this review.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). Timely written notification
of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.
Dated: September 29, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-24931 Filed 10-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
