[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 151 (Monday, August 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40610-40615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19857]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty
Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China and Intent
to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof,
finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China
(PRC). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 1994, through May 31,
1995. The review indicates the existence of dumping margins during this
period.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference
between United States price (USP) and NV. Interested parties are
invited to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle, Hermes Pinilla, Andrea
Chu or Kris Campbell, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4733.
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). In addition, all citations
to the Department's regulations are to the current regulations, as
amended by the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on
May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On June 6, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 29821) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC (52 FR 19748
(May 27, 1987)). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), the petitioner,
The Timken Company, requested that we conduct an administrative review.
In addition, respondent Shanghai General Bearing Company (Shanghai)
requested revocation pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b) (revocation based on
not selling subject merchandise at less than normal value for three
consecutive years). Shanghai stated that it was making this request
solely because the Department had not yet ruled on its revocation
request made with respect to the 1993-1994 review (the 7th review
period). We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review on August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42500), covering the
period June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995 (the 8th review period).
On September 18, 1995, we sent questionnaires directly to the PRC
companies for which we had addresses on the record. We also sent
questionnaires to the Hong Kong companies listed in our initiation
notice, using addresses supplied in the petitioner's initiation request
as well as information from the Hong Kong branch of the U.S. & Foreign
Commercial Service.
On the same date, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary General
of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for Import &
Export of Machinery and Electronics (CCCME) and requested that the
questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in our
initiation notice for which we did not have addresses. We also
requested information relevant to the issue of whether the companies
named in the initiation request are independent from government
control. See Separate Rates, infra. Finally, we notified the PRC
government, through its embassy in Washington, that we were conducting
this review and requested that the PRC government notify us if it did
not wish to have the Secretary General of the Basic Machinery Division
of CCCME act as the contact person for this review.
We received responses to our questionnaire from thirteen of the
companies named in the initiation notice: China National Machinery
Import & Export Corporation (CMC), Liaoning Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (Liaoning), China National Automotive Industry Import &
Export Guizhou Corporation (Guizhou Automotive), Luoyang Bearing
Factory (Luoyang), Jilin Province Machinery Import & Export Corporation
(Jilin), Tianshui Hailin Import & Export Corporation, also known as
Tianshui Hailin Bearing Factory (Tianshui), Wafangdian Bearing Industry
Import & Export Corporation (Wafangdian), Guizhou Machinery Import &
Export Corporation (Guizhou), Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (Zhejiang), Xiangfan International Trade Corporation
(Xiangfan), East Sea Bearing Co., Ltd., also know as Zhejiang East Sea
[[Page 40611]]
Bearing Company, Ltd. (East Sea), Shanghai, and Premier Bearing and
Equipment Company, Ltd. (Premier), a Hong Kong reseller.
We also received responses to the Separate Rates section of the
questionnaire from two companies that were not named in the initiation
notice and that we therefore consider to be voluntary respondents:
Shandong Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation (Shandong)
and Wanxiang Group Corporation (Wanxiang).
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of TRBs and parts
thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC. This merchandise is
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers
8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.60, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30 and 8483.90.80. Although the HTS
item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted
verification of the information submitted by Premier, Jilin, and
Zhejiang at these companies' headquarters from March 25-April 5, 1996.
Separate Rates
1. Background and Summary of Findings
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries
a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as
amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring,
a finding of de jure absence of government control over export
activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control
of companies. See Sparklers at 20589. Evidence relevant to a de facto
analysis of absence of government control over exports is based on four
factors, whether the respondent: 1) sets its own export prices
independent from the government and other exporters; 2) can retain the
proceeds from its export sales; 3) has the authority to negotiate and
sign contracts; and 4) has autonomy from the government regarding the
selection of management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; see also
Sparklers at 20589.
We preliminarily determined that Guizhou, Jilin, Luoyang, Liaoning,
Wafangdian, Guizhou Automotive, Shanghai, CMC, Tianshui, Zhejiang, and
Xiangfan were entitled to separate rates for the administrative review
of the June 1993-May 1994 period. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 49572,
49572-74 (September 26, 1995). Information submitted by these companies
for the record in the current review is consistent with these findings.
Further, there have been no allegations regarding changes in control of
these companies in this review. Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that the government does not exercise control over the export
activities of these firms. East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang also meet
both the de jure and de facto criteria and are entitled, therefore, to
separate rates (see De Jure Analysis and De Facto Analysis, infra).
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to apply rates separate from
the PRC rate to each of the above companies.
Finally, with respect to Premier, no separate rates analysis is
required because this company is a privately owned trading company
located in Hong Kong.
2. De Jure Analysis: East Sea, Shandong, Wanxiang
Information submitted during this review indicates that East Sea,
Shandong, and Wanxiang are owned ``by all of the people.'' In Silicon
Carbide (at 22586), we found that the PRC central government had
devolved control of state-owned enterprises, i.e., enterprises owned
``by all of the people.'' As a result, we determined that companies
owned ``by all of the people'' were eligible for individual rates, if
they met the criteria developed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
The following laws, which have been placed on the record in this
case, indicate a lack of de jure government control over these
companies, and establish that the responsibility for managing companies
owned by ``all of the people'' has been transferred from the government
to the enterprises themselves. These laws include: ``Law of the
People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole
People,'' adopted on April 13, 1988 (1988 Law); ``Regulations for
Transformation of Operational Mechanism of State-Owned Industrial
Enterprises,'' approved on August 23, 1992 (1992 Regulations); and the
``Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities,''
approved on December 21, 1992 (Export Provisions). The 1988 Law states
that enterprises have the right to set their own prices (see Article
26). This principle was restated in the 1992 Regulations (see Article
IX). Finally, the 1992 ``Temporary Provisions for Administration of
Export Commodities'' list those products subject to direct government
control. TRBs do not appear on this list and are not subject,
therefore, to the constraints of these provisions.
Consistent with Silicon Carbide, we preliminarily determine that
the existence of these laws demonstrates that East Sea, Shandong, and
Wanxiang, companies owned by ``all of the people,'' are not subject to
de jure government control with respect to export activities. In light
of reports 1 indicating that laws shifting control from the
government to the enterprises themselves have not been implemented
uniformly, an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject to government control with
respect to export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``PRC Government Findings on Enterprise Autonomy,'' in
Foreign Broadcast Information Service-China-93-133 (July 14, 1993)
and 1992 Central Intelligence Agency Report to the Joint Economic
Committee, Hearings on Global Economic and Technological Change:
Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and China, Pt.2 (102 Cong.,
2d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. De Facto Analysis: East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang
The following record evidence, which is contained in the
questionnaire responses, indicates a lack of de facto government
control over the export activities of East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang.
We have found that these respondents' pricing and export strategy
decisions are not subject to any entity's review or approval and that
there are no government policy directives that affect
[[Page 40612]]
these decisions. There are no restrictions on the use of respondents'
revenues or profits, including export earnings.
Each company's general manager or chairman of the board has the
right to negotiate and enter into contracts, and may delegate this
authority to other employees within the company. There is no evidence
that this authority is subject to any level of governmental approval.
The general manager is elected by the board of directors for each
of these companies. The results of Wanxiang's management elections are
not required to be submitted to any government agency. For Shandong and
East Sea, the election results are recorded with the relevant
provincial or municipal bureau (e.g., the Shandong Machinery Industry
Commission in the case of Shandong). There is no evidence that these
bureaus control the selection process or that they have rejected a
general manager selected through the election process.
Decisions made by respondents concerning purchases of subject
merchandise from other suppliers are not subject to government
approval. Finally, respondents' sources of funds are their own savings
or bank loans, and they have sole control over, and access to, their
bank accounts, which are held in each company's name.
Based on the foregoing analysis of the evidence of record, we find
no evidence of either de jure or de facto government control over the
export activities of East Sea, Shandong, and Wanxiang. Accordingly, we
preliminarily determine that each of these exporters will receive a
separate rate.
Because we have preliminarily determined that the voluntary
respondents Shandong and Wanxiang are entitled to separate rates, and
no review was requested for these companies, we have not reviewed their
entries during the 94-95 review period (see Background section, above).
Therefore, the current cash deposit rate established for these
companies in the 1989-90 review of this case (i.e., the 1989-90 PRC
rate) will continue to apply for future cash deposits unless this rate
is replaced by a more recent PRC rate (i.e., from the concurrent 1990-
91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 reviews) before the publication of these final
results. The assessment rate for entries from these companies during
the 1994-95 POR will be the rate required at the time of entry.
4. Separate Rate Determinations for Non-responsive Companies
For those companies for which we initiated a review and which did
not respond to the questionnaires, as the facts otherwise available, we
have determined that these companies do not merit separate rates. See
Use of Facts Otherwise Available, below.
United States Price
For sales made by Luoyang, Zhejiang, Tianshui, Wafangdian,
Liaoning, Guizhou, Guizhou Automotive, Xiangfan, East Sea and Premier,
we based the USP on export price, in accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated
purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United
States, and because the constructed export price (CEP) methodology was
not indicated by other circumstances. For sales made by Shanghai, we
based USP on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because
sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place after importation
into the United States. CMC had a combination of export price and CEP
sales subject to review.
We calculated export price based on, as appropriate, the FOB, CIF
or C&F port price to unrelated purchasers. We made deductions for
brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and
marine insurance. When marine insurance and ocean freight were provided
by PRC-owned companies, we based the deduction on surrogate values. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818, 58825 (November 15, 1994).
We valued foreign inland freight deductions using surrogate data based
on Indian freight costs. We selected India as the surrogate country for
the reasons explained in the Normal Value section of this notice.
We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse price from the
U.S. subsidiary to unrelated customers. We made deductions from CEP for
U.S. packing in the United States, ocean freight, foreign brokerage &
handling, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, customs duty, U.S.
brokerage, U.S. inland freight insurance and U.S. inland freight. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from CEP the
following selling expenses that related to economic activity in the
United States: commissions, direct selling expenses, including
advertising, warranties, and credit expenses, and indirect selling
expenses, including inventory carrying costs.
Normal Value
Section 773(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production
methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and
(2) available information does not permit the calculation of NV using
home market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (CV)
under section 773(a). In such cases, the factors include, but are not
limited to: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital cost, including depreciation.
The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all
previous cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i), any
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in
effect until revoked by the administering authority. Furthermore,
available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home
market prices, third country prices, or CV under section 773(a).
Therefore, except as noted below, we calculated NV based on factors of
production in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act and section
353.52 of our regulations.
In its questionnaire response, Shanghai requested that the
Department accept its actual costs, claiming that those costs were
market-driven. However, in order to accept the costs of a company in an
NME country, the Department must determine that the industry in which
that company operates, not just a particular company, is market-
oriented. See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Pure and Alloy
Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 59 FR 55427, 55430 (November 7,
1994) (``an NME-country respondent may argue that market-driven prices
characterize its particular industry and, therefore, despite NME
status, that [normal] value should be calculated using actual home
market prices or costs'') (emphasis added).
Because neither Shanghai nor any other company in this review has
argued that the TRB industry in the PRC is market-oriented, we continue
to consider that industry to be non-market-oriented and, therefore, we
have applied our standard NME methodology and surrogate values to
Shanghai's factors of production to determine NV and movement costs.
Although Premier is a Hong Kong company, we calculated NV for
Premier based on factors of production data. We were unable to use home
market sales as a basis for NV because Premier had no sales in Hong
Kong during the POR. We did not use Premier's third-country sales in
calculating NV because Premier's PRC-based suppliers had
[[Page 40613]]
knowledge that the merchandise in question was exported to an
intermediate country (Hong Kong). See section 773(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Accordingly, we calculated NV for Premier on the basis of PRC
production inputs and surrogate country factor prices. We calculated NV
using these factors of production data based on the facts available in
this review. See Use of Facts Otherwise Available, infra.
In accordance with section 773(c)(4), we valued PRC factors of
production, to the extent possible, using the prices or costs of
factors of production in a market-economy country that is: (1) at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the non-market-
economy country, and (2) a significant producer of comparable
merchandise.
We chose India as the most comparable surrogate on the basis of the
criteria set out in section 353.52(b). See Memorandum from Director,
Office of Policy to Director, Division II, Office of Antidumping
Compliance, dated March 15, 1996. Further, information on the record
indicates that India is a significant producer of TRBs. See Memorandum
from the analyst to the file, dated July 22, 1996. We used publicly
available information relating to India to value the various factors of
production.
We valued the factors of production as follows:
For hot-rolled alloy steel bars and rods, and irregular
coils, used in the production of rollers, hot-rolled alloy steel bars
and rods, used in the production of cups and cones, cold-rolled strip
and sheet, used in the production of cages, and bearing quality and
non-bearing quality steel scrap, we used import prices obtained from
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports.
We used data from the annual issue of this source, which covers the
period April 1994-March 1995, and also factored in the remaining POR
months of April-May 1995. We made further adjustments to include
freight costs incurred between the steel supplier and the TRB factory.
We used actual costs for certain steel inputs because they were
purchased directly from a market-economy country. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oscillating Fans and
Ceiling Fans from the PRC, 56 FR 55271, 55275 (October 25, 1991).
For direct labor, we used 1994 data from Investing,
Licensing & Trading Conditions Abroad, India, published in November
1994 by the Economist Intelligence Unit. We then adjusted the 1994
labor value to the POR to reflect inflation using consumer price
indices (CPI) of India as published in the International Financial
Statistics by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We calculated the
labor cost for each component by multiplying the labor time requirement
by the surrogate labor rate. Indirect labor is reflected in the
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) and overhead rates.
For factory overhead, we used information obtained from
the 1994-95 annual report of a producer of similar merchandise in
India. See SKF Bearings India, Ltd. Annual Report 1994-95. From this
source, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of
total cost of manufacture.
For SG&A expenses, we used information obtained from the
same financial report used to obtain factory overhead. This information
showed SG&A expenses as a percentage of the cost of manufacture.
For profit, we used the profit rate of the same Indian
producer of similar merchandise from which we derived a rate for
factory overhead.
For export packing, we used the facts available because
the respondents did not supply sufficient factor information by which
to calculate packing costs. We used one percent of the total ex-factory
cost and SG&A expenses combined. This percentage, obtained from
publicly available data, was used in the Final Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value: Tapered Roller Bearings from Italy, 52 FR
24198 (June 29, 1987). This methodology is consistent with the
Department's valuation of packing in the Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's
Republic of China, 56 FR 67590 (December 31, 1991). We used this
percentage because there was no publicly available information from a
comparable surrogate country.
For foreign inland freight, as the most recent publicly
available published source, we used a rate derived from a newspaper
article in the April 20, 1994 issue of The Times of India, as submitted
in the antidumping duty investigation on honey from the PRC. We
adjusted the value of freight to the POR using a WPI published by the
IMF.
We made no adjustments for selling expenses because the surrogate
SG&A information we used did not allow a breakout of selling expenses.
Intent to Revoke
Shanghai requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b), revocation of the
order with respect to its sales of the merchandise in question and
submitted the certification required by 19 CFR 353.25(b)(1). In
addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), Shanghai has
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long
as any producer or reseller is subject to the order, if the Department
concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that Shanghai, subsequent to
revocation, sold merchandise at less than NV. Based on the preliminary
results in this review and the two preceding reviews (see Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 44302 (August 25, 1995) and Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 49572 (September 26, 1995)), Shanghai has
demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV.
If the final results of this and the two preceding reviews
demonstrate that Shanghai sold the merchandise at not less than NV, and
if the Department determines that it is not likely that Shanghai will
sell the subject merchandise at less than NV in the future, we intend
to revoke the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported
by Shanghai.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the
Act. Currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a
daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is our practice to
find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs
from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. See Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 61 FR 35188, 35192 (July 5, 1996). The
benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the
past 40 business days. Because we found no fluctuation in this case, we
believe it is appropriate to use a daily exchange rate for currency
conversion purposes.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of
the Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for Premier,
Jilin, and all companies named in the Notice of Initiation that did not
respond to our
[[Page 40614]]
requests for information. Furthermore, we determine that, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, it is appropriate to make inferences adverse
to the interests of the non-responding companies because they failed to
cooperate by not responding to our questionnaire.
Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on facts available because that
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act
authorizes the Department to use inferences adverse to the interests of
that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act
also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record. Because information from prior segments of the proceeding
constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) of the Act provides
that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
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 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
inappropriate. 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 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).
Companies that did not respond to the questionaire
We have preliminarily assigned 129.97 percent as facts available to
those companies for which we initiated a review and which did not
respond to the questionnaires. As noted in the separate rates section
above, we have also determined that the non-responsive companies do not
merit separate rates. Therefore, the facts available for these
companies form the basis for the PRC rate. The PRC rate is 129.97
percent for this review.
1. Jilin: Because Jilin withheld information requested by the
Department (see Memorandum from Analyst to File: Verification Report
for Jilin Machinery Import & Export Corporation, dated July 22, 1996),
section 776(a) of the Act requires us to use the facts otherwise
available. At verification, we discovered that Jilin failed to report
certain U.S. sales during the POR. Because Jilin's unreported sales
represented a large portion of its total U.S. sales during the POR (and
because these unreported sales would have escaped dumping duties if
undiscovered), we find that Jilin failed to cooperate by not complying
with our request for information, and we have rejected Jilin's
submissions in accordance with section 782(e)(4) of the Act. Section
776(b) of the Act allows us to use an adverse inference in selecting
from the facts otherwise available. As adverse facts available, we have
selected 129.97 percent, the highest rate calculated in this review, as
the margin for Jilin.
2. Premier: We determined that Premier, a Hong Kong-based reseller
of TRBs from the PRC, responded to the best of its ability to the
Department's supplemental questionnaire which requested factors-of-
production data. Premier was able to provide factors data from its
suppliers for models which represented most of Premier's U.S. sales by
value. For models which Premier purchased from multiple suppliers, it
provided factors data from only one of its PRC suppliers. For a
significant amount of its U.S. sales by value, Premier was unable to
provide factors data from any of its PRC suppliers. However, for models
involved in those sales, Premier was able to provide factors data from
other PRC suppliers of the same models. For the remainder of its U.S.
sales, Premier was unable to report factors data.
We determined that there is, however, little variation in factor
utilization rates among the TRB producers from whom we have received
factors-of-production data. For this reason, and because Premier made
every attempt to respond fully to the Department's supplemental
questionnaire regarding factors data, we are using as facts available
the factors data provided by Premier in order to calculate CV. For
Premier's U.S. sales of models for which Premier was unable to provide
any factors data, we have applied 23.31 percent, the average of the
calculated margins for other companies in this review, to those U.S.
sales. We did not apply an adverse margin to these sales because we
determined that Premier had cooperated to the best of its ability.
Furthermore, because we had no information with which to calculate NV
for the models represented by these sales, we determined that a simple
average of the calculated margins for other companies in this review,
for which we were able to calculate NV, is a reasonable rate to apply,
as facts available, for these sales by Premier. See Memorandum to
Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement from Office Director
for AD/CVD Enforcement dated July 29, 1996.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of the USP to NV, we preliminarily
determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June
1, 1994, through May 31, 1995:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Bearing and Equipment, Limited....................... 5.37
Guizhou Machinery Import and Export Corporation.............. 23.87
Luoyang Bearing Factory...................................... 2.46
Shanghai General Bearing Company, Ltd........................ 0.00
Jilin Machinery Import and Export Corporation................ 129.97
Wafangdian Bearing Factory................................... 129.97
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation............... 16.67
China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation....... 0.00
China Nat'l Automotive Industry Import and Export Guizhou
Corporation................................................. 9.34
Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation................ 54.71
Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corporation............... 5.77
Xiangfan International Trade Corp............................ 0.38
East Sea Bearing Co., Ltd.................................... 13.20
Shandong Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation. 129.97
Wanxiang Group Corporation................................... 129.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40615]]
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held approximately 44 days after the publication of
this notice. Interested parties may submit written comments (case
briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after
the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 180 days
of publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the
companies named above that have separate rates and were reviewed
(Premier, Guizhou Machinery, Luoyang, Shanghai, Jilin, Wafangdian,
Liaoning, CMC, Guizhou Automotive, Tianshui, Zhejiang, Xiangfan, East
Sea), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms
established in the final results of this review; (2) for Shandong and
Wanxiang, which we preliminarily determine to be entitled to a separate
rate, the rate will continue be that which currently applies to this
company unless modified by a more recent PRC rate (e.g., from the
concurrent 90-91, 91-92, or 92-93 reviews); (3) for all remaining PRC
exporters, all of which were found to not be entitled to separate
rates, the cash deposit will be 129.97 percent; and (4) for other non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 C.F.R.
353.22.
Dated: July 29, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-19857 Filed 8-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
