[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71447-71449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34324]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results
of 1996-1997 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of amended final results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 17, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the
final results of administrative review and new shipper review of the
antidumping order on tapered roller bearings from the People's Republic
of China (63 FR 63842). The period of review is June 1, 1996 through
May 31, 1997. Subsequent to the publication of the final results, we
received comments from respondents and the petitioner alleging various
ministerial errors. After analyzing the comments submitted, we are
amending our final results to correct certain ministerial errors.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Matney or Stephanie Hoffman;
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, US Department of
Commerce; 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone numbers (202) 482-1778 or (202) 482-4198, respectively.
Applicable Statute:
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930
(the Act), as amended, are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Additionally, unless otherwise
indicated all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR 353 (April 1997).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 71448]]
Background
On November 17, 1998, the Department published the final results of
administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on tapered roller bearings from the People's Republic of China
covering the period June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1996-1997 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Determination Not To
Revoke Order in Part 63 FR 63842 (November 17, 1998) (Final Results).
Subsequently, the petitioner, the Timken Company, and one respondent,
Premier Bearing & Equipment Ltd. (Premier), submitted ministerial error
allegations.
A summary of each allegation along with the Department's response
is included below. For a more detailed analysis, see December 17, 1998
Memorandum from Case Team to Richard Moreland, ``Concurrence for
ministerial error corrections to final results of review.'' We are
hereby amending our final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.28(c), to
reflect the correction of those errors which are clerical in nature.
Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations
Allegation 1: The petitioner alleges that in its database
containing corrections to steel unit consumption based on verification
for one of Zhejiang's suppliers, the Department included one model
number twice, with different steel unit consumption figures for the cup
and cone. The petitioner notes that this duplication of model numbers
may lead to erratic results in the calculations.
Department's Position: The petitioner is correct in stating that
one model in this database is included twice. However, the model in
question is not included among the U.S. sales of Zhejiang and,
therefore, the calculation of Zhejiang's margin is not affected.
Therefore, we did not alter Zhejiang's SAS program with regard to this
issue.
Allegation 2: The petitioner alleges that there is an error in the
SAS program for Zhejiang at the point where the revised steel unit
consumption database, discussed in Allegation 1 above, is merged into
the Factors of Production (FOP) database for one supplier. In
particular, there are more model numbers in the FOP database than there
are in the corrected unit consumption database. In the process of
merging these two data sets, the correct unit consumption for certain
models is erroneously overwritten, and reset to zero. This results in
an inaccurate calculation of the cost of production for these
particular models. The petitioner alleges the same error for four other
respondents: Yantai CMC, Liaoning MEC Group Co., Peer/Chin Jun, and
Premier.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner's allegations.
The appropriate unit consumption values for certain model numbers are
overwritten and reset to zero in these programs. We have modified the
SAS programs for Zhejiang and Yantai CMC to correct this error. This
error also affected the calculations for Peer/Chin Jun and Premier, as
these companies used constructed value (CV) data from the same
supplier. We re-ran these two companies' SAS programs with the revised
CV data to correct this error. We did not modify Liaoning's SAS program
as Liaoning did not sell the relevant models and, therefore, the error
did not affect the calculation of Liaoning's margin.
Allegation 3: Premier states that there were several ``complete''
bearings listed in Premier's sales database at CONNUMU for which the
proper FOP data match was not performed in the SAS final margin
program. Premier explained that this is because the model numbers of
inch-sized (as opposed to metric-size) complete bearings are often
shorthand combinations of the individual cup and cone assemblies used
in the bearing (e.g., complete bearing model LM11949/10 is comprised of
cone number LM11949 and cup number LM11910). Because of this shorthand
method of recording bearings, the margin program did not match certain
cups and cones with their respective complete bearings.
Department's Position: Although the Department acknowledges that
certain FOP data were not matched in the margin program, this is a
result of inconsistent CONNUMU numbering. The burden of identifying any
CONNUMUs which may be numbered inconsistently lies with the respondent,
not the Department. Premier did describe how its CONNUMUs are derived,
but it did not explain that factor information reported by the
suppliers was numbered differently. Therefore, the problem was not with
the shorthand reporting method, but rather with the inconsistency in
reporting between Premier and the suppliers. The Department had no
knowledge of this inconsistency.
The inconsistency in CONNUMUs was apparent to Premier after the
preliminary results. Yet Premier failed to raise this issue in its case
brief. Because Premier did not identify this error prior to the final
determination, the Department was not aware of the inconsistency in
reporting. Therefore, because we did not make a ministerial error, we
have not modified Premier's final calculations with regard to this
issue.
Moreover, the Department also notes that for three of the four
CONNUMUs identified in Premier's ministerial error allegation, the FOP
data is not complete. These bearings did not have CV information for
the entire assembled bearing, but only for the different components.
Therefore, certain factor information remains lacking, such as the
labor required to assemble the cone and cup. More information would be
required before we would be able to calculate the CV for the entire
assembled bearing. For all of the above reasons, Premier's allegations
do not constitute ministerial errors and will not be corrected.
Amended Final Results of Review
As a result of the amended margin calculations, the following
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period June 1, 1996
through May 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wafangdian................................................ 0.00
Luoyang................................................... 3.20
Yantai CMC................................................ 0.03
Xiangfan.................................................. 33.18
Zhejiang.................................................. 0.11
Wanxiang.................................................. 0.00
Liaoning MEC Group Corporation............................ 0.02
Premier................................................... 7.22
Peer/Chin Jun............................................. 0.05
ZX (the new shipper)...................................... 0.00
PRC Rate.................................................. 33.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. With respect to
export price sales for these amended final results, we divided the
total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and
export price) for each importer/customer by the total number of units
sold to that importer/customer. We will direct Customs to assess the
resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in
each of that importer's/customer's entries under the relevant order
during the review period. Although this will result in assessing
different percentage margins for individual entries, the total
antidumping duties collected for each
[[Page 71449]]
importer/customer for the review period will be almost exactly equal to
the total dumping margins.
For constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping
margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those
reviewed sales for each importer/customer. We will direct Customs to
assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered Customs
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's/
customer's entries during the review period. While the Department is
aware that the entered value of sales during the POR is not necessarily
equal to the entered value of entries during the POR, use of entered
value of sales as the basis of the assessment rate permits the
Department to collect a reasonable approximation of the antidumping
duties which would have been determined if the Department had reviewed
those sales of merchandise actually entered during the POR.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of amended final results of administrative
review and new shipper review for all shipments of TRBs entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rates for the PRC companies named above will be the rates shown
above, except that for exporters with de minimis rates, i.e., less than
0.50 percent, no deposit will be required; (2) for all remaining PRC
exporters, all of which were found not to be entitled to separate
rates, the cash deposit will be 33.18 percent (the proceeding's highest
margin); (3) for non-PRC exporters, Premier and Chin Jun, the cash
deposit rates will be the rates established above; (4) for non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, other than Premier and
Chin Jun, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) 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.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d) or conversion
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is
subject to sanction.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: December 17, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-34324 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
