[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62813-62816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29888]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-475-801]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From Italy; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other
than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from Italy. The classes
or kinds of merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and
cylindrical roller bearings. The reviews cover 3 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review (the POR) is May 1, 1993, through April
30, 1994.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of the administrative review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between
the United States price (USP) and the FMV. We invite interested parties
to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The appropriate case analyst, for the
various respondent firms listed below, at the Office of Antidumping
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
Davina Hashmi (Meter), Michael Rausher (FAG), Thomas Schauer (SKF),
Michael Rill, or Richard Rimlinger.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
(54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings (BBs) and
cylindrical roller bearings (CRBs) and parts thereof from Italy. On
June 22, 1994, and July 15, 1994, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c)
(1994), we initiated administrative reviews of those orders for the
period May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994 (59 FR 32180 and 59 FR
36160). The Department is now conducting these administrative reviews
in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Tariff Act).
Scope of Reviews
The products covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings
(other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs), and
constitute the following classes or kinds of merchandise:
1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all
antifriction bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports
of these products are classified under the following categories:
antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings
(including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or
mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,
4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010,
8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.10,
8482.99.35, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050,
8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06,
8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080,
8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90.
2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products
include all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling
element. Imports of these products are classified under the following
categories: antifriction rollers, all cylindrical roller bearings
(including split cylindrical roller bearings) and parts thereof, and
housed or mounted cylindrical roller bearing units and parts thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50,
6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00, 8482.50.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530,
8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.50.8040, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50,
8708.60.50, 8708.93.5000, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50,
8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30,
8803.90.90.
The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether
the bearing is covered by the order. For a further discussion of the
scope of the orders being reviewed, including recent scope
determinations, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping
Duty Order, 60 FR 10959 (February 28, 1995). The HTS item numbers are
provided for
[[Page 62814]]
convenience and Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain
dispositive.
These reviews cover the following firms and classes or kinds of
merchandise:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of firm Class or kind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italia S.p.A......................... BBs, CRBs.
Meter, S.p.A............................. BBs.
SKF Industrie S.p.A...................... BBs, CRBs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Price
In calculating United States price (USP), the Department used
purchase price or exporter's sales price (ESP), as defined in section
772 of the Tariff Act, as appropriate.
Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred
during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in
calculating individual margins for all of these transactions, we
sampled sales to calculate USP, in accordance with section 777A of the
Tariff Act. When a firm made more than 2,000 ESP sales transactions to
the United States for a particular class or kind of merchandise, we
reviewed ESP sales which occurred during sample weeks. We selected one
week from each two-month period in the review period, for a total of
six weeks, and analyzed each transaction made in those six weeks. The
sample weeks included June 27-July 3, 1993, July 4-10, 1993, October
10-16, 1993, November 7-13, 1993, February 13-19, 1994, and April 24-
30, 1994. We reviewed all purchase price sales transactions during the
POR because there were few purchase price sales.
USP was based on the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or delivered price to
unrelated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We
made deductions, as appropriate, from purchase price and ESP for
movement expenses, discounts and rebates.
We made additional deductions from ESP for direct selling expenses,
indirect selling expenses, and repacking in the United States.
In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v.
United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, the Department has changed its
treatment of home market consumption taxes. Where merchandise exported
to the United States is exempt from the consumption tax, the Department
will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged on
the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology
that the Department adopted following the decision of the Federal
Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and
which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The
Court of International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in
Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and the
Department acquiesced in the CIT's decision. The Department then
followed the CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the
tax to be added to U.S. price by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by
the foreign market tax rate; the Department made adjustments to this
amount so that the tax adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax
dumping assessment.
The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed
that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held
that the statute did not preclude the Department from using the
``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping
assessments (i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or
amount of home market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit
recognized that certain international agreements of the United States,
in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the
Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral
dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT
with instructions to direct the Department to determine which tax
methodology it will employ.
The Department has determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4''
methodology should be used. First, as the Department has explained in
numerous administrative determinations and court filings over the past
decade, and as the Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of
the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required
that dumping assessments be tax-neutral. This requirement continues
under the new Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act (URAA) explicitly amended the antidumping law to remove consumption
taxes from the home market price and to eliminate the addition of taxes
to U.S. price, so that no consumption tax is included in the price in
either market. The Statement of Administrative Action (p. 159)
explicitly states that this change was intended to result in tax
neutrality.
While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA
law required that the tax be added to U.S. price rather than subtracted
from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty assessments.
In sum, the Department has elected to treat consumption taxes in a
manner consistent with its longstanding policy of tax-neutrality and
with the GATT.
With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the
United States prior to sale to unrelated U.S. customers, e.g., parts of
bearings that were imported and further processed into finished
bearings by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters, we deducted any
increased value in accordance with section 772(e)(3) of the Tariff Act.
Those bearings which are otherwise subject to the order that are
imported into the United States and incorporated into nonbearing
products by or for the exporter, and which collectively comprise less
than one percent of the value of the finished products sold to
unrelated customers in the United States are not subject to the
assessment of antidumping duties (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of
Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR
31694 (July 11, 1991). In Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from Japan
48 FR 51801 (November 14, 1983), roller chain, which was subject to an
antidumping duty finding, was imported by a related party and
incorporated into finished motorcycles. The finished motorcycles were
the first products sold by the exporter to unrelated purchasers in the
United States. Because the roller chain did not constitute a
significant percentage of the value of the completed product, the
Department found that a USP could not reasonably be determined for the
roller chain. The Department, therefore, did not assess antidumping
duties on these transactions. We have applied this same principle to
these reviews.
Foreign Market Value
The home markets were viable for all companies and all classes or
kinds of merchandise pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.48. The Department used
home market prices or constructed value (CV), as defined in section 773
of the Tariff Act, as appropriate, to calculate foreign market value
(FMV).
Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred
during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in
examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate FMV,
in accordance with section 777A of the Tariff Act. When a firm had more
than 2,000 home market sales transactions for a particular class or
kind of merchandise, we used sales
[[Page 62815]]
from sample months that corresponded to the sample weeks selected for
U.S. sales sampling plus one contemporaneous month prior to the POR and
one following the POR. The sample months included April, June, July,
October, and November of 1993, and February, April, and May of 1994.
In general, the Department relies on monthly weighted-average
prices in the calculation of FMV in administrative reviews. Because of
the significant volume of home market sales involved in these reviews,
we examined whether it was appropriate to average, in accordance with
section 777A of the Tariff Act, all of each respondent's home market
sales on an annual basis. In this case, the use of POR weighted-average
prices results in significant time and resource savings for the
Department. To determine whether a POR weighted-average price was
representative of the transactions under consideration, we performed a
three-step test.
We first compared each monthly weighted-average home market price
for each model with the weighted-average POR price of that model. We
calculated the proportion of each model's sales whose POR weighted-
average price did not vary meaningfully (i.e., was within plus or minus
10 percent) from the monthly weighted-average prices. We did this for
each model within each class or kind of merchandise. We then compared
the volume of sales of all models within each class or kind of
merchandise whose POR weighted-average price did not vary meaningfully
from the monthly weighted-average price with the total volume of sales
of that class or kind of merchandise. If the POR weighted-average price
of at least 90 percent of sales in each class or kind of merchandise
did not vary meaningfully from the monthly weighted-average price, we
considered the POR weighted-average prices to be representative of the
transactions under consideration. Finally, we tested whether there was
any correlation between fluctuations in price and time for the home
market sales. Where the absolute value of the correlation coefficient
was less than 0.05 (where a coefficient approaching 1.0 means a direct
relation between price and time, i.e., that prices consistently rise
from month to month, and a coefficient approaching zero means no
relation between prices and time), we concluded that there was no
significant relation between price and time. We calculated a weighted-
average POR FMV only for those classes or kinds that satisfied our
three-step test for the factors of price, volume, and time.
We compared U.S. sales with sales of such or similar merchandise in
the home market. We considered all non-identical products within a
bearing family to be equally similar. As defined in the questionnaire,
a bearing family consists of all bearings within a class or kind of
merchandise that are the same in the following physical
characteristics: load direction, bearing design, number of rows of
rolling elements, precision rating, dynamic load rating, outer
diameter, inner diameter, and width.
Home market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or
delivered prices to related or unrelated purchasers in the home market.
Where applicable, we made adjustments for movement expenses,
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 773(a)(4)(C) of the
Tariff Act, and differences in packing. We also made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with 19 C.F.R.
353.56. For comparisons to purchase price sales, we deducted home
market direct selling expenses and added U.S. direct selling expenses.
For comparisons to ESP sales, we deducted home market direct selling
expenses. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in purchase price
and ESP calculations and to offset U.S. indirect selling expenses
deducted in ESP calculations, but not exceeding the amount of the
indirect U.S. expenses. For comparisons to both ESP and purchase price
sales, we adjusted FMV for taxes consistent with our change in practice
as stated above.
We used sales to related customers only where we determined such
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unrelated
customers.
Where we found home market sales below the cost of production in
the 1991-1992 administrative reviews, we concluded that reasonable
grounds exist to believe or suspect that home market sales during the
POR were made at prices below the cost of production, and we initiated
cost investigations.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in determining
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the cost of
production, we examined whether such sales were made in substantial
quantities over an extended period of time. When less than 10 percent
of the home market sales of a particular model were at prices below the
cost of production, we found that there were not substantial quantities
of that model sold below cost and did not disregard any sales of that
model. When 10 percent or more, but not more than 90 percent, of the
home market sales of a particular model were determined to be below
cost, we determined that substantial quantities of that model were sold
below cost and excluded the below-cost home market sales from our
calculation of FMV, provided that these below-cost sales were made over
an extended period of time. When more than 90 percent of the home
market sales of a particular model were made below cost over an
extended period of time, we disregarded all home market sales of that
model from our calculation of FMV and used CV (see Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea, 56 FR 16306 (1991)).
To determine if sales below cost had been made over an extended
period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below
cost had occurred for a particular model to the number of months in
which the model was sold. If the model was sold in three or fewer
months, we did not find that below-cost sales were made over an
extended period of time unless there were sales below cost of that
model in each month. If a model was sold in more than three months, we
did not find that below-cost sales were made over an extended period of
time unless there were sales below cost in at least three of the months
in which the model was sold (see Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews; 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,
58 FR 64729 (December 9, 1993)).
Since none of the respondents has submitted information indicating
that any of its sales below cost were at prices which would have
permitted ``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in
the normal course of trade'' within the meaning of section 773(b)(2) of
the Tariff Act, we were unable to conclude that the costs of production
of such sales were recovered within a reasonable period of time. As a
result, we disregarded below-cost sales when the conditions described
above were met.
In accordance with sections 773(a)(1) and 773(b)(2) of the Tariff
Act, we used CV as the basis for FMV when there were no usable sales of
such or similar merchandise for comparison.
We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff
Act. We included the cost of materials, fabrication, general expenses,
profit, and packing. To calculate CV we used: (1) Actual general
expenses or the statutory
[[Page 62816]]
minimum of 10 percent of materials and fabrication, whichever was
greater; (2) actual profit or the statutory minimum of 8 percent of
materials, fabrication costs and general expenses, whichever was
greater; and (3) packing costs for merchandise exported to the United
States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
19 C.F.R. 353.56 for differences in circumstances of sale. For
comparisons to purchase price sales, we deducted home market direct
selling expenses and added U.S. direct selling expenses. For
comparisons to ESP sales, we deducted home market direct selling
expenses. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in purchase price
and ESP calculations. For comparisons involving ESP transactions, we
made further deductions for CV for indirect selling expenses in the
home market, capped by the indirect selling expenses incurred on ESP
sales in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.56(b)(2).
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the
weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period May 1,
1993, through April 30, 1994 to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company BBs CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG................................................... 2.23 0.00
Meter................................................. 3.75 (\1\)
SKF................................................... 3.26 (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No review requested.
\2\Order partially revoked with respect to this company.
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this
notice. A general issues hearing, if requested, and any hearings
regarding issues related solely to specific countries, if requested,
will be held in accordance with the following schedule and at the
indicated locations in the main Commerce building:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Time Room No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General issues................ Jan. 22, 1996.... 10 a.m..... 1412
Italy......................... Jan. 22, 1996.... 2 p.m...... 1412
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective briefs or written comments, and rebuttal briefs or rebuttals
to written comments. Briefs or written comments from interested
parties, and rebuttal briefs or rebuttals to written comments, limited
to the issues raised in the respective case briefs and comments, may be
submitted not later than the dates shown below for general issues and
the respective country-specific cases. The Department will subsequently
publish the final results of these administrative reviews, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written
comments or hearings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefs/comments
Case due Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General issues.................. Jan. 8, 1996...... Jan. 16, 1996
Italy........................... Jan. 8, 1996...... Jan. 16, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because sampling
prevents calculation of duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we will
calculate an importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate for each
class or kind of merchandise based on the ratio of the total value 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. (This is equivalent to
dividing the total value of antidumping duties, which are calculated by
taking the difference between statutory FMV and statutory USP, by the
total statutory USP value of the sales compared, and adjusting the
result by the average difference between USP and customs value for all
merchandise examined during the POR.)
In some cases such as purchase price situations, the respondent
does not know the entered value of the merchandise. Then, we will
either calculate an approximate entered value or we will calculate an
average per-unit dollar amount of antidumping duty based on all sales
examined during the POR. See AFBs I at 31694. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service
upon completion of these reviews.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the
reviewed companies will be those rates established in the final results
of these reviews (except that no deposit will be required for firms
with zero or de minimis margins; i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent);
(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 this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV
investigation, 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) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate
made effective by the final results of the 1991-92 administrative
reviews of these orders (see Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty
Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993)). As noted in those previous final
results, these rates are the ``all others'' rates from the relevant
LTFV investigations. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative reviews.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 353.26 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.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19
C.F.R. 353.22(c)(5).
Dated: November 30, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-29888 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
