[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25200-25205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12519]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-604; A-588-054]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Termination in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner and two respondents,
the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from Japan (A-588-
604), and of the finding on tapered roller bearings, four inches or
less in outside diameter, and components thereof, from Japan (A-588-
054). The review of the A-588-054 finding covers four manufacturers/
exporters and ten resellers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States during the period October 1, 1993, through September 30,
1994, and one manufacturer/exporter for the period October 1, 1992,
through September 30, 1993. The review of the A-588-604 order covers
five manufacturers/exporters, ten resellers/exporters, and seventeen
firms identified by the petitioner in this case as forging producers,
and the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994. The A-588-
604 review also covers one manufacturer/exporter for the period October
1, 1992, through September 30, 1993.
We have preliminarily determined that sales of tapered roller
bearings (TRBs) have been made below the foreign market value (FMV). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the United
States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Turoscy or Robert James,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202)
482-5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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.
Background
On August 18, 1976, the Treasury Department published in the
Federal Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping finding on TRBs from
Japan, and on October 6, 1987, the Department published the antidumping
duty order on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On October 7, 1994 (59 FR
51166), the Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request
an Administrative Review'' for both TRB cases. The petitioner, the
Timken Co., and two respondents requested administrative reviews. We
initiated the A-588-054 and A-588-604 administrative reviews for the
period October 1993 through September 1994 on November 14, 1994 (59 FR
56459).
The Department has now conducted these reviews in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
However, we have not conducted a review of Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
(Honda) for either the A-588-054 or the A-588-604 case. In our
preliminary results notice for the 1992-93 administrative reviews, we
published our intent to revoke the A-588-054 finding as to Honda and
explained that our final determination concerning Honda's revocation
would be published in our final results notice for the 1992-93
administrative reviews (see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,
Termination in Part, and Intent to Revoke in Part, 60 FR 22349 (May 5,
1995)). We have not yet completed those final results and our final
determination concerning Honda's revocation has not yet been made. Upon
our determination concerning Honda's revocation and the publication of
our final results of review for the 1992-93 administrative review
period, we will proceed accordingly for Honda in both the A-588-054 and
A-588-604 cases.
This notice also includes, along with our 1993-94 preliminary
results of review for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo), our 1992-93
preliminary results of review for Koyo for both the A-588-054 finding
and the A-588-604 order. Because our scope proceeding regarding Koyo's
rough forgings was concurrent with our 1992-93 preliminary results
analysis, we determined that, rather than delay our 1992-93 preliminary
results of review for all other reviewed firms, we would conduct Koyo's
1992-93 reviews in both cases after making our final scope
determination concerning Koyo's rough forgings. On February 2, 1995, we
published in the Federal Register our final scope decision concerning
Koyo's rough forgings (60 FR 6519), in which we determined that Koyo's
rough forgings are within the scope of the A-588-604 order. We provided
Koyo additional time to submit its sales and cost information
concerning its rough forgings for both the 1992-93 and 1993-94
administrative reviews and have now conducted our review of Koyo for
both these periods in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the A-588-054 finding are sales or entries of
TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter when assembled, including
inner race or cone assemblies and outer races or cups, sold either as a
unit or separately. This merchandise is classified under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30.
Imports covered by the A-588-604 order include TRBs and parts
thereof, finished and unfinished, which are flange, take-up cartridge,
and hanger units incorporating TRBs, and tapered roller housings
(except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without
spindles, whether or not for
[[Page 25201]]
automotive use. Products subject to the A-588-054 finding are not
included within the scope of this order, except for those manufactured
by NTN Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd. (NTN). This merchandise is currently
classifiable under HTS item numbers 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8482.20.20,
8483.20.80, 8482.91.00, 8484.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and
8483.90.60. These HTS item numbers and those for the A-588-054 finding
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
The period for each 1993-94 review is October 1, 1993, through
September 30, 1994. These reviews cover TRB sales by five TRB
manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NSK Ltd. (NSK), NTN, Nachi-Fujikoshi
Corporation (Nachi), and Maekawa Bearing Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Maekawa)), and
ten resellers/exporters (Honda, Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Fuji),
Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Kawasaki), Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.
(Yamaha), Sumitomo Corporation (Sumitomo), Itochu Co., Ltd. (Itochu),
Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. (Suzuki), Nigata Converter Co., Ltd. (Nigata),
Toyosha Co., Ltd. (Toyosha), and MC International (MC Int'l)). These
reviews also cover U.S. sales/importations of forgings by Koyo, NTN,
and seventeen firms identified by the petitioner as Japanese forging
producers (Daido Steel Co., Ltd. (Daido Steel), Asakawa Screw Co., Ltd.
(Asakawa), Fuse Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd.,
Ichiyanagi Tekko, Isshi Nut Industries (Isshi Nut), Kawada Tekko, Kinki
Maruseo Nut Kogyo Kumiai, Kitazawa Valve Co., Ltd. (Kitz Corp.),
Nittetsu Bolten, Shiga Bolt, Shinko Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, Sumikin
Seiatsu, Toyo Valve Co., Unytite Fastener Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Unytite
Kogyo), and Showa Seiko Co., Ltd. (Showa)). We are terminating our
review for eleven of the seventeen firms as described in the
``Termination in Part'' section of this notice.
The period for the 1992-93 reviews is October 1, 1992, through
September 30, 1993. The 1992-93 reviews of both the A-588-054 and A-
588-604 cases included in this notice cover TRB sales by one
manufacturer/exporter, Koyo.
Verification
As provided for in section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we verified
information provided by NTN for the 1993-94 review period and
information provided by Koyo for the 1992-93 review period. We used
standard verification procedures in each of the verifications,
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of
original documentation containing relevant information. Our
verification results are outlined in the public versions of our NTN and
Koyo verification reports.
Best Information Available (BIA)
Total BIA
For these preliminary results, in accordance with section 776(c) of
the Tariff Act, for several firms we used BIA, which we determined
according to the two-tier BIA methodology outlined in Antifriction
Bearings; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews and
Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729, 39739 (July
26, 1993) (AFBs). Based on this methodology we used BIA as follows:
1. When a company refused to cooperate with the Department or
otherwise significantly impeded these proceedings, we used as total BIA
the higher of (1) the highest rate found for any firm for the same
class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin in the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative reviews;
or (2) the highest rate found in this review for any firm for the same
class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin.
2. When a company substantially cooperated with our requests for
information and substantially cooperated at verification, but failed to
provide requested information in a timely manner or in the form
required or was unable to substantiate it, we used as total BIA the
higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to that firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation or
a prior administrative review (or if the firm had never before been
investigated or reviewed, the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation), or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for
the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country of
origin.
Thus, for first-tier (non-cooperative) BIA in these reviews we have
used for the A-588-604 review the highest calculated rate for any firm
in the history of the order (i.e., 40.37 percent, the rate for NSK in
the 1988-89 A-588-604 review), and for the A-588-054 review we have
used the highest calculated rate for any firm in the history of the
finding (i.e., 47.63 percent, the rate for Koyo in the 1987-88 A-588-
054 review).
Listed below is a company-by-company summary of the total BIA used
in these reviews.
A. First-Tier (Non-Cooperative) BIA
(i) Maekawa, Yamaha, Toyosha, Nigata, and Suzuki: None of these
firms responded to our questionnaire in either the A-588-054 or the A-
588-604 review. Therefore, based on the criteria set forth above, as
first-tier BIA for each of these firms in the A-588-604 review we used
40.37 percent and for each of these firms in the A-588-054 review, we
used 47.63 percent.
(ii) Nachi: In a letter responding to our questionnaire Nachi
indicated that it declined to provide the information requested in our
questionnaire for both the A-588-604 and A-588-054 reviews. As a
result, we used for Nachi first-tier BIA rates of 40.37 percent in the
A-588-604 review and 47.63 percent in the A-588-054 review.
(iii) Daido Steel, Kawanda Tekkosho, Asakawa, Ichiyanagi Tekko, and
Isshi Nut: These five firms, which were identified as forging producers
and which are involved only in the A-588-604 review, did not respond to
our questionnaire. As a result, for each firm we used a first-tier BIA
rate of 40.37 percent.
(iv) While Kawasaki did respond to our questionnaire, its response
contained only general information and a statement indicating that it
declined to provide any of the sales-specific information we requested
in our questionnaire. The information Kawasaki failed to provide was
necessary for our analysis, and Kawasaki's failure to provide this
information impeded our ability to conduct the review for Kawasaki. We
have therefore used a first-tier BIA rate of 40.47 percent for Kawasaki
in the A-588-604 review, and a first-tier BIA rate of 47.63 percent in
the A-588-054 review.
Partial BIA
While conducting our 1992-93 and 1993-94 preliminary analysis for
Koyo, we discovered that in both reviews Koyo did not report the actual
further-processing costs for certain of its U.S. further-processed
models. Rather, Koyo reported further-processing costs for these models
which were based on the further-processing costs of other U.S. models
which Koyo identified as most similar. As a result, the actual further-
processing costs requested by the Department for these U.S. models were
not reported by Koyo. Furthermore, our review of both Koyo's 1992-93
and 1993-94 questionnaire responses revealed that Koyo failed to
indicate in its responses that it reported something other than the
actual further-processing costs for certain U.S. models.
[[Page 25202]]
In those cases where the overall integrity of a respondent's
questionnaire response warrants a calculated rate, but the firm failed
to provide certain information, or certain information it provided was
inaccurate, it is the Department's practice to use partial BIA (see,
e.g., AFBs at 10907). Therefore, for these 1992-93 and 1993-94
preliminary results for Koyo, we have used partial BIA for the further-
processing costs Koyo failed to accurately report for these particular
U.S. models. After making an initial adjustment to all of Koyo's
further-processing costs based on information we discovered at
verification (see the Office of Accounting's preliminary results
calculation memorandum dated October 12, 1995), we determined the
single highest ratio between further-processing costs and the gross
unit price for all of Koyo's further-manufactured U.S. models. We then
applied this ratio to the unit prices for the models in question and
used the resulting further-processing cost amounts as partial BIA for
these models.
No Shipments
Two resellers, Fuji and MC Int'l, made no shipments of A-588-604
subject merchandise during the review period. Furthermore, neither of
these firms was a party to the A-588-604 LTFV investigation or any
prior administrative reviews of the A-588-604 case. Because their
shipments have never been reviewed individually, we have not assigned a
rate to these two firms for the A-588-604 case. If these firms begin
shipping subject merchandise at some future date, the entries will be
subject to the cash deposit rates attributable to the manufacturer(s)
of the subject merchandise.
Concerning those firms identified by the petitioner as forging
producers, only one of the 17 firms, Showa, reported that it actually
produced forgings used in the manufacture of TRBs. However, Showa also
indicated that it did not sell these forgings to the United States, but
rather only sold such merchandise to companies in Japan. Because this
firm had no U.S. shipments of this merchandise during the review period
and has never been involved in an A-588-604 review or the LTFV
investigation, we have not assigned an individual rate to Showa for the
A-588-604 case. If Showa were to begin shipping at some future date,
the entries will be subject to the A-588-604 LTFV ``all others'' cash
deposit rate of 36.52 percent.
Termination in Part
Eleven of the seventeen firms identified by the petitioner as
forging producers reported that they did not produce the forgings which
have been found to be within the scope of the order, but rather only
produced non-scope merchandise such as nuts, bolts, and valves. As a
result, because these firms do not produce or sell subject merchandise,
we are terminating the A-588-604 review for the following eleven firms:
Fuse Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., Kinki Maruseo Nut
Kogyo Kumiai, Kitz Corp., Shiga Bolt, Shinko Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho,
Toyo Valve Co., Nittetsu Bolten, Sumikin Seiatsu, and Unytite Kogyo.
Our termination of the A-588-604 review for these eleven firms does
not constitute a revocation of the order as to these firms. If any of
the above eleven firms ever become manufacturers/exporters of TRBs or
forgings used in the production of TRBs, their merchandise will be
subject to the order.
Resellers/Shippers
Of the ten resellers covered by these reviews, we have determined
that two of these resellers, Sumitomo and Itochu, are mere shippers of
the subject merchandise and do not warrant their own margin. Itochu and
Sumitomo contract with larger Japanese companies/suppliers to ship TRBs
from the suppliers to the suppliers' U.S. subsidiaries. Because these
suppliers knew at the time of the transfer of merchandise to Itochu and
Sumitomo that these TRBs were destined for the United States, and
because Itochu and Sumitomo had no influence over the sales prices or
quantities of these shipments, we have determined that the suppliers'
rates, and not unique Sumitomo or Itochu rates, should be applied for
cash deposit and appraisement purposes. See, for example, Antifriction
Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from
Germany, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 56 FR 31692, 31747 (July 11, 1991).
United States Price (USP)
The Department used exporter's sales price (ESP) for Koyo, NSK,
NTN, Fuji, and MC Int'l, and purchase price for certain of Fuji's and
NTN's sales, as defined in section 772 of the Tariff Act, to calculate
USP. ESP was based on the packed, delivered price to unrelated
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable,
for foreign pre-sale inland freight, foreign inland freight, air
freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, export inspection fees,
brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, U.S. duty, commissions to
unrelated parties, U.S. credit, discounts, rebates, sales allowances,
billing adjustments, technical service expenses, warranties, packing
expenses incurred in the United States, and indirect selling expenses
(which include inventory carrying costs, warehouse transfer expenses,
advertising, other U.S.--incurred selling expenses, and export selling
expenses). For NTN and Koyo, we also adjusted ESP for value added in
further manufacturing, including an allocation of profit earned on U.S.
sales. In addition, based on our verification of Koyo's reported 1992-
93 further manufacturing information, and Koyo's response to our 1993-
94 supplemental questionnaire, we made adjustments to Koyo's reported
1992-93 and 1993-94 further-manufacturing costs.
NTN's and Fuji's purchase price sales were based on the sales price
to the first unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made
adjustments to purchase price, where appropriate, for rebates and the
following movement expenses: foreign pre-sale inland freight, foreign
inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, brokerage and
handling, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and export inspection fees.
In light of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) in Federal-Mogul v. United
States, CAFC No. 94-1097, we have changed our treatment of home market
consumption taxes. For these preliminary results, where merchandise
exported to the United States was exempt from the consumption tax, we
added 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 we adopted following the decision of the Federal Circuit in Zenith
v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and which was suggested
by the Federal Circuit 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 we acquiesced to the
CIT's decision. We 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; we 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
the
[[Page 25203]]
decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held that
the statute did not preclude Commerce 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 Commerce to determine which tax methodology
it will employ.
We have determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology
should be used. First, as we have 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 GATT. 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, we have elected to treat consumption taxes in a manner
consistent with our longstanding policy of tax-neutrality and with the
GATT.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value (FMV)
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.48(a), we determined that the home
market was viable for NTN, NSK, Koyo, and Fuji. Therefore, we compared
U.S. sales with sales of such or similar merchandise in the home
market.
In general, the Department relies on monthly weighted-average
prices in the calculation of FMV. For reasons of simplification,
consistent with section 777A of the Tariff Act, we used an average of
respondents' home market sales for each review period. To determine
whether an annual average was representative of the transactions under
consideration, we performed the following three-step test (see AFBs).
First, we compared the annual weighted-average home market price for
each model with each of its 12 monthly weighted-average prices for each
review period. We calculated the proportion of each model's sales whose
annual weighted-average price did not vary more than plus or minus 10
percent from the monthly weighted-average prices. Second, we compared
the volume of sales of all models whose annual weighted-average prices
did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent from the monthly
weighted-average prices with the total volume of sales of TRBs. If the
annual weighted-average price of at least 90 percent of the sales of
TRBs did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent from the monthly
weighted-average price, we considered the annual weighted-average price
to be representative of the transactions under consideration for that
firm. Third, we tested whether there was any correlation between
fluctuations in price and time for each model. Where the correlation
coefficient was less than 0.05 (where a coefficient approaching 1.0
indicates a direct relation between price and time), we concluded that
there was no significant relation between price and time. Because the
annual weighted-average prices for each model sold by Koyo, NSK, Fuji,
MC Int'l, and NTN during each review period did not vary meaningfully
from the monthly weighted-average prices of sales, and because there
was no correlation between price and time, we considered the annual
weighted-average prices for each review period to be representative of
the transactions under consideration. Therefore, we calculated a single
FMV for each model sold by Koyo, NSK, Fuji, and NTN on an annual
weighted-average basis.
Based on petitioner's allegations and the Department's previous TRB
determinations of sales made below the cost of production (COP), in
accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we determined that
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that, for these
review periods, NTN, Koyo, and NSK made sales of subject merchandise in
the home market at prices less than COP. As a result, we investigated
whether NTN, Koyo, or NSK sold such or similar merchandise in the home
market at prices below COP. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we
calculated COP for NTN, NSK, and Koyo as the sum of reported materials,
labor, factory overhead, and general expenses, and, where appropriate,
compared COP to home market prices net of direct price adjustments and
discounts.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in determining
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we
examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices
which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time
in the normal course of trade.
In accordance with our normal practice, for each model for which
less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the
period of review (POR) were made at prices below the COP, we included
all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each model for
which 10 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the home market
sales during the POR were priced below the merchandise's COP, we
excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were
priced below the merchandise's COP, provided that these below-cost
sales were made over an extended period of time. For each model for
which 90 percent or more of the home market sales during the POR were
priced below the COP and were made over an extended period of time, we
disregarded all sales of that model in our calculation and, in
accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the
constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, e.g.,
Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, to
determine whether sales below cost had been made over an extended
period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below
cost occurred for a particular model to the number of months in which
that model was sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months,
we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost
sales of that model in each month sold. If a model was sold in three or
more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were
sales below cost in at least three of the months in which the model was
sold. We used CV as the basis for FMV when an insufficient number of
home market
[[Page 25204]]
sales were made at prices above COP. See Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December 8, 1993).
In the case of NTN, Koyo, and NSK, we compared each firm's
individual home market prices with annual COPs. We tested each firm's
home market prices on a model-specific basis and found for each firm,
(1) models where more than 90 percent of the home market sales were
made at below-COP prices and were made over an extended period of time,
(2) other models where between 10 and 90 percent of home market sales
were made at below-COP prices and over an extended period of time, and
(3) yet other models where less than 10 percent of home market sales
were made at below-COP prices. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from Korea, 56 FR 16306 (April 22, 1991).
Because NTN, NSK, and Koyo provided no indication that their below-
cost sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the
``between 10 and 90 percent'' categories were at prices that would
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time and in
the normal course of trade, we disregarded those sales of models in the
``10 to 90 percent'' category which were made below cost over an
extended period of time. In addition, as a result of our COP test for
home market sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent''
category, we based FMV on CV for all U.S. sales for which there were
insufficient sales of the comparison home market model at or above COP.
Finally, where we found, for certain of NTN's, NSK's, and Koyo's
models, home market sales for which less than 10 percent were made at
below-COP prices, we used all home market sales of these models in our
comparisons.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, we used CV as
FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were insufficient sales of the
comparison home market model at or above COP, and for those U.S. sales
for which there was no sale of such or similar merchandise in the home
market. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the
Tariff Act. We included the cost of materials, labor, and factory
overhead in our calculations. Where the actual selling, general, and
administrative expenses (SG&A) were less than the statutory minimum of
ten percent of the cost of manufacture (COM), we calculated SG&A as ten
percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were less than the
statutory minimum of eight percent of the COM plus SG&A, we calculated
profit as eight percent of the sum of COM plus SG&A. We also adjusted
NSK's and NTN's reported COP and CV to reflect the actual COP of
related-party inputs.
In accordance with section 773 of the Tariff Act, for those U.S.
models for which we were able to find a home market or third-country
such or similar match that had sufficient above-cost sales, we
calculated FMV based on the packed, F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered
prices to related purchasers (where an arm's-length relationship was
demonstrated) and unrelated purchasers in the home market. We made
adjustments, where applicable, for post-sale inland freight, credit,
commissions, and warranties. We also made adjustments for discounts,
rebates, and differences in physical characteristics. In addition, for
comparison to ESP sales, we adjusted FMV for indirect selling expenses
(which include advertising, inventory carrying costs, pre-sale inland
freight, and other selling expenses) in the home market, limiting the
home market indirect selling expense deductions by the amount of
indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States. In situations
where a U.S. sale with no commission was compared to a home market sale
with a commission, we limited the deduction from FMV for home market
indirect selling expenses by the amount of U.S. indirect selling
expenses less the home market commission amount. In those instances
where a commission was granted on the U.S. sale only, we increased the
amount classified as U.S. indirect selling expenses for comparison to
home market indirect selling expenses by the amount of the U.S.
commission. We then limited the deduction from FMV for home market
indirect selling expenses by the amount of the enhanced U.S. indirect
selling expenses. For NTN, NSK, Koyo, and Fuji, all of which reported
consumption tax-exclusive home market gross prices, we adjusted FMV for
the Japanese consumption tax by adding the absolute amount of home
market tax to FMV in accordance with our tax-neutral methodology
described above. Finally, after deducting home market packing from FMV,
we added to FMV packing expenses incurred in Japan for U.S. sales.
For comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of
the Tariff Act, we added to FMV, where applicable, U.S. packing,
credit, and direct advertising. We adjusted FMV for the Japanese
consumption tax as described above, and for comparison to both ESP and
purchase price sales, NTN requested and received a level-of-trade
adjustment to FMV based on certain home market indirect expenses.
Because MC Int'l did not sell TRBs in the home market during the
review period, but rather only exported TRBs to the United States and
other third-country markets, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of
the Tariff Act, we determined that, for MC Int'l, the home market was
not viable. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.48, for MC Int'l we based
FMV on third-country sales.
In selecting the appropriate third-country market to use for
comparison purposes, we first determined which third-country markets
had adequate volumes of sales within the meaning of 19 CFR
353.49(b)(1). We determined that the volume of sales to a third-country
market was adequate if the quantity of sales of such or similar
merchandise equalled or exceeded five percent of the quantity of sales
in the United States. We then selected the third-country market with
the largest volume of sales, and whose organization and development is
most like that of the United States, as the most appropriate market for
comparison, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b)(2). Therefore, for MC
Int'l's sales of TRBs to the first unrelated customer in the United
States, we based FMV on MC Int'l's sales to unrelated customers in the
United Kingdom. In addition, we applied to MC Int'l's sales in the
United Kingdom the identical price stability test described above, and
because the annual weighted-average prices for TRBs sold by MC Int'l in
the United Kingdom did not vary meaningfully from the monthly weighted-
average prices of sales, and because there was no correlation between
price and time, we considered the annual weighted-average prices in the
United Kingdom to be representative of the transactions under
consideration. Therefore, we calculated a single FMV for each model
sold by MC Int'l in the United Kingdom on an annual weighted-average
basis.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily
determine that the following margins exist for Koyo for the period
October 1, 1992, through September 30, 1993:
[[Page 25205]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Review:Koyo Seiko........................ 38.64
For the A-588-604 Review: Koyo Seiko....................... 46.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we preliminarily determine that the following margins
exist for the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994 for
the following firms:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Review:
Koyo Seiko............................................... 34.68
Nachi.................................................... 47.63
NSK...................................................... 7.61
Fuji..................................................... 6.08
Kawasaki................................................. 47.63
Yamaha................................................... 47.63
MC International......................................... 2.36
Maekawa.................................................. 47.63
Toyosha.................................................. 47.63
Nigata Converter......................................... 47.63
Suzuki................................................... 47.63
For the A-588-604 Review:
NTN...................................................... 19.73
Koyo Seiko............................................... 41.21
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp..................................... 40.37
NSK Ltd.................................................. 7.15
Fuji..................................................... (1)
Kawasaki................................................. 40.37
Yamaha................................................... 40.37
MC International......................................... (1)
Maekawa.................................................. 40.37
Toyosha.................................................. 40.37
Nigata Converter......................................... 40.37
Suzuki................................................... 40.37
Showa Seiko.............................................. (1)
Daido.................................................... 40.37
Ichiyanagi Tekko......................................... 40.37
Kawada Tekkosho.......................................... 40.37
Asakawa Screw Co......................................... 40.37
Isshi Nut................................................ 40.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no rate
from any prior segment of this proceeding.
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after
the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of these administrative reviews including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages
stated above.
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 for by
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. A cash deposit of estimated
antidumping duties shall be required on shipments of TRBs from Japan as
follows:
(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
rates established in the final results of these reviews. For Koyo, the
cash deposit rates will be those rates established in the final results
for the 1993-94 administrative reviews;
(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate published for the most recent period;
(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior
review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate for the A-588-054 case will be 18.07 percent and 36.52
percent for the A-588-604 case (see Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished and
Unfinished, and Parts Thereof, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings,
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From
Japan, 58 FR 51058, 51061 (September 30, 1993)).
All U.S. sales by each respondent will be subject to one deposit
rate according to the proceeding.
The cash deposit rate has been determined on the basis of the
selling price to the first unrelated customer in the United States. For
appraisement purposes, where information is available, the Department
will use the entered value of the merchandise to determine the
appraisement rate.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 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 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: May 10, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12519 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
