95-19258. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof (AFBs) From Singapore; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 39933-39937]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-19258]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    [C-559-802]
    
    
    Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
    Parts Thereof (AFBs) From Singapore; Preliminary Results of 
    Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
    Administrative Reviews.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting two 
    administrative reviews of the 
    
    [[Page 39934]]
    countervailing duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered 
    roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) from Singapore. We 
    preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be zero for the Minebea 
    group of companies (Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (Pelmec), NMB 
    Singapore Ltd. (NMB), and Minebea Co., Ltd. Singapore Branch (MSB)) and 
    9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies for the periods January 
    1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993, through 
    December 31, 1993. If the final results remain the same as these 
    preliminary results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
    Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. 
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Melanie Brown, 
    Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration, 
    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
    Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
    (202) 482-2786.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On May 3, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
    (54 FR 19125) the countervailing duty orders on AFBs from Singapore. On 
    April 28, 1993, and May 4, 1994, the Department published in the 
    Federal Register notices of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative 
    Review'' (58 FR 25802 and 59 FR 23051-52) of these countervailing duty 
    orders. We received a timely request for review for the period January 
    1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, from the petitioner, the Torrington 
    Company. We also received timely requests for review for the period 
    January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, from both the petitioner, 
    the Torrington Company, and the Minebea group of companies, which 
    accounts for most of the exports of subject merchandise from Singapore 
    to the United States (see section on Best Information Available, 
    below).
        We initiated the 1992 and 1993 reviews on June 25, 1993 (58 FR 
    34414) and June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30770), respectively. We conducted 
    verifications of the questionnaire responses for both the 1992 and 1993 
    reviews. The 1992 review covers three related manufacturers/exporters 
    of the subject merchandise and 16 programs; the 1993 review covers the 
    same manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise and 17 
    programs.
    
    Applicable Statute and Regulations
    
        The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in 
    accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
    (the Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and 
    to the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as 
    they existed on December 31, 1994.
    
    Scope of Reviews
    
        Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of antifriction 
    bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. The 
    subject merchandise covers five separate classes or kinds of 
    merchandise, each of which is described in detail in Appendix A to this 
    notice. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule item numbers listed in Appendix 
    A are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
    descriptions remain dispositive.
        On October 30, 1992, the Department received a request for a scope 
    determination from Sundstrand Pacific (Sundstrand). Specifically, 
    Sundstrand asked the Department to find its part number 742973, an 
    outer-race of the cylindrical roller bearing, not within the scopes of 
    the countervailing duty orders. The request was subsequently evaluated 
    in accordance with section 355.29(i)(1) of the Department's 
    regulations. On February 4, 1993, the Department determined that the 
    product in question was within the scope of the order on cylindrical 
    roller bearings (58 FR 27542, 27543; May 10, 1993). Because the product 
    descriptions detailed in Sundstrand's request for a scope determination 
    were dispositive as to whether part number 742973 was within the scope 
    of the order on cylindrical roller bearings, the Department did not 
    initiate a formal scope inquiry. Accordingly, the U.S. Customs Service 
    has been instructed to continue to suspend liquidation of part 742973 
    exported by Sundstrand.
    
    Best Information Available
    
        During the investigation, Sundstrand, an exporter of the subject 
    merchandise which was identified by the Government of Singapore (GOS), 
    refused to participate, and consequently received a rate based entirely 
    on best information available (BIA)(see Final Affirmative 
    Countervailing Duty Determinations and Countervailing Duty Orders: 
    Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
    thereof from Singapore (54 FR 19125, 19126; May 3, 1989)). Section 
    776(c) of the Act requires the Department to use BIA ``whenever a party 
    or any other person refuses or is unable to produce information 
    requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise 
    significantly impedes an investigation * * *'' See also 19 CFR 
    Sec. 355.37. In determining what rate to use as BIA, the Department 
    follows a two-tiered methodology. The Department assigns lower rates to 
    those respondents who cooperate in an administrative review (tier two) 
    and rates based on more adverse assumptions for respondents who do not 
    cooperate in the review, or who significantly impede the proceeding 
    (tier one). Cf. Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F. 2d 
    1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 28 F. 3d 1188, cert. denied, 1995 U.S. 
    Lexis 100 (1995) (Allied-Signal).
        In these reviews, only the three related Minebea companies, which 
    account for the majority of Singaporean exports to the United States of 
    the subject merchandise, responded to the Department's questionnaires. 
    Sundstrand did not respond to our questionnaires. Furthermore, during 
    the course of the 1992 verification of the GOS questionnaire response, 
    we examined a list of companies which exported subject merchandise to 
    the United States but, for reasons unknown to the Department, did not 
    respond to our questionnaire (see the April 8, 1994, Memorandum to 
    Barbara E. Tillman Regarding Verification of Questionnaire Response in 
    1992 Administrative Review of CVD Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other 
    Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Singapore--
    Covering the Period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, at 4, 
    which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 
    Department of Commerce). The GOS did not provide any information 
    regarding Sundstrand or the other companies' sales or exports of the 
    subject merchandise, or the extent to which Sundstrand or these 
    companies participated in the programs reviewed. During the course of 
    the 1993 verification of the GOS questionnaire response, we again 
    examined a list of companies which exported subject merchandise to the 
    United States but did not respond to our questionnaire (see the April 
    9, 1995, Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman Regarding Verification of 
    Questionnaire Responses in the 1993 Administrative Review of 
    Countervailing Duty Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
    Roller Bearings) From Singapore, at 3, which is on file in the Central 
    Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce). Again, 
    
    [[Page 39935]]
    the GOS did not provide any information regarding Sundstrand or the 
    other companies' sales or exports of the subject merchandise, or the 
    extent to which they participated in the programs reviewed. Therefore, 
    in accordance with section 776 of the Act and Allied-Signal, we are 
    assigning to Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies a first-
    tier uncooperative BIA rate for both periods of review. The rate we are 
    applying for the periods January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, 
    and January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, is 9.11 percent ad 
    valorem. This rate is the rate that has been assigned to Sundstrand in 
    each review since the first administrative review (see Final Results of 
    Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (other 
    than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from Singapore (56 FR 
    26384; June 7, 1991)).
    Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
    
        In accordance with our standard practice, for both periods of 
    review, we calculated the net subsidy on a country-wide basis by first 
    calculating the subsidy rate for each company subject to the 
    administrative review. See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
    Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel 
    Products from the United Kingdom, 60 FR 24833, 24834 (May 10, 1995). We 
    then weight-averaged the rate received by each company using as the 
    weight the company's share of total exports from Singapore to the 
    United States of subject merchandise, including all companies, even 
    those with de minimis and zero rates. To determine the value of exports 
    for the Minebea group of companies, we added the reported total exports 
    of subject merchandise to the United States by the two related 
    producers/exporters, NMB and Pelmec, to the total net mark-up on 
    exports of subject merchandise to the United States reported by the 
    related trading company respondent, MSB. To determine the value of 
    exports for Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies based on 
    BIA (see Best Information Available, above), we subtracted the value of 
    the Minebea companies' exports of subject merchandise to the United 
    States from the total value of exports of subject merchandise to the 
    United States, as reported by the GOS.
        We then summed the individual weight-averaged rates to determine 
    the subsidy from all programs benefitting Singaporean exports of 
    subject merchandise to the United States. Because the country-wide rate 
    calculated using this methodology was above de minimis, as defined by 
    19 CFR Sec. 355.7, for both periods of review, we next examined the net 
    subsidy rate calculated for each company to determine whether 
    individual company rates differed significantly from the weighted-
    average country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 355.22(d)(3).
        For both periods of review, we found that the Minebea companies and 
    the non-respondent companies had significantly different net subsidy 
    rates (zero and 9.11 percent ad valorem, respectively); therefore all 
    companies are treated separately for assessment and cash deposit 
    purposes for both periods.
    
    Analysis of Programs
    
    I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Subsidies Investment 
    Allowances Under Part X of the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA)
    
        Pelmec and NMB received tax deductions under this program during 
    both periods of review, which petitioners have alleged are 
    countervailable. The Investment Allowance program was originally 
    established under Part VIA of the EEIA in 1979 to encourage investment 
    in Singapore. The Department determined in 1985 that the investment 
    allowance program under Part VIA of the EEIA was not countervailable 
    (see Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Textile 
    Mill Products and Apparel from Singapore, 50 FR 9840 (March 12, 1985) 
    (Textiles)). After the Department's determination in Textiles, the EEIA 
    was amended so that the investment allowance program was included under 
    Part X of the EEIA (see Final Negative Countervailing Duty 
    Determination: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Singapore (53 FR 16304; May 
    6, 1988) (Wire Rod)). Because the investment allowance program has not 
    been examined since the EEIA was amended, we are doing so in the 1992 
    review. (For a more detailed explanation of the Department's decision 
    to examine Part X, see the December 30, 1994, Memorandum to Barbara E. 
    Tillman Regarding 1992 and 1993 Administrative Reviews of Antifriction 
    Bearings (AFBs) from Singapore--Investment Allowance Program, Part X of 
    the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA), on file in the public 
    file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of 
    Commerce.)
        Under Part X, companies are granted a tax deduction for up to 50 
    percent of the investment in fixed assets made by the company over the 
    course of a project. The EEIA authorizes allowances for a project in 
    any of the following areas:
        a. for the manufacture or increased manufacture of any product;
        b. for the provision of specialized engineering or technical 
    services;
        c. for research and development;
        d. for construction operations;
        e. for reducing the consumption of potable water;
        f. for services listed under section 16 of the EEIA; or
        g. for the promotion of the tourist industry (other than a hotel) 
    in Singapore.
        If an investment project falls within one of the above categories, 
    companies will receive an allowance if the investment meets one of the 
    following criteria:
         the investment results in greater efficiency in resource 
    utilization;
         the investment introduces a new technology into an 
    existing industry;
         the project is significantly more efficient in resource 
    utilization than the industry average; or
         the project produces parts and components used by other 
    industries.
        We verified that, under each of the eligible project areas, all 
    companies investing in new plant and equipment are eligible to 
    participate in the program and that any such company which meets the 
    above criteria will be approved to receive the investment allowance. 
    Moreover, we found no evidence that the program is regional or that 
    company approval is contingent on export. Finally, we found no evidence 
    that the program is limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or a 
    group of enterprises or industries. There are a large number and wide 
    variety of users of the program. The range of industries that received 
    investment allowances includes, among others, food & beverage, 
    textiles, chemicals, steel, paper, minerals, electronics, plastics, 
    furniture, petroleum/coal, rubber, and numerous service industries, 
    including hotels, air transport, banking, real estate, accounting, 
    information technology, medical/health, and photography. Moreover, the 
    AFBs producers are neither a dominant nor disproportionate recipient of 
    the investment allowances, and there is no evidence that the GOS 
    exercises discretion, in general or across industries, in conferring 
    benefits. Thus, we preliminarily determine that this program is not 
    countervailable within the meaning of section 701(a) of the Act. (A 
    detailed specificity analysis is set forth in the Memorandum dated July 
    28, 1995, 1992 Administrative Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Orders 
    on Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 
    
    [[Page 39936]]
    from Singapore: Part X of the EEIA--Investment Allowances which is on 
    file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of 
    Commerce.)
    II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used
    
        We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
    the Minebea group of companies did not apply for or receive benefits 
    under these programs during either the 1992 review period or the 1993 
    review period:
    
    A. Production for Export under Part VI of the EEIA
    B. Monetary Authority of Singapore Rediscount Facility
    C. Other Tax Incentives under the EEIA
          Part IV: Expansion of Established Enterprises
          Part VII: International Trade Incentives
          Part VIII: Foreign Loans for Productive Equipment
          Part IX: Royalties, Fees and Development Contributions
          Part XI: Warehousing and Servicing Incentives
    D. Incentives Under the Income Tax Act
          Sections 14B and 14C: Double Deduction of Export 
    Promotion Expenses
          Section 14E: Double Deduction for Research and 
    Development
          Section 19B: Write-Offs of Payments for ``Know-How'', 
    Patents and Manufacturing Licenses
    E. Programs Administered by the Economic Development Board
          Capital Assistance Scheme
          Productive Development Assistance Scheme
          Initiatives in New Technology Program
    F. Program Administered by the National Science Technology Board: 
    Research & Development Assistance Scheme
    
        In the 1993 review, we received a submission from the Torrington 
    Company, the petitioner in this proceeding, alleging that post-pioneer 
    status under Part IIIA of the EEIA might have been granted to producers 
    of the subject merchandise. We examined that program and preliminarily 
    determine that the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise did 
    not apply for or receive benefits under that program and were not 
    granted post-pioneer status.
    
    Preliminary Results of Reviews
    
        For the periods January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and 
    January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, we preliminarily determine 
    the net subsidy to be zero for the Minebea group of companies (Pelmec, 
    NMB, and MSB) and 9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies (see 
    Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes, 
    above).
        If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these 
    preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. 
    Customs Service to assess the following countervailing duties for the 
    period January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1993:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Rate  
                        Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB).....................      0.00 
    All Other Companies..........................................      9.11 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Department also intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
    collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties of zero 
    percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject 
    merchandise from the Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB), and 9.11 
    percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject 
    merchandise from all other companies entered, or withdrawn from 
    warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
    final results of these reviews.
        Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation 
    methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than 
    10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested 
    parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these 
    preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal 
    briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted 
    seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties who 
    submit written arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit 
    with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary 
    of the argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days 
    after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of 
    case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
    accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 355.38(e).
        Representatives of parties to these proceedings may request 
    disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective 
    order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or 
    employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than 
    the date the case briefs, under section 355.38(c), are due. The 
    Department will publish the final results of these administrative 
    reviews including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
    case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
        These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with 
    section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.
    C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR Sec. 355.22.
    
        Dated: July 28, 1995.
    Susan G. Esserman,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    Appendix A
    
    Scope of The Reviews
    
        The products covered by these reviews, antifriction bearings 
    (other than tapered roller bearings), mounted or unmounted, and 
    parts thereof, constitute the following separate ``classes or 
    kinds'' of merchandise as outlined below.
        (1) Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts Thereof: 
    These products include all antifriction bearings which employ balls 
    as the rolling element. Such merchandise is classifiable under the 
    following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers: 8482.10.10, 
    8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.70, 
    8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 
    8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
        (2) Spherical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
    Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which 
    employ spherical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is 
    classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.30.00, 
    8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.50, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 
    8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 
    8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
        (3) Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
    Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which 
    employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise 
    is classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.50.00, 
    8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
    8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 
    8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
        (4) Needle Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
    Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which 
    employ needle rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is 
    classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.40.00, 
    8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
    8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 
    8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
        (5) Spherical Plain Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
    Thereof: These products include all spherical plain bearings which 
    do not employ rolling elements and include spherical plain rod ends. 
    Such merchandise is classifiable under the following HTS item 
    numbers: 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00, 
    and 8708.99.50.
        These reviews cover all of the subject bearings and parts 
    thereof outlined above 
    
    [[Page 39937]]
    with certain limitations. With regard to finished parts (inner race, 
    outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.), all such 
    parts are included in the scope of this review. For unfinished parts 
    (inner race, outer race, rollers, balls, etc.), such parts are 
    included if (1) they have been heat treated, or (2) heat treatment 
    is not required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only 
    unfinished parts that are not covered by this review are those which 
    will be subject to heat treatment after importation.
    
    [FR Doc. 95-19258 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
8/4/1995
Published:
08/04/1995
Department:
Commerce Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews.
Document Number:
95-19258
Dates:
August 4, 1995.
Pages:
39933-39937 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
C-559-802
PDF File:
95-19258.pdf