[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35713-35724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17277]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-485-801, A-559-801, A-
549-801, A-412-801]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore,
Thailand and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, Termination of 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, Termination of 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, Singapore 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 27 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review (the
POR) is May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995.
Although we initiated reviews for seven other manufacturers/
exporters, we are terminating the reviews because the requests for
these reviews were withdrawn in a timely manner. In addition, the
Department is terminating reviews of the orders on BBs from Romania and
Thailand. The sole request
[[Page 35714]]
we received regarding Romania was withdrawn. Regarding Thailand, on
June 21, 1996, we issued the final results of the 1993-1994
administrative review revoking the order on BBs from Thailand,
effective May 1, 1994.
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 equal to the difference between the export price
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and the NV.
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: July 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The appropriate case analyst, for the
various respondent firms listed below, at the Office of Antidumping
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
France
Andrea Chu (Intertechnique, SNFA, SNR), Hermes Pinilla (Franke
GmbH, Hoesch Rothe Erde, Rollix Defontaine), Matthew Rosenbaum (SKF),
or Michael Rill.
Germany
Thomas Barlow (Torrington Nadellager), Davina Hashmi (INA), Chip
Hayes (NTN Kugellagerfabrik), Hermes Pinilla (Franke GmbH, Hoesch Rothe
Erde and Rollix Defontaine), Matthew Rosenbaum (SKF), Thomas Schauer
(FAG), Michael Rill, or Richard Rimlinger.
Italy
Kris Campbell (SKF), Michael Rausher (FAG), Michael Rill, or
Richard Rimlinger.
Japan
J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Chip Hayes (NTN), Michael Panfeld
(NPBS), Mark Ross (Asahi Seiko), Thomas Schauer (NSK Ltd.), or Richard
Rimlinger.
Singapore
Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.
United Kingdom
Andrea Chu (Hoffman U.K.), Hermes Pinilla (NSK/RHP), Matthew
Rosenbaum (Rose Bearing Co., Ltd.), or Michael Rill.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
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 (URAA).
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, Singapore and Thailand. On June 19,
1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated administrative
reviews of certain of these orders for the period May 1, 1994, through
April 30, 1995 (60 FR 31952). The Department is now conducting these
administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely
withdrawals of review requests for Fichtel & Sachs AG (Germany),
Jidosha Buhin Kogyo Co., Ltd. (Japan), Naiico Spicer Co., Ltd. (Japan),
Nissan Trading Co., Ltd. (Japan), Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd. (Japan),
Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (Romania), Barden Corporation (United Kingdom),
and Normalair-Garrett Ltd. (United Kingdom). 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 CFR 353.22(a)(5). We are terminating the review
of AFBs from Romania because Tehnoimportexport, S.A. was the only
company for which a review of that order was requested.
We are terminating the review of AFBs from Thailand with respect to
NMB Thai/Pelmec Thai because subsequent to the initiation of this
review we revoked the antidumping duty order (see Antifriction Bearings
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Thailand;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation
of Antidumping Duty Order, issued June 21, 1996).
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, 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,
[[Page 35715]]
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, Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty
Orders, 60 FR 10900 (February 28, 1995) (AFBs IV). 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
Franke GmbH............................ BBs.
Hoesch Rothe-Erde AG................... BBs.
Intertechnique......................... All.
Rollix Defontaine, S.A................. BBs.
SKF France (including all relevant All.
affiliates).
SNFA................................... BBs, CRBs.
Societe Nouvelle Roulements (SNR)...... All.
Germany
FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA All.
(FAG Germany).
Franke GmbH............................ BBs.
Hoesch Rothe Erde AG................... BBs.
INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (INA)...... All.
NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH All.
(NTN Germany).
Rollix & Defontaine, S.A............... BBs.
SKF GmbH (including all relevant All.
affiliates) (SKF Germany).
Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/ BBs, CRBs.
Kuensenbeck).
Italy
FAG Italia S.p.A. (including all BBs, CRBs.
relevant affiliates) (FAG Italy).
SKF-Industrie S.p.A. (SKF Italy)....... BBs.
Japan
Asahi Seiko............................ BBs.
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.................... All.
Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd. All.
(NPBS).
NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.).. All.
NTN Corp. (NTN Japan).................. All.
Singapore
NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec Ind. (Pte.) BBs.
Ltd. (NMB Singapore/Pelmec).
United Kingdom
NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings BBs, CRBs.
(NSK/RHP).
Hoffman U.K............................ BBs, CRBs.
Rose Bearing Co., Ltd.................. BBs, CRBs.
Timken Bearing Co...................... BBs, CRBs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain respondents reported no shipments or sales subject to these
reviews. One firm, Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/Kuensenbeck),
reported entries of merchandise subject to the order on BBs from
Germany but no sales to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers. Because this
merchandise was consumed by the affiliated importer and not resold in
any form, we will liquidate these entries without regard to antidumping
duties.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the 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 Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the weighted-
average dumping margin is appropriate for SNFA, Hoffman U.K., and Rose
Bearings, all with respect to BBs and CRBs, for Torrington Nadellager
with respect to CRBs only, and for SKF France with respect to SPBs
only, because these firms did not respond to our antidumping
questionnaire. We find that these firms have withheld ``information
that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore,
we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is
appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of these
companies because they failed to cooperate by not responding to our
questionnaire. 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, which is secondary information
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
We also preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a)
of the Act, that the use of the facts available as the basis for the
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for NPBS because,
despite the Department's attempts to verify information provided
[[Page 35716]]
by NPBS, the Department could not verify the information as required
under section 782(i) of the Act. Where a party provides information
requested by the Department but the information cannot be verified,
section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Department to use facts
otherwise available. Further, in accordance with section 782(e)(2) of
the Act, the Department has declined to consider information submitted
by NPBS because the information cannot be verified. Moreover, we
preliminarily determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
NPBS did not cooperate to the best of its ability and therefore we are
required to use adverse facts available.
We found that responses provided by NPBS, as a whole, could not be
verified. At our attempted verification, for example, we found the
following inaccuracies in the response provided by NPBS which render
the response unusable for purposes of margin calculations: unreported
home market and United States sales; inability to demonstrate how
quantity and value totals were calculated; incorrect reporting of the
form of the subject merchandise as entered; incorrect designation of
bearings that were further processed in the United States; and failure
to provide in its response to the questionnaire the final prices to its
largest home market customer. In addition, we found errors in the
calculation of the following items: entered customs value, all charges
and adjustments allocated by entered value, customer category of U.S.
sales, U.S. inland freight, U.S. international freight, U.S. short-term
interest rate, export selling expenses incurred in the home market,
indirect selling expenses for home market sales, and home market short-
term interest income.
NPBS has not cooperated to the best of its ability, as demonstrated
by the misreportings, inaccuracies, and omissions we found at our
attempted verification which resulted from inconsistencies in data
within NPBS's control. Therefore, as facts available for NPBS, we have
used the ``all others'' rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, which is considered secondary information within the
meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Section 776(c) of the 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, Torrington Nadellager, Hoffman
U.K. and Rose Bearings, 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.
For NPBS, we examined the rates applicable to ball bearings from
Japan throughout the course of the proceeding. Given NPBS's level of
participation in this segment of the proceeding, we preliminarily
determine that 45.83 percent, which is the all others rate from the
LTFV investigation, is sufficiently adverse to encourage full
cooperation in future segments of the proceeding. Moreover, this rate
has probative value because it includes the average of calculated
margins from the LTFV investigation. Furthermore, there is no reliable
evidence on the record indicating that this selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available. (See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers.)
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP or CEP as defined in
sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the 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 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 included May 1-7,
1994, August 21-27, 1994, October 2-8, 1994, November 6-12, 1994,
January 22-28, 1995, and March 19-25, 1995. 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 Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 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, expenses assumed on
behalf of the buyer and indirect selling expenses, and repacking
expenses in the United States. Where appropriate, in accordance with
section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also deducted the cost of any further
manufacture or assembly, except where the special rule provided in
section 772(e) of the Act was applied (see below). Finally, we made an
adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to these expenses in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
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 Act applied for all firms, except INA, that
added value in the United States.
[[Page 35717]]
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 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 except INA that added value in the United
States, 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.
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
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 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 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 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 included April, May, August, October, and November of
1994, and January, March, and May of 1995.
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, Asahi
Seiko, Koyo, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind., and NSK/
RHP and the classes or kinds of merchandise under review (see AFBs IV;
concerning Asahi Seiko, 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) (AFBs III)), 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 Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales by SNR, FAG
Germany, FAG Italy, INA, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, Asahi
Seiko, Koyo, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec, and NSK/RHP in
the home market.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 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 no shipments, nor did we conduct a COP analysis for
respondents for which we relied on facts available to determine
weighted-average dumping margins.
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of AFBs
were made at prices below 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 Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than 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 (1)
were 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,
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 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 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 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 Act and for
differences in circumstances of sale
[[Page 35718]]
(COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 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 and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses except those deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. 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 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 Act. (See Level of Trade below.)
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 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 Act. We included the cost of materials and
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section
773(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 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 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 and adding
U.S. direct selling expenses except those deducted from the starting
price in calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. 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 Act. (See Level of Trade
below.)
Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA
accompanying the URAA at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the
Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade
as the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same level of
trade as the U.S. sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to
sales at a different level of trade in the comparison market.
In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at
allegedly different levels of trade are compared, the Department will
adjust the NV to account for the difference in level of trade if two
conditions are met. First, there must be differences between the actual
selling activities performed by the exporter at the level of trade of
the U.S. sale and the level of trade of the comparison market sales
used to determine NV. Second, the differences must affect price
comparability as evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences
between sales at the different levels of trade in the market in which
NV is determined.
Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset''
may be made when two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a level
of trade which constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than
the level of trade of the CEP; and (2) the data available do not
provide an appropriate basis for a level-of-trade adjustment.
In implementing these principles in these reviews, we obtained
information about the selling activities of the producers/exporters
associated with each channel of distribution. We asked each respondent
to establish any claimed levels of trade based on these selling
activities.
In order to determine whether separate levels of trade actually
existed within or between the U.S. and home markets, we reviewed the
selling activities associated with each channel of distribution claimed
by the respondents. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and
the SAA at 827, in identifying levels of trade for EP and home market
sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting
price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. Whenever sales
were made by or through an affiliated company or agent, we considered
all selling activities of both affiliated parties, except for those
selling activities related to the expenses deducted under section
772(d) of the Act in CEP situations.
In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondents, we
considered all types of selling activities that had been performed. In
analyzing whether separate levels of trade existed in these reviews, we
found that no single selling function in the bearings industry was
sufficient to warrant a separate level of trade (see Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7307, 7348 (February
27, 1996) (Proposed Regulations)).
In determining whether separate levels of trade existed in or
between the U.S. and home markets, the Department considered the level-
of-trade claims of each respondent. To test the claimed levels of
trade, we analyzed the selling activities associated with the channels
of distribution respondents reported. In applying this test, we expect
that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party
claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of
sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
When we were unable to find sales of the foreign like product in
the home market at the same level of trade as that of the EP or CEP, we
examined whether a level-of-trade adjustment was appropriate. In these
reviews, the same level of trade as that of the CEP did not exist in
the home market. For some EP sales, we also did not find the same level
of trade in the home market. Therefore, we could not determine whether
there was a pattern of consistent price differences between the levels
of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, based on
the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under review.
However, the SAA states that ``if information on the same product and
company is not available, the adjustment may also be based on sales of
other products by the same company. In the absence of any sales,
including those in recent time periods, to different levels of trade by
the exporter or producer under investigation, Commerce may further
consider the selling experience of other producers in the foreign
market for the same product or other products.'' SAA
[[Page 35719]]
at 830. Accordingly, where necessary we examined the alternative
methods for calculating a level-of-trade adjustment. In these reviews,
we did not have information that would allow us to apply these
alternative methods. Thus, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(b) of
the Act, if we established NV at a level of trade which constituted a
more advanced stage of distribution, we made a CEP offset.
For some EP sales, the same level of trade did exist in the home
market but we could only match the U.S. sale to home market sales at a
different level of trade because there were no usable sales of the
foreign like product at the same level of trade. Therefore, we
determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price differences
between these different levels of trade in the home market. To make
this determination, we compared the average of the prices of sales made
in the ordinary course of trade at the two levels of trade for models
sold at both levels. If the average prices were higher at one of the
levels of trade for a preponderance of the models, we considered this
to demonstrate a pattern of consistent price differences. We also
considered whether the average prices were higher at one of the levels
of trade for a preponderance of sales, based on the quantities of each
model sold, in making this determination.
Respondent Intertechnique reported only one channel of distribution
in the home market and only EP sales through one channel of
distribution to the United States. Because the selling activities in
both markets were substantially the same, we considered the home market
sales and the EP sales to be at the same level of trade. Therefore, we
made no level-of-trade adjustments.
SKF Germany, SKF France, SKF Italy, Koyo, and SNR each reported two
channels of distribution in the home market. For each of these
companies we found that the two home market channels differed
significantly with respect to selling activities such as advertising
and sales promotion, sales and marketing support, inventory maintenance
and, to a lesser degree, other selling activities. Based on these
differences, we found that the two home market channels constituted two
different levels of trade.
These companies, except SKF France and SKF Italy, reported only CEP
sales in the U.S. market. SKF France and SKF Italy also had EP sales.
Although the starting price for the CEP sales was based on sales made
by the affiliated reseller to unaffiliated customers through two
channels of distribution which constituted two different levels of
trade, each of these companies reported similar selling activities
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller (i.e., at the
level of trade of the CEP). Therefore, we considered the CEP to
constitute only one level of trade for each of these companies. We
found that there were significant differences between the selling
activities associated with the CEP and those associated with each of
the home market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the
CEP involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting,
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered the level
of trade of the CEP to be different from either home market level of
trade and a less advanced stage of distribution than either home market
level of trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same
level of trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-
trade adjustment based on each respondent's home market sales of
merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other information
that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade
adjustment. For these respondents, to the extent possible, we
determined NV at the same level of trade as the starting price for the
CEP, which was the price to the unaffiliated customer, and made a CEP
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
SKF France made EP sales of BBs through one channel of distribution.
SKF Italy made EP sales of BBs through two channels of distribution.
For both SKF France and SKF Italy, the selling activities associated
with EP sales were similar to those associated with one of the levels
of trade in the home market. Therefore, we considered these channels to
constitute one level of trade and this level of trade to be the same as
a level of trade in the home market. Where possible we matched EP sales
to sales at the same level of trade in the home market and made no
level-of-trade adjustment. Where we matched to home market sales at a
different level of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act, we determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price
differences between these different levels of trade in the home market.
For this class or kind of merchandise, we found that there was such a
pattern for both SKF France and SKF Italy and therefore made an
adjustment for the differences in level of trade. We therefore adjusted
normal value by the weighted-average difference in prices between the
two levels of trade in the home market. We calculated the adjustment
based on home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade and
prices net of billing adjustments, movement expenses, discounts,
rebates, commissions, direct selling expenses and packing expenses. For
each model sold at both levels of trade in the home market, we
calculated the difference between the weighted-average prices at the
two levels of trade as a percentage of the weighted-average price at
the comparison level of trade. We then calculated a weighted average of
these model-specific percentage differences on a class-or-kind basis.
We calculated the amount of the level-of-trade adjustment by applying
this weighted-average percentage price difference to the NV determined
at the different level of trade.
INA reported only one channel of distribution in the home market.
Because the selling activities associated with all sales were similar,
we considered this channel of distribution to constitute one level of
trade. INA reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market,
one represented by its EP sales and one represented by its CEP sales.
Because the selling activities associated with the home market level of
trade were similar to those associated with EP sales, we made no level-
of-trade adjustments for these comparisons. For CEP sales, INA reported
similar selling activities associated with all sales to the affiliated
reseller. Therefore, we considered the CEP to constitute only one level
of trade. We compared the selling activities associated with the sale
to the affiliated reseller to those associated with the home market
level of trade and found them to be dissimilar. For example, the level
of trade of the CEP involved little or no strategic and economic
planning, advertising or sales promotion, technical services, technical
assistance, inventory maintenance or after-sale service. Therefore, we
considered the home market sales to be at a different level of trade
and at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP. Because the
sole home market level of trade was different from the level of trade
of the CEP, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment
based on INA's home market sales of merchandise under review.
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. Accordingly, for
INA, we determined NV at the sole
[[Page 35720]]
home market level of trade and made a CEP offset adjustment in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
FAG Germany reported a number of channels of distribution in the
home market. We found that four of these channels did not differ
significantly with respect to selling activities and constitute one
level of trade (level 1). We found that the same is true of three other
home market channels (level 2). Finally, we found that another home
market channel is not similar to any of the other channels of
distribution in the home market (level 3). We found that level 1
differed significantly from level 2 with respect to selling activities
such as post-sale services and warranties, technical advice,
advertising, strategic and economic planning, market research, research
and development, and engineering services. We found that level 1
differed significantly from level 3 with respect to selling activities
such as inventory maintenance, advertising, freight and delivery
arrangement, strategic and economic planning, market research,
personnel training, research and development, and engineering services.
We found that level 2 differed significantly from level 3 with respect
to selling activities such as inventory maintenance, post-sale services
and warranties, technical advice, freight and delivery arrangement,
advertising, and personnel training. Based on these differences, we
found that the three home market channel groups constitute three
different levels of trade.
In the U.S. market, FAG Germany reported CEP sales and EP sales.
The CEP sales were made by FAG Germany's U.S. subsidiary to
unaffiliated customers through channels of distribution and at levels
of trade similar to levels 1 and 2 in the home market. Although we
considered FAG Germany's sales to unaffiliated customers to be made at
two levels of trade, FAG Germany reported similar selling activities
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that
there were significant differences between the selling activities
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP
involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting,
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered the level
of trade of the CEP to be different from all home market levels of
trade and at a less advanced stage of distribution than any home market
level of trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same
level of trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-
trade adjustment based on FAG Germany's home market sales of
merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other information
that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade
adjustment. For FAG Germany, to the extent possible, we determined NV
for CEP sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the
unaffiliated customer and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. FAG Germany made EP sales of two
classes or kinds of merchandise through channels of distribution
similar to those comprising one of the levels of trade in the home
market. Therefore, we considered these channels to constitute one level
of trade and this level of trade to be the same as one of the levels of
trade in the home market. Where possible we matched EP sales to sales
at the same level of trade in the home market and made no level-of-
trade adjustment. Where we matched to home market sales at a different
level of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we
determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price differences
between these different levels of trade in the home market. For BBs, we
found that there was such a pattern and therefore made an adjustment
for the differences in level of trade. However, for CRBs we did not
find such a pattern and therefore made no level-of-trade adjustment.
For BBs, we adjusted normal value by the weighted-average difference in
prices between the two levels of trade in the home market. We
calculated the adjustment based on home market sales made in the
ordinary course of trade and prices net of billing adjustments,
movement expenses, discounts, rebates, commissions, direct selling
expenses and packing expenses. For each model sold at both levels of
trade in the home market, we calculated the difference between the
weighted-average prices at the two levels of trade as a percentage of
the weighted-average price at the comparison level of trade. We then
calculated a weighted-average of these model-specific percentage
differences on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated the amount of the
level-of-trade adjustment by applying this weighted-average percentage
price difference to the NV determined at the different level of trade.
FAG Italy reported two channels of distribution in the home market.
We found that the two home market channels differed with respect to
selling activities such as after sales services/warranties, technical
advice, and research and development. Based on these differences, we
found that the two home market channels constituted two different
levels of trade.
In the U.S. market, FAG Italy reported only CEP sales. The CEP
sales were made by FAG Italy's U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated
customers through channels of distribution and at levels of trade
similar to the two levels of trade in the home market. Although we
considered FAG Italy's sales to unaffiliated customers to be made at
two levels of trade, FAG Italy reported similar selling activities
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that
there were significant differences between the selling activities
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP
involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting,
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered the level
of trade of the CEP to be different from either home market level of
trade and at a less advanced stage of distribution than either home
market level of trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the
same level of trade in the home market, nor could we determine a level-
of-trade adjustment based on FAG Italy's home market sales of
merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other information
that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade
adjustment. For FAG Italy, to the extent possible, we determined NV at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer
and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
NSK reported four channels of distribution in the home market. We
found that two of these channels did not differ significantly from each
other with respect to selling activities and constitute one level of
trade (level 1). We found that the same is true of the other two home
market channels (level 2). We found that the selling activities
associated with level 1 differed significantly from activities at level
2. For example, we found differences with respect to personnel
training, advertising, technical support, price negotiation, and sales
calls on the end-user. Based on these differences, we found that the
two home market channel groups constituted two different levels of
trade.
[[Page 35721]]
In the U.S. market, NSK had CEP sales and EP sales. NSK made CEP
sales to unaffiliated customers through five channels of distribution,
which we considered to be two levels of trade similar to those found in
the home market. Though NSK's sales to unaffiliated customers were made
at two levels of trade, NSK reported similar selling activities
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that
there were significant differences between the selling activities
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP
involved little or no strategic planning, sales forecasting,
advertising or sales promotions, engineering services, technical
assistance, or after-sale service. Therefore, we considered this level
of trade to be different from either home market level of trade and at
a less advanced stage of distribution than either home market level of
trade. Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of
trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade
adjustment based on NSK's home market sales of merchandise under to
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For NSK,
to the extent possible, we determined NV for CEP sales at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a
CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B). NSK made
EP sales of one class or kind of merchandise to unaffiliated customers
through channels of distribution similar to those comprising channel 1
in the home market. Therefore, we considered these channels to
constitute one level of trade and that level of trade to be the same as
level 1 in the home market. Where possible we have matched EP sales to
sales at the same level of trade in the home market and made no level-
of-trade adjustment. Where we matched EP sales to home market sales at
a different level of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act, we determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price
differences between these different levels of trade in the home market.
For this class or kind of merchandise, we found that there was such a
pattern and therefore made an adjustment for the differences in level
of trade. We adjusted normal value by the weighted-average difference
in prices between the two levels of trade in the home market. We
calculated the adjustment based on home market sales made in the
ordinary course of trade and prices net of billing adjustments,
movement expenses, discounts, rebates, commissions, direct selling
expenses and packing expenses. For each model sold at both levels of
trade in the home market, we calculated the difference between the
weighted-average prices at the two levels of trade as a percentage of
the weighted-average price at the comparison level of trade. We then
calculated a weighted-average of these model-specific percentage
differences on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated the amount of the
level-of-trade adjustment by applying this weighted-average percentage
price difference to the NV determined at the different level of trade.
NTN Japan reported five channels of distribution in the home
market. We found that the degree to which NTN Japan performed functions
such as market research, technical services, and sales services such as
processing and purchasing arrangements and delivery arrangements varied
among the five channels. Based on these differences, we found that the
five home market channels constituted three levels of trade. We found
that the selling activities for level 1 differed significantly from
levels 2 and 3 in terms of strategic economic planning, market
research, accounting and business functions, engineering services,
types of packing, and types of advertising and sales promotion. The
selling activities for level 2 varied from those of level 3 in
strategic and economic planning, accounting and business functions, and
advertising and sales promotion.
NTN Japan reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market made
through two channels of distribution. NTN Japan made CEP sales through
its U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated customers through channels of
distribution similar to those in the home market. Though these sales to
unaffiliated customers were made at two levels of trade, NTN Japan
reported similar selling activities associated with all sales to the
affiliated reseller. Therefore, we considered the CEP to constitute
only one level of trade. We found that there were significant
differences between the selling activities associated with the CEP and
those associated with each of the home market levels of trade. For
example, at the level of trade of the CEP there was little or no
strategic planning, sales forecasting, advertising, or technical
assistance. Therefore, we considered this level of trade to be
different from the three home market levels of trade and at a less
advanced stage of distribution than the home market levels of trade.
Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment
based on the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For this
respondent, to the extent possible, we determined NV at the same level
of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
We considered all of NTN Japan's EP sales to be at one level of trade.
We determined that the selling activities associated with EP sales were
essentially the same as those associated with one of the home market
levels of trade, and therefore the EP level of trade did exist in the
home market. Therefore, where possible we matched EP sales to sales at
the same level of trade in the home market and made no level-of-trade
adjustment. Where we matched to home market sales at a different level
of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we
determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price differences
between these different levels of trade in the home market. For BBs and
CRBs, we found that there was such a pattern and therefore made an
adjustment for the differences in level of trade. However, for SPBs we
did not find such a pattern and therefore made no level-of-trade
adjustment. For BBs and CRBs, we adjusted NV by the weighted-average
difference in prices between the two levels of trade in the home
market. We calculated the adjustment based on home market sales made in
the ordinary course of trade and prices net of billing adjustments,
movement expenses, discounts, rebates, commissions, direct selling
expenses and packing expenses. For each model sold at both levels of
trade in the home market, we calculated the difference between the
weighted-average prices at the two levels of trade as a percentage of
the weighted-average price at the comparison level of trade. We then
calculated a weighted average of these model-specific percentage
differences on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated the amount of the
level-of-trade adjustment by applying this weighted-average percentage
price difference to the NV determined at the different level of trade.
NTN Germany claimed one channel of distribution but two levels of
trade in
[[Page 35722]]
the home market. We found that the degree to which NTN Germany
performed functions such as after sales services, market research,
technical services, and sales services such as processing and
purchasing arrangements differed by claimed levels of trade. Based on
these differences, we found that these claimed levels of trade in fact
constitute two levels of trade in the home market.
NTN Germany reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market. Though CEP
sales to unaffiliated customers were made at two levels of trade, NTN
Germany reported similar selling activities associated with all sales
to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we considered the CEP to
constitute only one level of trade. We found that there were
significant differences between the selling activities associated with
the CEP and those associated with each of the home market levels of
trade. For example, at the level of trade of the CEP there was little
or no strategic planning, sales forecasting, advertising, or technical
assistance. Therefore, we considered this level of trade to be
different from the home market levels of trade and at a less advanced
stage of distribution than the home market levels of trade.
Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment
based on the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For this
respondent, to the extent possible, we determined NV at the same level
of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
NMB Singapore/Pelmec reported two channels of distribution in the
home market. We found that these two channels differed significantly
with respect to selling activities such as after-sales services/
warranties, technical support, engineering services, market research,
sales promotion, and advertising. Based on these differences, we found
that the two home market channels constituted two different levels of
trade.
NMB Singapore/Pelmec reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market.
Though sales were made to unaffiliated customers through two channels
of distribution, the company reported similar selling activities
associated with all sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore, we
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We found that
there were significant differences between the selling activities
associated with the CEP and those associated with each of the home
market levels of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP only
involved order processing and some engineering consultation. This level
did not include any of the other selling activities associated with
either of the home market levels of trade such as inventory
maintenance, after-sales services/warranties, technical support, market
research, sales promotion, advertising, freight and delivery, packing
and accounting. Therefore, we considered the level of trade of the CEP
to be different from either home market level of trade and at a less
advanced stage of distribution than either home market level of trade.
Consequently, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment
based on the respondent's home market sales of merchandise under
review. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For this
respondent, to the extent possible, we determined NV at the same level
of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP
offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Asahi Seiko reported seven channels of distribution in the home
market and CEP sales through four channels of distribution in the U.S.
market. In comparing selling activities among channels of distribution
in the home market, we found that no promotional expenses, sales-
support functions, or inventory maintenance activities were performed
for the channel of distribution consisting of direct sales to Asahi's
affiliated customer while these functions were performed with respect
to the other six channels. In addition, the selling activities were
substantially the same among the other six channels. Therefore, we
found that the seven HM channels constitute two different levels of
trade. However, we are not using the level of trade consisting of
direct sales to Asahi's affiliated customer as a basis for NV because
we could not determine that these sales were made at arm's-length
prices. Thus, for NV we could use only one level of trade for
comparison purposes.
In the U.S. market Asahi Seiko reported that the CEP sales it made
to unaffiliated customers were through four channels of distribution,
but the selling activities among all sales to the affiliated reseller
were similar. Therefore, we considered the CEP to constitute only one
level of trade. We found significant differences between the selling
activities associated with the CEP and those associated with the home
market level of trade. For example, the level of trade of the CEP
involved little or no advertising and sales promotions, engineering
services, or after-sales service. Therefore, we considered this level
of trade to be different from and at a less advanced stage of
distribution than the home market level of trade. Consequently, we
could not match to sales at the same level of trade in the home market
nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on Asahi's
home market sales of merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no
other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a
level-of-trade adjustment. For Asahi Seiko, to the extent possible, we
determined NV at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales to the
unaffiliated customer and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
NSK/RHP reported five channels of distribution in the home market.
The selling activities associated with three of these reported channels
did not differ significantly, and therefore we considered sales through
these channels to constitute one level of trade (level 1). The selling
activities associated with another channel of distribution differed
from level 1 in terms of advertising, inventory maintenance, technical
support and to a lesser degree other selling activities. Therefore, we
consider this channel of distribution to constitute a second level of
trade (level 2). The remaining channel of distribution involved only
sales to an affiliate. However, we requested, and NSK/RHP reported, the
downstream sales to unaffiliated customers which constitute levels 1
and 2. Moreover, we could not determine that these sales were made at
arm's length. Therefore, we did not use these sales to determine NV or
as the basis of any level-of-trade adjustments.
In the U.S. market, NSK/RHP reported EP and CEP sales. Although
NSK/RHP reported that the CEP sales it made to unaffiliated customers
were made through two channels of distribution, the selling activities
among all sales to the affiliated reseller were similar. Therefore, we
considered the CEP to constitute only one level of trade. We compared
the selling activities at this level of trade with the selling
activities at each home market level of trade and found them to be
substantially dissimilar. For example, the level of trade of the CEP
involved little or no strategic and economic planning,
[[Page 35723]]
advertising or sales promotion, technical services, technical
assistance, or inventory maintenance. Therefore, we considered the home
market sales to be at a different level of trade and at a more advanced
stage of distribution than CEP. Because the home market levels of trade
were different from the level of trade of the CEP, we could not match
to sales at the same level of trade in the home market nor could we
determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on NSK-RHP's home market
sales of merchandise under review. Furthermore, we have no other
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-
of-trade adjustment. For NSK-RHP's CEP sales, to the extent possible,
we determined NV at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the
unaffiliated customer and made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. NSK/RHP made EP sales of two
classes or kinds of merchandise to unaffiliated customers through one
channel of distribution which we considered to be a level of trade
similar to one of the levels of trade in the home market. We were able
to match all EP sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home
market and therefore made no level-of-trade adjustments.
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,
1994, through April 30, 1995 to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company BBs CRBs SPBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
Franke GmbH............................... 1 66.42 (3) (3)
Hoesch Rothe Erde......................... (2) (3) (3)
Intertechnique............................ 1.55 (2) (2)
Rollix Defontaine......................... (2) (3) (3)
SKF....................................... 21.39 (2) 42.79
SNFA...................................... 66.42 18.37 (2)
SNR....................................... 2.10 4.26 (2)
Germany
FAG....................................... 10.22 16.90 9.51
Franke GmbH............................... 1 132.25 (3) (3)
Hoesch Rothe Erde......................... (2) (2) (2)
INA....................................... 11.66 12.33 (2)
NTN....................................... 23.37 (2) (2)
Rollix & Defontaine....................... (2) (3) (3)
SKF....................................... 2.42 8.11 5.34
Torrington Nadellager..................... (2) 76.27 (3)
Italy
FAG....................................... 2.43 (2) (3)
SKF....................................... 2.68 (3) (3)
Japan
Asahi Seiko............................... 1.96 (3) (3)
Koyo Seiko................................ 22.32 2.79 0.00 1
NPBS...................................... 45.83 (2) (2)
NSK Ltd................................... 14.24 18.27 (2)
NTN....................................... 4.31 10.27 2.60
Singapore
NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind.................. 0.71 (3) (3)
United Kingdom
NSK/RHP................................... 9.60 11.13 (3)
Hoffman U.K............................... 54.27 48.29 (3)
Rose Bearings............................. 54.27 48.29 (3)
Timken Bearings........................... (2) (2) (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Date Time Room No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues........................... Aug. 16, 1996............... 9:00 a.m.................... 4830
Singapore................................ Aug. 16, 1996............... 3:00 p.m.................... 4830
United Kingdom........................... Aug. 19, 1996............... 10:00 a.m................... 1412
Japan.................................... Aug. 19, 1996............... 1:00 p.m.................... 1412
Germany.................................. Aug. 20, 1996............... 10:00 a.m................... 1412
France................................... Aug. 20, 1996............... 1:00 p.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.................. Aug. 5, 1996...... Aug. 12, 1996.
Singapore....................... Aug. 5, 1996...... Aug. 12, 1996.
U.K............................. Aug. 6, 1996...... Aug. 13, 1996.
Japan........................... Aug. 6, 1996...... Aug. 13, 1996.
Germany......................... Aug. 7, 1996...... Aug. 14, 1996.
France.......................... Aug. 7, 1996...... Aug. 14, 1996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will subsequently publish the final results of these
administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs or hearings. The Department will
issue final results of these reviews within 180 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 an
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate 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
[[Page 35724]]
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.
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 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 AFBs III). 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22(c)(5).
Dated: June 27, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17277 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
