[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37344-37349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18309]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-054, A-588-604]
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
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Recission in Part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from respondents, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of the
antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings (TRBs) and parts
thereof, finished and unfinished, from Japan (A-588-604), and of the
antidumping finding on TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter,
and components thereof, from Japan (A-588-054). The review of the A-
588-054 finding covers two manufacturers/exporters and one reseller/
exporter of subject merchandise to the United States during the period
October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997. The review of the A-588-604
order covers two manufacturers/exporters and one reseller/exporter, and
the period October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997.
We preliminarily determine that sales of TRBs have been made below
the normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of administrative reviews, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference
between United States price (USP) and the normal value. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties
which submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a brief summary of
the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Ranado or Stephanie Arthur,
[[Page 37345]]
AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202)
482-3518 or, 482-6312, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations are to the Department's regulations, 19 CFR
part 351 (62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997)).
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 2, 1997, the
Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' for both TRBs cases covering the period October
1, 1996 through September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51628).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), on October 28, 1997, NTN
Corporation (NTN) requested that we conduct a review of its sales in
the A-588-604 case. In addition, on October 31, 1997, Koyo Seiko Co.,
Ltd. (Koyo) requested that we conduct a review of its sales in the A-
588-054 case, and Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Fuji) and NSK Ltd. (NSK)
requested that we conduct a review of their sales in both the A-588-054
and A-588-604 TRB cases. On November 15, 1997, we published in the
Federal Register a notice of initiation of these antidumping duty
administrative reviews covering the period October 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1997 (62 FR 58513).
Scope of the Reviews
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 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 roller housings (except pillow
blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles,
whether or not for automotive use. Products subject to the A-588-054
finding are not included within the scope of the A-588-604 order,
except those manufactured by 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, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and
8483.90.60. The HTS item numbers listed above for both the A-588-054
finding and the A-588-604 order are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
The period for each review is October 1, 1996 through September 30,
1997. The review of the A-588-054 finding covers TRB sales by two
manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and NSK) and one reseller/exporter
(Fuji). The review of the A-588-604 order covers TRB sales by two
manufacturers/exporters (NTN and NSK) and one reseller/exporter (Fuji).
As explained in the ``Recission in Part'' section of this notice, we
are terminating our reviews in both the A-588-054 and A-588-604 cases
for two of the four firms.
Recission in Part
In accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's
regulations, on January 9, 1998, NSK withdrew its request for review in
both the A-588-054 and A-588-604 cases. In addition, on January 23,
1998, Fuji withdrew its request for review in both the A-588-054 and A-
588-604 cases. Because we received timely requests for the withdrawal
of review from both NSK and Fuji, and because no other party to the
proceedings requested a review for NSK and Fuji in either the A-588-054
or A-588-604 cases, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are
rescinding both the A-588-054 and A-588-604 reviews for NSK and Fuji.
Use of Facts Available
We preliminary determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of the
Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate in one type of
situation. We used partial facts available in instances where we were
unable to use some portion of a response in calculating the dumping
margin. For partial facts available, we extrapolated information from
the company's response and used that information in our calculations.
Koyo's response indicates that for certain sales to original equipment
manufacturers (OEM sales) there were no pre-sale freight expenses.
However, from the information reported, we were unable to identify
those OEM sales for which Koyo incurred no pre-sale freight expenses;
therefore, we have applied non-adverse facts available and recalculated
the expense adjustment. For further information, please see the
preliminary analysis memorandum on file for Koyo.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
Because all of Koyo's sales and certain of NTN's sales of subject
merchandise were first sold to unaffiliated purchasers after
importation into the United States, in calculating U.S. price we used
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in section 772(b) of the Act,
for all of Koyo's sales and certain of NTN's sales. We based CEP on the
packed, delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, billing
adjustments, freight allowances, and rebates. Pursuant to section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we reduced this price for movement expenses
(Japanese pre-sale inland freight, Japanese post-sale inland freight,
international air and/or ocean freight, marine insurance, Japanese
brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight from the port to the
warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer, U.S.
duty, and U.S. brokerage and handling). We also reduced the price,
where applicable, by an amount for the following expenses incurred in
the selling of the merchandise in the United States pursuant to section
772(d)(1) of the Act: commissions to unaffiliated parties, U.S. credit,
payments to third parties, U.S. repacking expenses, and indirect
selling expenses (which included, where applicable, inventory carrying
costs, indirect advertising expenses, and indirect technical services
expenses). Finally, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we
further reduced U.S. price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP.
NTN 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 we have accepted such an adjustment, mainly to
account for the opportunity cost associated with making cash deposits
(i.e., the cost of having money unavailable for a period of time).
However, we have changed our practice of accepting such an adjustment.
See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof from France, et. al.; Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 63 FR 33347 (June 18, 1998).
[[Page 37346]]
Because certain of NTN's sales of subject merchandise were made to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into
the United States and the CEP methodology was not indicated by the
facts of record, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act we used
export price (EP) for these sales. We calculated EP as the packed,
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we reduced this price,
where applicable, by Japanese pre-sale inland freight, Japanese post-
sale inland freight, international air and/or ocean freight, marine
insurance, Japanese brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and
handling, U.S. duty, and U.S. inland freight.
Where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act,
the Department also deducts from CEP the cost of any further
manufacture or assembly in the United States, except where the special
rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act is applicable. Section
772(e) of the 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 CEP. See Sections 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act.
In judging whether the use of identical or other subject
merchandise is appropriate, the Department must consider several
factors, including whether it is more appropriate to use another
``reasonable basis.'' Under some circumstances, we may use the standard
methodology as a reasonable alternative to the methods described in
paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act. In deciding whether it is more
appropriate to use the standard methodology, we have considered and
weighed the burden on the Department in applying the standard
methodology as a reasonable alternative and the extent to which
application of the standard methodology will lead to more accurate
results. The burden of using the standard methodology may vary from
case to case depending on factors such as the nature of the further-
manufacturing process and the finished products. The increased accuracy
gained by applying the standard methodology will vary significantly
from case to case, depending upon such factors as the amount of value
added in the United States and the proportion of total U.S. sales that
involve further manufacturing. In cases where the burden is high, it is
more likely that the Department will determine that potential gains in
accuracy do not outweigh the burden of applying the standard
methodology. Thus, the Department will likely determine that
application of the standard methodology is not more appropriate than
application of the methods described in paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2),
or some other reasonable alternative methodology. By contrast, if the
burden is relatively low and there is reason to believe the standard
methodology is likely to be more accurate, the Department is more
likely to determine that it is not appropriate to apply the methods
described in paragraphs 772(e)(1) or (2) of the Act in lieu of the
standard methodology. 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, 62 FR
47452 at 47455 (September 9, 1997).
NTN imported subject merchandise (TRBs parts) which was further
processed in the United States. NTN further manufactured the imported
scope merchandise into merchandise of the same class or kind as
merchandise within the scope of the A-588-604 order. Based on
information provided by NTN, we first determined whether the value
added in the United States was likely to exceed substantially the value
of the subject merchandise. We estimated the value added based on the
differences between the averages of the prices charged to the first
unaffiliated U.S. customer for the final merchandise sold (finished
TRBs) and the averages of the prices paid for the subject merchandise
(imported TRBs parts) by the affiliated party, and determined that the
value added was likely to exceed substantially the value of the
imported TRB parts.
We then examined whether it would be appropriate to use sales of
non-further-manufactured merchandise as a basis for comparison, as
stated under paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act. Based on the
information provided by NTN, we determined that the proportion of its
further-manufactured merchandise to its total imports of subject
merchandise was relatively low. In NTN's case, any potential gains in
accuracy gained from examining NTN's further-manufactured sales are
outweighed by the burden of the applying the standard methodology and
that it would be appropriate to apply one of the methodologies
specified in the statute with respect to NTN's imported TRB parts.
Furthermore, other sales are in sufficient quantity for the purpose of
determining dumping margins for NTN's imported TRBs which were further
manufactured in the United States prior to resale. Therefore, we have
used the weighted-average dumping margins we calculated on NTN's sales
of non-further-manufactured TRBs.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
A. Viability
Based on 1) the fact that each company's quantity of sales in the
home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S.
market and 2) the absence of any information that a particular market
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison,
we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product for all
respondents sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a
proper comparison with the sales of subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at
which the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the
exporting country.
B. Arm's-Length Sales
For NTN and Koyo we have excluded from our analysis those sales
made to affiliated customers in the home market which were not at arm's
length. See Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We determined the arm's-
length nature of home market sales to affiliated parties by means of
our 99.5 percent arm's-length test in which we calculated, for each
model, the percentage difference between the weighted-average prices to
the affiliated customer and to all unaffiliated customers and then
calculated, for each affiliated customer, the overall weighted-average
percentage difference in prices for all models purchased by the
customer. If the overall weighted-average price ratio for the
affiliated customer was equal to or greater than 99.5 percent, we
determined that all sales to this affiliated customer were at arm's
length. Conversely, if the ratio for a customer was less than 99.5
percent, we
[[Page 37347]]
determined that all sales to the affiliated customer were not at arm's
length because, on average, the affiliated customer paid less than
unaffiliated customers for the same merchandise, and therefore we
excluded all sales to the affiliated customer from our analysis. Where
we were unable to calculate an affiliated-customer ratio because
identical merchandise was not sold to both affiliated and unaffiliated
customers, we were unable to determine if these sales were at arm's
length, and, therefore, we excluded them from our analysis (see, e.g.,
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from France: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915 (March 6, 1996);
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 30185 (June 3, 1998)).
C. Cost-of-Production Analysis
Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) in
our last completed A-588-054 review for Koyo, and in our last completed
A-588-604 review for NTN, we have reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for
the determination of NV in these reviews may have been made at prices
below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act (see
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, from Japan, 63 FR 2558 (January 15, 1998)).
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by Koyo in the A-588-054 case and NTN in the A-
588-604 case.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and
administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental
to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for
shipment. We relied on the home market sales and COP information
provided by Koyo and NTN except in those instances where the data were
not appropriately quantified or valued (see the company-specific COP/CV
preliminary results memoranda, on file in Import Administration's
Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building).
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of TRBs
were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 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 Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's home market sales for a model are at prices
less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that
model because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's
home market sales of a given model are at prices less than COP, we
disregard the below-cost sales because 1) they are made within an
extended period of time in substantial quantities, in accordance with
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and 2) based on comparisons
of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices
which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
The results of our cost tests for Koyo and NTN indicated that for
certain home market models, less than 20 percent of the sales of the
model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of the
model in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV.
Our cost test for these respondents also indicated that, within an
extended period of time (normally one year, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), for certain home market models more than 20
percent of the home market sales were sold at prices below COP and were
not sold at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act, we therefore excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and
used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.
D. Product Comparisons
We compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign
like product in the home market. We considered bearings identical on
the basis of nomenclature and determined most similar TRBs using our
sum-of-the-deviations model-match methodology which compares TRBs
according to the following five physical criteria: inside diameter,
outside diameter, width, load rating, and Y2 factor. We used a 20
percent difference-in-merchandise (difmer) cost deviation cap as the
maximum difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, which we
calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and
home market variable costs of manufacturing divided by the U.S. total
cost of manufacturing.
E. Level of Trade (LOT)
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same LOT as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on
constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive selling,
SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the
starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For
CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the
importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and unaffiliated
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at at a different LOT, and
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we
make an LOT adjustment under 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP
sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the act (the CEP offset provision). See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
We determined that for Koyo there were two home market LOTs and one
U.S. LOT (i.e., the CEP LOT). Because there was no home market LOT
equivalent to the U.S. LOT, and because NV for Koyo was more remote
from the factory than the CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment to NV.
For NTN we found that there were three home market LOTs and two (EP
and CEP) LOTs in the United States. Because there were no home market
LOTs equivalent to NTN's CEP LOT, and because NV for NTN was more
remote from the factory than the CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment
to NV. We also determined that NTN's EP LOT was equivalent to one of
its LOTs in the
[[Page 37348]]
home market. Because we determined that there was a pattern of
consistent price differences, we made a LOT adjustment to NV for NTN
when we compared sales at different LOTs. For a company-specific
description of our LOT analysis, see the preliminary analysis
memoranda.
F. Home Market Price
We based home market prices on the packed, ex-factory or delivered
prices to affiliated purchasers (where an arm's-length relationship was
demonstrated) and unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In addition,
we 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 Act, and for differences in circumstances of
sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.410. 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 to NV
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. No
other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(the Court) issued a decision in Cemex v. United States, 133 F.3d 897
(Fed. Cir. 1998). In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the
Act, the Court discussed the appropriateness of using CV as the basis
for foreign market value when the Department finds home market sales to
be outside the ordinary course of trade. This issue was not raised by
any party in these 1996-97 reviews. However, the URAA amended the
definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include
sales below cost. See section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently, the
Department has reconsidered its practice in accordance with this court
decision and has determined that it would be inappropriate to resort
directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis for NV if
the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise identical or
most similar to that sold in the United States to be outside the
ordinary course of trade. Instead, the Department will use sales of
similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department will use CV as
the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales that are
otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, when
making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we
considered all products sold in the home market as described in the
Scope of the Investigation section of this notice, above, that were in
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade,
based on the characteristics listed in Sections B and C to our
antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented the Court's decision in
this case, to the extent that the data on the record permitted. See,
e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Order in
Part, 63 FR 33037, 33038 (June 17, 1998).
We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and fabrication
employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and profit. In
accordance with 772(e)(2)(A) of the 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 LOT, using the
selling expenses and profit determined for each LOT in the comparison
market. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for COS adjustments and
LOT 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 commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October
1, 1996 through September 30, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Case:
Koyo Seiko............................................. 7.62
For the A-588-604 Case:
NTN.................................................... 18.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to these proceedings may request disclosure within five
days of the date of publication of this notice and may request a
hearing within thirty days of publication. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 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 the case briefs and comments, may be filed
no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a brief
summary of the argument. The Department will issue final results of
these administrative reviews, including the results of our analysis of
the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120
days of issuance of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific ad
valorem assessment rates for the 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. The Department
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the
Customs Service upon completion of the review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews
for all shipments of TRBs from Japan 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 Act:
(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
rates established in the final results of these reviews;
(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed
above,
[[Page 37349]]
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 less-than-fair-value 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 Final 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 64720 (December 9, 1993)).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during
this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: July 2, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18309 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
