[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31566-31575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15118]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-485-801, A-559-801, A-
401-801, A-412-801]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore,
Sweden and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and partial termination of 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 (AFBs) from France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the United
Kingdom. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these orders
are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings
and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical plain bearings and parts
thereof (SPBs). The reviews cover 21 manufacturers/exporters. The
period of review (the POR) is May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996.
We are terminating the reviews for five other manufacturers/
exporters because the requests for reviews were withdrawn in a timely
manner.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV) by various companies subject to these reviews. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these
administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in these proceedings are requested
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The appropriate case analyst, for the
various respondent firms listed below, at Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
France
Chip Hayes (SKF), Lyn Johnson (SNFA), Michael Panfeld (SNR), Kris
Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.
Germany
Thomas Barlow (Torrington Nadellager), J. David Dirstine (SKF),
Suzanne Flood (INA), Michael Panfeld (NTN Kugellagerfabrik), Thomas
Schauer (FAG), Kris Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.
Italy
Chip Hayes (SKF), Mark Ross (FAG), or Richard Rimlinger.
Japan
J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Charles Riggle (NTN), Matthew
Rosenbaum (NPBS), Thomas Schauer (NSK Ltd., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.),
Kris Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.
Romania
Thomas Barlow (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Kris Campbell.
Singapore
Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.
Sweden
Mark Ross (SKF) or Richard Rimlinger.
United Kingdom
Hermes Pinilla (FAG, Barden, NSK/RHP) or Kris Campbell.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's
regulations are to the current regulations as amended by the interim
regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR
25130).
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
(54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders on BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand,
and the United Kingdom. Specifically, these orders cover BBs, CRBs, and
SPBs from France, Germany, and Japan; BBs and CRBs from Italy, Sweden
and the U.K.; and BBs from Romania, Thailand and Singapore. On June 20,
1996, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(c), we published a notice of
initiation of administrative reviews of certain of these orders for the
period May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996 (61 FR 31506). Subsequently,
on July 30, 1996, we published an amendment to our initiation notice
which, inter alia, terminated the review with respect to BBs from
Thailand and conditionally initiated reviews for all other exporters of
BBs from Romania in addition to Tehnoimportexport (61 FR 39629). The
Department is now conducting these administrative reviews in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act.
Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely
withdrawals of review requests for Meter S.p.A. (Italy), Asahi Seiko
(Japan), Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd. (Japan), Kohwa Technos Corp. (Japan),
and Sanwa Kizai Co., Ltd. (Japan). Because there were no other requests
for review of these companies from any other interested parties, we are
terminating the reviews with respect to these companies in accordance
with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(a)(5).
Scope of Reviews
The products covered by these reviews are 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,
[[Page 31567]]
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, and
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, and
8803.90.90.
3. Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof
These products include all spherical plain bearings that employ a
spherically shaped sliding element.
Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50,
6909.50.10, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00, 8708.93.5000,
8708.99.50, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and
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 France, et al.; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 1997)
(AFBs VI). The HTS item numbers are provided for 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Compagnie d'Applications Mecaniques, All
S.A. (including all relevant
affiliates) (SKF France).
SNFA.................................... BBs, CRBs
Societe Nouvelle Roulements (SNR)....... All
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA All
(FAG Germany).
INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (INA)....... All
NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH All
(NTN Germany).
SKF GmbH (including all relevant All
affiliates) (SKF Germany).
Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/ CRBs
Kuensebeck).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italia S.p.A. (including all BBs, CRBs
relevant affiliates) (FAG Italy).
SKF-Industrie S.p.A. (including all BBs
relevant affiliates) (SKF Italy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd..................... All
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.................... All
Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd. All
(NPBS).
NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.)... All
NTN Corp. (NTN Japan)................... All
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (TIE)........... BBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec Ind. (Pte.) BBs
Ltd./(NMB Singapore/Pelmec).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Sverige (including all relevant BBs
affiliates) (SKF Sweden).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation...................... BBs, CRBs
FAG (U.K.) Ltd.......................... BBs, CRBs
NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings BBs, CRBs
Ltd. (NSK/RHP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Absorption
On May 31, 1996, and July 9, 1996, the Torrington Co. requested
that the Department determine with respect to all respondents, except
Torrington Nadellager and SNFA, whether antidumping duties had been
absorbed during the POR. This request was filed pursuant to section
751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act.
[[Page 31568]]
Section 751(a)(4) provides for the Department, if requested, to
determine, during an administrative review initiated two years or four
years after publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have
been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if
the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an
importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter.
Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Tariff Act by the URAA. The
Department's interim regulations do not address this provision of the
Tariff Act.
For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the
Tariff Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping regulations
provides that the Department will make a duty-absorption determination,
if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998.
See 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 1996). The preamble to the proposed
antidumping regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be
considered initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998
will be considered initiated in the fourth year. 61 FR at 7317.
Although these proposed antidumping regulations are not yet binding
upon the Department, they do constitute a public statement of how the
Department expects to proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the
Tariff Act. This approach ensures that interested parties will have the
opportunity to request a duty-absorption determination prior to the
time for sunset review of the order under section 751(c) on entries for
which the second and fourth years following an order have already
passed. Because these orders on AFBs have been in effect since 1989,
these are transition orders in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of
the Tariff Act; therefore, based on the policy stated above, the
Department will consider a request for an absorption determination
during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review initiated in
1996 and a request having been made, we are making a duty-absorption
determination as part of these administrative reviews.
The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated
importer. In these cases, all firms subject to the duty-absorption
request filed by the Torrington Co., with the exception of TIE, sold
through importers that are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section
751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. Furthermore, we have preliminarily
determined that there are dumping margins for the following firms with
respect to the percentages of their U.S. sales, by quantity, indicated
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
of U.S.
affiliate's
Name of firm Class of kind sales with
dumping
margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.................................. BBs 34.84
CRBs 100.00
SPBs 100.00
SNR.................................. BBs 36.23
CRBs 64.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.................................. BBs 54.58
CRBs 64.05
SPBs 18.70
INA.................................. BBs 81.91
CRBs 88.78
NTN.................................. BBs 36.44
SKF.................................. BBs 7.03
CRBs 53.85
SPBs 21.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG.................................. BBs 20.43
SKF.................................. BBs 7.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo................................. BBs 44.43
CRBs 53.22
Nachi................................ BBs 59.81
CRBs 32.44
NPBS................................. BBs 61.41
NSK.................................. BBs 31.30
CRBs 36.82
NTN.................................. BBs 21.24
CRBs 12.86
SPBs 47.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM Singapore/Pelmec Ind.............. BBs 17.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF.................................. BBs 45.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSK/RHP.............................. BBs 1.46
CRBs 18.77
Barden............................... BBs 0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of SKF France, the firm did not respond to our
questionnaire with respect to CRBs and SPBs and the dumping margins for
all sales of these classes or kinds of merchandise were determined on
the Basis of adverse facts available. Lacking other information, we
find duty absorption on all sales.
With respect to those companies (with affiliated importers) whose
margins were not determined based on adverse facts available, we
rebuttably presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales
which were dumped. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence that
the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the
ultimately assessed duty. However, there is no such evidence on the
record. Under these circumstances, we preliminarily find that
antidumping duties have been absorbed by the above-listed firms on the
percentages of U.S. sales indicated. If interested parties wish to
submit evidence that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States
will pay the ultimately assessed duty, they must do so no later than 15
days after publication of these preliminary results.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified
information provided by certain respondents, using standard
verification procedures, 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 the verification reports.
Use of Facts Available
We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of
the Tariff Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for SNFA with respect to
BBs and CRBs, for Torrington Nadellager with respect to CRBs, and for
SKF France with respect to CRBs and SPBs because these firms did not
respond to our antidumping questionnaire. We find that these firms have
not provided ``information that has been requested by the administering
authority.'' Furthermore, we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Tariff Act, it is appropriate to make an inference adverse to
the interests of these companies because they failed to cooperate to
the best of their ability by not responding to our questionnaire.
With respect to SNFA, an importer of subject merchandise, Agusta
Aerospace Corporation (AAC) submitted information regarding its
purchases of subject merchandise produced by SNFA. We have not used
this information to calculate an antidumping duty rate for either SNFA
or AAC. It is our practice to base our analysis on information provided
by the respondent, in this case SNFA, and to calculate a single rate
for each respondent. Further, AAC did not provide sufficient data to
allow for a determination of the antidumping duty rate for SNFA's POR
sales of subject
[[Page 31569]]
merchandise. The only information that AAC provided concerned its own
imports of merchandise produced by SNFA and that information is in fact
insufficient to allow for an analysis of the duty rate applicable to
these imports. We are also denying a request made by AAC that, because
it imported and sold a de minimis amount of subject merchandise from
SNFA during the POR, such imports should be exempted from the
antidumping duty order. The statute and our regulations do not provide
for exceptions to the dumping law based on a small quantity of imports.
For the weighted-average dumping margins of these firms, we have
used the highest rate from any prior segment of the respective
proceeding as adverse facts available. This is secondary information
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Tariff Act.
Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information
from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that corroborate means simply that
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value (see H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d
sess. 870 (1994)).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers) (where
the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse best
information available because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin)).
In this case, for SKF France, SNFA, and Torrington Nadellager, we
have used the highest rate from any prior segment of the respective
proceeding as adverse facts available. This rate is the highest
available rate and no evidence exists in the record that indicates that
the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available.
In certain situations, we found it necessary to use partial facts
available. Partial facts available was applied in cases where we were
unable to use some portion of a response in calculating the dumping
margin. This occurred with respect to tooling revenues reported by NSK
and related-party-input costs provided by Nachi. For partial facts
available, we extrapolated information from the company's response and
used that information in our calculations. For further information,
please see the analysis memoranda on file for these firms.
We also found that Barden failed to report information concerning
the channel(s) of distribution of its EP sales despite requests for
such information in both the initial and supplemental questionnaires.
Since we did not have this information, we were unable to determine
which level of trade in the home market most closely corresponded to
the level(s) of trade of Barden's EP sales. Because Barden repeatedly
failed to report the requested information, we have used an inference
that is adverse to Barden with respect to the missing information
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. As partial adverse facts
available, we matched Barden's EP sales to the level of trade in the
home market with the highest average prices.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price--Market-Economy Countries
For the price to the United States, we used EP or CEP as defined in
sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Tariff Act, as appropriate. Due to
the extremely large volume of transactions that occurred during the POR
and the resulting administrative burden involved in calculating
individual margins for all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales
in accordance with section 777A of the Tariff Act. When a firm made
more than 2,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States for a
particular class or kind of merchandise, we reviewed CEP sales that
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 were June 4-
10, 1995, August 20-26, 1995, October 15-21, 1995, December 17-23,
1995, February 11-17, 1996, and March 24-30, 1996. We reviewed all EP
sales transactions during the POR.
We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to,
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts
and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act and the SAA
(at 823-824), we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States,
including commissions, direct selling expenses, indirect selling
expenses, and repacking expenses in the United States. Where
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we
also deducted the cost of any further manufacture or assembly, except
where the special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Tariff Act was
applied (see below). Finally, we made an adjustment for profit
allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Tariff Act.
Some respondents claimed an offsetting adjustment to U.S. indirect
selling expenses to account for the cost of financing cash deposits
during the POR. In past reviews of these orders we have accepted such
an adjustment, mainly to account for the opportunity cost associated
with making a deposit (i.e., the cost of having money unavailable for a
period of time). However, we have preliminarily determined to change
our practice of accepting such an adjustment.
We are not convinced that there are opportunity costs associated
with paying deposits. Moreover, while it may be true that importers
sometimes incur an expense if they borrow money in order to pay
antidumping duty deposits, it is a fundamental principle that money is
fungible. If an importer acquires a loan to cover one operating cost,
that may simply mean that it will not be necessary to borrow money to
cover a different operating cost. We find that the calculation of the
dumping margin should not vary depending on whether a party has funds
available to pay cash deposits or requires additional funds in the form
of loans.
Therefore, we find that an adjustment to indirect selling expenses
where parties have claimed financing costs is inappropriate and we have
denied such an adjustment for these preliminary results of reviews. We
invite interested parties to comment on this issue.
[[Page 31570]]
With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated 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 determined that
the special rule for merchandise with value added after importation
under section 772(e) of the Tariff Act applied for all firms that added
value in the United States except INA and NPBS.
Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act provides that, where the subject
merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine
the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other
subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use
of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of
such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or
other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other
reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold
in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the
subject merchandise by the affiliated person. Based on this analysis,
we estimated, for all firms that added value in the United States
except INA and NPBS that the value added was at least 60 percent of the
price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as
sold in the United States. Therefore, we determined that the value
added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject
merchandise. Also, for the companies in question, we determined that
there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a
reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of such sales is
appropriate. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins
for these sales, we have used the weighted-average dumping margins
calculated on sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to
unaffiliated persons. No other adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or
allowed.
Normal Value--Market-Economy Countries
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison,
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product each respondent
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States pursuant to section 773(a) of the Tariff Act because each
company's quantity of sales in its home market was greater than five
percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, we based NV on the prices at
which the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the
exporting country.
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 NV
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 in sample months that corresponded
to the sample weeks we selected for U.S. sales sampling plus one
contemporaneous month prior to the POR and one following the POR. The
sample months were April, June, August, October, and December of 1995,
and February, March, and May of 1996.
We used sales to affiliated 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.
Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of
production (COP) in the last completed review with respect to SNR, FAG
Germany, FAG Italy, INA, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF
Sweden, Koyo, Nachi, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind.,
FAG U.K., Barden U.K. and NSK/RHP and the classes or kinds of
merchandise under review, we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales of the foreign product under consideration for the
determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below
the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act.
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we
initiated COP investigations of sales by SNR, FAG Germany, FAG Italy,
INA, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF Sweden, Koyo, Nachi, NPBS,
NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec, FAG U.K., and NSK/RHP in the home
market. In addition, based on allegations submitted by the Torrington
Co. subsequent to our initiation of these reviews, we determined that
there was a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that NTN Germany may
have made sales in the home market at prices below the COP and we
initiated a COP investigation of NTN Germany as well.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we
calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product plus
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in condition
packed ready for shipment. In our COP analysis, we used the home market
sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its
questionnaire responses. We did not conduct a COP analysis for
respondents which reported no sales or shipments nor did we conduct a
COP analysis for respondents for which we relied on total facts
available to determine weighted-average dumping margins for a class or
kind of merchandise.
After calculating the COP, we tested whether home market sales of
AFBs were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-
specific COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable
movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than
20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that
product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more
of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at
prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because
they were made within an extended period of time in substantial
quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Tariff Act. Based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for
the POR, we also determined that these sales were at prices which would
not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act. Based on this
test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of the above
companies and classes or kinds of merchandise.
We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in
the home market. We considered all non-identical
[[Page 31571]]
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 affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home
market. Where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in
packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. We also made adjustments for
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Tariff Act and for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19
C.F.R. 353.56. For comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to
the extent practicable, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade
as the EP or CEP. If NV was calculated at a different level of trade,
we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance
with section 773(a)(7) of the Tariff Act. (See Level of Trade below.)
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we used CV
as the basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like
product in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with
section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We included the cost of materials and
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on
the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary
course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling
expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling expenses. To
the extent possible, we calculated CV by level of trade, using the
selling expenses and profit determined for each level of trade in the
comparison market.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act and 19 C.F.R. 353.56 for COS
differences and level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we
made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we
made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses.
We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
Where possible, we calculated CV at the same level of trade as the
EP or CEP. If CV was calculated at a different level of trade, we made
an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with
sections 773(a)(7) and 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act. (See Level of Trade
below.)
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determine NV for sales at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there are no
sales at the same level of trade, we compare U.S. sales to home market
(or, if appropriate, third-country) sales at a different level of
trade. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the
home market. When NV is based on CV, the level of trade is that of the
sales from which we derive selling, SG&A and profit.
For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the level-of-
trade analysis is the sale (or constructed sale) from the exporter to
the importer. While the starting price for CEP is that of a subsequent
resale to an unaffiliated buyer, the construction of the CEP results in
a price that would have been charged if the importer had not been
affiliated. We calculate the CEP by removing from the first resale to
an independent U.S. customer the expenses under section 772(d) of the
Tariff Act and the profit associated with these expenses. These
expenses represent activities undertaken by the affiliated importer. As
such, they occur after the transaction between the exporter and the
importer for which we construct CEP. Because the expenses deducted
under section 772(d) represent selling activities in the United States,
the deduction of these expenses normally yields a different level of
trade for the CEP than for the later resale (which we use for the
starting price). Movement charges, duties and taxes deducted under
section 772(c) do not represent activities of the affiliated importer,
and we do not remove them to obtain the CEP level of trade.
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of
trade than U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales are at
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. The
marketing process in both markets begins with goods being sold by the
producer and extends to the sale to the final user, regardless of
whether the final user is an individual consumer or an industrial user.
The chain of distribution between the producer and the final user may
have many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur somewhere
along this chain. In the United States, the respondent's sales are
generally to an importer, whether independent or affiliated. We review
and compare the distribution systems in the home market and U.S. export
markets, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent
and level of selling expenses for each claimed level of trade. Customer
categories such as distributor, original equipment manufacturer (OEM),
or wholesaler are commonly used by respondents to describe levels of
trade, but, without substantiation, they are insufficient to establish
that a claimed level of trade is valid. An analysis of the chain of
distribution and of the selling functions substantiates or invalidates
the claimed levels of trade. If the claimed levels are different, the
selling functions performed in selling to each level should also be
different. Conversely, if levels of trade are nominally the same, the
selling functions performed should also be the same. Different levels
of trade necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but
differences in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone
sufficient to establish a difference in the levels of trade. A
different level of trade is characterized by purchasers at different
stages in the chain of distribution and sellers performing
qualitatively or quantitatively different functions in selling to them.
When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different
level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference
in levels of trade affects price comparability. We determine any effect
on price comparability by examining sales at different levels of trade
in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home
market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of
trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we
calculate the difference
[[Page 31572]]
in the average of the net prices of the same models sold at different
levels of trade. We use the average difference in net prices to adjust
NV when NV is based on a level of trade different from that of the
export sale. If there is no pattern of consistent price differences,
the difference in levels of trade does not have a price effect and,
therefore, no adjustment is necessary.
The statute also provides for an adjustment to NV when NV is based
on a level of trade different from that of the CEP if the NV level is
more remote from the factory than the CEP and if we are unable to
determine whether the difference in levels of trade between CEP and NV
affects the comparability of their prices. This latter situation can
occur where there is no home market level of trade equivalent to the
U.S. sales level or where there is an equivalent home market level but
the data are insufficient to support a conclusion on price effect. This
adjustment, the CEP offset, is identified in section 773(a)(7)(B) and
is the lower of the following:
The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale, or
The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting
price used to calculate CEP.
The CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP. The CEP
offset is made only when the level of trade of the home market sale is
more advanced than the level of trade of the U.S. (CEP) sale and there
is not an appropriate basis for determining whether there is an effect
on price comparability.
For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analysis
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Level
of Trade, March 24, 1997, in Import Administration's Central Records
Unit (Room B-099 of the main Commerce building (hereafter, B-099)).
Methodology for Romania
Separate Rates
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise subject to review in a non-market-economy (NME)
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate. For
purposes of this ``separate rates'' inquiry, the Department analyzes
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as
amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries
are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can
demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and
in fact (de facto), with respect to exports.
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control includes: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and
export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control
of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.
De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is
based on four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or
subject to the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each
exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions regarding
the selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter has the
authority to negotiate and sign contracts. See Silicon Carbide at
22587.
We have determined that the evidence of record demonstrates an
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to
exports by TIE according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. For a discussion of the Department's preliminary
determination that TIE is entitled to a separate rate, see Memorandum
from Thomas O. Barlow to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 24, 1997,
``Assignment of Separate Rate for Tehnoimportexport: 1995-96
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Antifriction
Bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from
Romania'' (Separate Rate Memo), which is a public document on file in
B-099. Since TIE is preliminarily entitled to a separate rate and is
the only Romanian firm for which an administrative review has been
requested, it is not necessary for us to review any other Romanian
exporters of subject merchandise.
Export Price--Romania
For sales made by TIE we based our margin calculation on EP as
defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act because the subject
merchandise was first sold before the date of importation by the
exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States (TIE)
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.
We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the price used
to establish EP, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, bank
charges and international freight (air and ocean). To value foreign
inland freight we used the freight rates from the public version of the
May 10, 1996 and July 15, 1996 submissions of P.T. Multi Raya Indah
Abadi, respondent in the antidumping case concerning melamine
institutional dinnerware from Indonesia which is on file in B-099. We
used the actual reported expenses for international freight and bank
charges because the expenses were incurred in market-economy
currencies. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value--Romania
For merchandise exported from a NME country, section 773(c)(1) of
the Tariff Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a
factors-of-production methodology if available information does not
permit the calculation of NV using home-market or third-country prices
under section 773(a) of the Tariff Act. In every investigation or
review conducted by the Department involving Romania, we have treated
Romania as a NME country. None of the parties to this proceeding has
contested such treatment in this review and, therefore, we have
maintained our treatment of Romania as a NME for these preliminary
results.
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Tariff Act and section 353.52 of the Department's regulations. In
accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Tariff Act, the factors of
production used in producing AFBs include, but are not limited to,
hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts
of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital
cost, including depreciation.
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act, the
Department valued the factors of production, to the extent possible,
using the prices or costs of factors of production in market-economy
countries which are at a level of economic development comparable to
that of Romania and which are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. We determined that Indonesia is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of Romania. We also found that Indonesia
is a producer of bearings. Therefore, we have selected Indonesia as the
primary surrogate country. For a further
[[Page 31573]]
discussion of the Department's selection of surrogate countries, see
Memorandum from Thomas O. Barlow to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 24,
1997, ``Surrogate-Country Selection: 1995-96 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Antifriction Bearings (other than tapered
roller bearings) and parts thereof from Romania'' (Surrogate Memo),
which is a public document on file in B-099.
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the Romanian factors of
production as follows:
Where direct materials used to produce AFBs were imported
into Romania from market-economy countries, we used the import price to
value the material input. To value all other direct materials used in
the production of AFBs, i.e., those which were sourced from within
Romania, we used the import value per metric ton of these materials
into Indonesia as published in the Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical
Bulletin--Imports which include data on months during the POR. We made
adjustments to include freight costs incurred between the domestic
suppliers and the AFB factories, using freight rates obtained from the
public version of the April 27, 1995 calculation memorandum for the
antidumping case Disposable Lighters from the People's Republic of
China (A-570-834) (Lighters from the PRC), which is on file in B-099.
We also made a deduction to the steel input factors to account for the
scrap steel which was sold by the producers of the relevant bearings.
For direct labor, we used the Indonesian average daily
wage and hours worked per week for the iron and steel basic industries
reported in the 1994 Special Supplement to the Bulletin of Labour
Statistics, published by the International Labour Office.
For factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we could
not find values for the bearings industry in Indonesia. Therefore, we
used information which the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, provided
in the antidumping duty investigation of certain carbon-steel butt-weld
pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China because the pipe-
fittings industry is a similar metal manufacturing industry (see A-570-
814, cable from American Embassy--Jakarta, Indonesia, September 9,
1991).
To value packing materials, where materials used to
package AFBs were imported into Romania from market-economy countries,
we used the import price. To value all other packing materials, i.e.,
those sourced from within Romania, we used the import value per metric
ton of these materials (adjusted with the wholesale-price-index
inflator to place these values on an equivalent basis) as published in
the Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin--Imports. We adjusted
these values to include freight costs incurred between the domestic
suppliers and the AFB factories. To value freight costs, we used
freight rates obtained from the public version of the calculation
memorandum in Lighters from the PRC, cited above.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Tariff Act. We used the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank
or, where not available, we used average monthly exchange rates
published by the International Monetary Fund in International Financial
Statistics.
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,
1995, through April 30, 1996 to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company BBs CRBs SPBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF....................................... 3.48 18.37 42.79
SNFA...................................... 66.42 18.37 \3\
SNR....................................... 8.68 23.77 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG....................................... 12.42 19.49 10.33
INA....................................... 49.41 19.77 28.62
NTN....................................... 9.44 \2\ \2\
SKF....................................... 4.25 17.83 4.78
Torrington Nadellager..................... \3\ 76.27 \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG....................................... 1.64 \2\ ........
SKF....................................... 4.66 \3\ ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo Seiko................................ 14.66 12.17 \3\
Nachi..................................... 14.02 3.51 \2\
NPBS...................................... 19.58 \2\ \2\
NSK Ltd................................... 9.49 6.26 \2\
NTN....................................... 5.82 3.84 8.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIE....................................... 0.01 ........ ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind.................. 1.40 ........ ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31574]]
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF....................................... 13.13 ........ ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSK/RHP................................... 2.90 13.74 ........
FAG (U.K.)................................ \1\ \1\ ........
Barden.................................... 0.30 \1\ ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an
individual rate from the last relevant segment of the proceeding in
which the firm had shipments/sales.
\2\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no
individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.
\3\ No review requested.
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 Department building:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room
Date Time No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues...................... July 8, 1997...................... 10:00 a.m.................... 4830
Sweden.............................. July 9, 1997...................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830
Romania............................. July 9, 1997...................... 2:00 p.m..................... 4830
Italy............................... July 10, 1997..................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830
United Kingdom...................... July 11, 1997..................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830
Singapore........................... July 11, 1997..................... 2:00 p.m..................... 4830
Germany............................. July 14, 1997..................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830
France.............................. July 14, 1997..................... 2:00 p.m..................... 4830
Japan............................... July 15, 1997..................... 10:00 a.m.................... 1412
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective briefs and rebuttal briefs. Briefs from interested parties
and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective
case briefs, may be submitted not later than the dates shown below for
general issues and the respective country-specific cases. Parties who
submit briefs or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Briefs Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues.............. June 24, 1997......... July 1, 1997.
Sweden...................... June 25, 1997......... July 2, 1997.
Romania..................... June 25, 1997......... July 2, 1997.
Italy....................... June 26, 1997......... July 3, 1997.
United Kingdom.............. June 27, 1997......... July 7, 1997.
Singapore................... June 27, 1997......... July 7, 1997.
Germany..................... June 30, 1997......... July 7, 1997.
France...................... June 30, 1997......... July 7, 1997.
Japan....................... July 1, 1997.......... July 8, 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will publish the final results of these
administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs or hearings. The Department will
issue final results of these reviews within 120 days of publication of
these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because sampling
and the inability to link sales with specific entries prevents
calculation of duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we have calculated
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates for each class or
kind of merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount 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 amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated
by taking the difference between statutory NV and statutory EP or CEP,
by the total statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared and
adjusting the result by the average difference between EP or CEP and
customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.)
In some cases, such as EP situations, the respondent does not know
the entered value of the merchandise. For these situations, we have
either calculated an approximate entered value or an average unit-
dollar amount of antidumping duty based on all sales examined during
the POR. (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).) The Department will issue appropriate appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of these
reviews.
[[Page 31575]]
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 Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an
Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993), and Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From
France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66472
(December 17, 1996)). 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 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 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(c)(5).
Dated: June 2, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-15118 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
