Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 25538-25545 [05-9623]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 92 (Friday, May 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25538-25545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9623]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-559-801, A-412-801


Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered 
roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The merchandise covered by these 
orders are ball bearings and parts thereof (ball bearings) from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and spherical 
plain bearings and parts thereof from France. The reviews cover 19 
manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is May 1, 2003, through 
April 30, 2004.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value by various companies subject to these reviews. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in these reviews are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Rimlinger or Kristin Case, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54 FR 20900) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, and on 
spherical plain bearings and parts thereof from France. On June 30, 
2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of 
initiation of administrative reviews of these orders (68 FR 39055). The 
list of companies for which we have initiated administrative reviews 
are as follows:
France:
    * SKF France S.A. or Sarma (SKF France) - ball bearings and 
spherical plain bearings
    * SNR Roulements or SNR Europe (SNR) - ball bearings only
    * Weber Kugellager International - ball bearings only
Germany:
    * Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG, Wurzberg, Germany (GRW)
    * INA-Schaeffler KG; INA Vermogensverwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH; INA 
Holding Schaeffler KG; FAG Kugelfischer Georg-Schaefer AG; FAG 
Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG; FAG Komponenten AG; FAG 
Aircraft/ Super Precision Bearings GmbH; FAG Industrial Bearings AG; 
FAG Sales Europe GmbH; FAG International Sales and Service GmbH 
(collectively FAG/INA)
    * Paul Mueller Industrie GmbH & Co. KG {also listed as GMN (Georg 
Mueller Nuremberg){time} ; Paul Mueller GmbH & Co. KG 
Unternehmensbeteiligungen (collectively Paul Mueller)
    * SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
    * Weber Kugellager International
Italy:
    * FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG 
(collectively FAG Italy)
    * SKF Industrie S.p.A.; SKF RIV-SKF Officine di Villas Perosa 
S.p.A.; RFT S.p.A.; OMVP S.p.A. (collectively SKF Italy)
    * Weber Kugellager International
Japan:
    * Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi)
    * Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)
    * NSK Ltd. (NSK)
    * NTN Corporation (NTN)
    * Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi)
    * Nankai Seiko Co., Ltd. (SMT)
    * Nippon Pillow Block Company, Ltd. (NPB)
    * Osaka Pump Co., Ltd. (Osaka Pump)
    * Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)
    * Takeshita Seiko Co., Ltd. (Takeshita)
Singapore:
    * NMB Singapore Ltd.; Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd.; NMB 
Technologies Corporation (collectively NMB/Pelmec)
United Kingdom:
    * The Barden Corporation (UK) Limited; FAG (U.K.) Limited 
(collectively Barden/FAG)

[[Page 25539]]

    * NSK Bearings Europe (NSK UK)
    * SKF Aeroengine Bearings UK (formerly known as Aeroengine Bearings 
UK or NSK Aerospace) (SKF UK)

Rescission of Reviews

    Subsequent to the publication of our initiation notice, we received 
timely withdrawals of the requests we had received for reviews of NSK 
UK and Nachi with respect to ball bearings from the United Kingdom and 
Japan, respectively. Additionally, we received timely withdrawals of 
the requests we had received for reviews of Weber Kugellager 
International with respect to ball bearings from France, Germany, and 
Italy. Finally, we received a timely withdrawal of the request we had 
received for SKF France with respect to spherical plain bearings. 
Because there were no other requests for review for these companies and 
no interested party objected, we are rescinding the reviews with 
respect to these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d). 
Additionally, because we determined during the previous administrative 
review to revoke the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts 
thereof from Germany which were produced and exported by Paul Mueller 
and entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after May 
1, 2003, we are rescinding the review with respect to Paul Mueller. See 
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in 
Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574, 55578 
(September 15, 2004) (AFBs 14).

Scope of Orders

    The products covered by the orders are ball bearings (other than 
tapered roller 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 (HTSUS) 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, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 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.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of these 
orders remain dispositive.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by one of the orders. These orders cover all the 
subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, 
rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) outlined above with certain 
limitations. With regard to finished parts, all such parts are included 
in the scope of the these orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are 
included if they have been heat-treated or heat treatment is not 
required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts 
that are not covered by these orders are those that will be subject to 
heat treatment after importation. The ultimate application of a bearing 
also does not influence whether the bearing is covered by the orders. 
Bearings designed for highly specialized applications are not excluded. 
Any of the subject bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately 
be utilized in aircraft, automobiles, or other equipment, are within 
the scope of these orders.
    For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, 
see the Scope Determination Memorandum (Scope Memorandum) from the 
Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated April 15, 2005. 
The Scope Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Main 
Commerce Building, Room B-099, in the General Issues record (A-100-001) 
for the 03/04 reviews.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), we have verified information provided by certain 
respondents using standard verification procedures, including on-site 
inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the examination of 
relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original 
documentation containing relevant information. Specifically, we 
conducted verifications of the following respondents: Asahi, Barden/
FAG, FAG/INA, GRW, NPB, NMB Pelmec, NSK, Sapporo, SKF Germany, SKF 
Italy, SMT, and Sapporo. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the 
CRU, Room B-099.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we preliminarily 
determine that the use of facts available as the basis for the 
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for SKF UK. SKF UK did 
not submit a response to our antidumping duty questionnaire.\1\ 
Consequently, we find that it has withheld ``information that has been 
requested by the administering authority'' under section 776(a)(2)(A) 
of the Act and we must use facts otherwise available to calculate a 
margin for SKF UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See memorandum from analyst to Laurie Parkhill, ``The Use of 
Facts Available and Corroboration of Secondary Information for 
Aeroengine Bearings UK in the 2003/2004 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from the 
United Kingdom,'' dated May 6, 2005 (Corroboration Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are making an 
adverse inference in our application of the facts available. This is 
appropriate because SKF UK has not provided a response to our request 
for information and has not provided any acceptable rationale for its 
failure to respond. Therefore, we find that SKF UK has not acted to the 
best of its ability in providing us with relevant information which is 
under its control. As adverse facts available for SKF UK, we have 
applied the highest rate which we have calculated for any company in 
any segment of the proceeding on ball bearings from the United Kingdom. 
We have selected this rate because it is sufficiently high as to 
reasonably assure that SKF UK does not obtain a more favorable result 
by failing to cooperate. We calculated this rate, 61.14 percent, for 
SKF UK in the original less-than-fair-value investigation. See Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Spherical Plain Bearings and Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From the United Kingdom; and Final Determination of Sales 
at Not Less Than Fair Value: Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From the United Kingdom, 84 FR 19120, 19125 (May 3, 1989).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information

[[Page 25540]]

from a prior segment of the proceeding or from another company in the 
same proceeding constitutes secondary information. The Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA), provides that the word 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. As explained in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan), in order to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent 
practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. 
Unlike other types of information, however, such as input costs or 
selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated 
dumping margins. The only source for margins is administrative 
determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as 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 Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded 
the highest dumping margin as best information available because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin. Further, in accordance with 
F.LII De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 
F.3d 1027, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2000), we also examine whether information 
on the record would support the selected rates as reasonable facts 
available. This rate is the current cash-deposit rate for a number of 
firms, was applied to SKF UK in the previous review, and there is no 
information reasonably at our disposal that would indicate that there 
are circumstances which would render the margin not relevant at this 
time. Therefore, we find that the rate which we are using for these 
preliminary results has probative value. See Corroboration Memo.
    Furthermore, there is no information on the record that 
demonstrates that the rate we have selected is inappropriate for use as 
the total adverse facts-available rate for the company in question. 
Therefore, we consider the selected rate to have probative value with 
respect to the firm in question in this review and to reflect the 
appropriate adverse inferences.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of 
transactions that occurred during the period of review 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 
10,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States of merchandise 
subject to a particular order, 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 are as follows: 
May 11 - May 17, 2003; July 27 - August 2, 2003; September 7 - 13, 
2003; December 7 - 13, 2003; January 4 - 10, 2004; April 4 - 10, 2004. 
We reviewed all EP sales transactions made during the period of review.
    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, which includes 
commissions, direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those 
indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring 
in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted 
under sections 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we 
computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both 
the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those 
sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to 
U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to 
total expenses for both the U.S. and home market. When appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also deducted the cost 
of any further manufacture or assembly, except where we applied the 
special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act. See below. Finally, 
we made an adjustment for 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 by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters 
and then further processed into other products which were then sold to 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for 
merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of 
the Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States 
except NPB and Asahi.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when 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 sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 
customer, 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 purchaser. Based on this 
analysis, we determined that the

[[Page 25541]]

estimated value added in the United States by all further-manufacturing 
firms, except NPB and Asahi, accounted for at least 65 percent of the 
price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as 
sold in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an explanation of 
our practice on this issue. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
for these firms the value added is likely to exceed substantially the 
value of the subject merchandise. Also, for these firms, we determine 
that there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a 
reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of these sales is 
appropriate. See analysis memoranda for Barden U.K., INA/FAG, Koyo, 
NSK, NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, and SKF Italy, dated May 6, 2005. 
Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins for the sales 
subject to the special rule, we have used the weighted-average dumping 
margins calculated on sales of identical or other subject merchandise 
sold to unaffiliated persons.
    For NPB and Asahi, we determined that the special rule did not 
apply because the value added in the United States did not exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Consequently, these 
firms submitted complete responses to our further-manufacturing 
questionnaire which included the costs of the further processing 
performed by their U.S. affiliates. Because the majority of their 
products sold in the United States were further processed, we analyzed 
all sales.
    No other adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed.

Home-Market Sales

    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 did not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by all 
respondents 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. 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 normal value on the prices at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same 
level of trade as the EP or CEP sales.
    Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred 
during the period of review and the resulting administrative burden 
involved in examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to 
calculate normal value in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When 
a firm had more than 10,000 home-market sales transactions on a 
country-specific basis, we used sales in sample months that 
corresponded to the sample weeks which we selected for U.S. CEP sales, 
sales in a month prior to the period of review, and sales in the month 
following the period of review. The sample months were February, May, 
July, September, and December of 2003, and January, April, and May of 
2004.
    The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an 
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the 
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to 
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at 
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales to 
affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that we 
determined not to be at arm's-length prices from our analysis. To test 
whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department 
compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and 
in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an 
affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to 
that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the 
affiliated party were at arm's-length prices. See Antidumping 
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 
FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We included in our calculation of normal 
value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length 
prices.

Cost of Production

    Because we disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act in the last completed review with respect to ball 
bearings sold by Barden, Asahi Seiko, INA/FAG, Koyo, NTN, NPB, NSK, 
NMB/Pelmec, SKF France, SKF Italy, SNR, FAG Italy, and SKF Germany (see 
AFBs 14, 69 FR at 55576), we had reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for 
the determination of normal value in these reviews may have been made 
at prices below the cost of production (COP) as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these firms in 
the home market. Also, we received allegations in proper form that 
Osaka Pump, Takeshita, and GRW had made home-market sales below their 
COP and we conducted COP investigations of home-market sales of these 
firms as well.
    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, the selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental 
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-
market sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses.
    The petitioner requested on January 11, 2005, that, with respect to 
purchases of the foreign like product from unaffiliated parties, the 
Department require the respondents to provide the actual cost 
information from the unaffiliated suppliers instead of the acquisition 
cost for those items. Because this request came well after the 
Department had received questionnaire responses and because the 
Department has accepted the acquisition costs for purposes of the COP 
test and when calculating constructed value in previous segments of 
these proceedings, the Department has determined to use the reported 
acquisition costs for purposes of these ongoing reviews. We will 
require the respondents to report COP and constructed-value information 
for purchases from their unaffiliated suppliers where facts in any 
2005/06 reviews of these orders reflect the facts in other proceedings 
in which we have required respondents to report such information from 
unaffiliated suppliers. For further discussion of this issue see the 
Memorandum for Barbara E. Tillman from Laurie Parkhill, Ball Bearings 
from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: 
Whether to Use Acquisition Cost or Unaffiliated Suppliers' Cost of 
Production, dated May 6, 2005, available in the CRU.
    After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared 
model-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any

[[Page 25542]]

applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the period of 
review were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of 
the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average 
COPs for the period of review, we determined that these sales were at 
prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See 
analysis memoranda for Asahi Seiko, Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, INA/FAG, 
Koyo, Nankai Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, NTN, NPB, NSK, Osaka Pump, GRW, 
Takeshita, SNR, SKF France, SKF Italy, and SKF Germany, dated May 6, 
2005. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect 
to all of the above-mentioned companies.

Model-Match Methodology

    In Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results Of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Rescission Of 
Administrative Reviews, Notice Of Intent To Rescind Administrative 
Reviews, And Notice Of Intent To Revoke Order In Part, 69 FR 5949, 
5955-56 (February 9, 2004) (AFBs 14 Prelim), we indicated that we had 
received a suggestion from the petitioner to alter our model-match 
methodology. The petitioner asserted that, instead of averaging the 
sales of all of the home-market models within a family as the 
Department had done in previous reviews, it would be more accurate to 
compare U.S. sales to sales of the single most similar home-market 
model in those cases where an identical match cannot be found in the 
home market. Although we did not change our approach in the 02/03 
reviews, we invited comments from all interested parties on the 
proposed change to our model-match methodology. Based on our review of 
the record, we have decided to implement a change in our model-match 
methodology. For a full discussion and analysis of the model-match 
methodology for these reviews, see Memorandum from Barbara Tillman to 
Joseph A. Spetrini, Antidumping Duty Reviews on Antifriction Bearings 
(and Parts Thereof) From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and 
the United Kingdom - Model-Match Methodology, dated May 6, 2005 (Model-
Match Memorandum).
    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the 
following methodology. If an identical home-market model was reported, 
we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market prices that were 
based on all sales which passed the cost test of the identical product 
during the relevant month. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an 
identical model, we identified the most similar home-market model. To 
determine the most similar model, we limited our examination to models 
sold in the home market that had the same bearing design, load 
direction, number of rows, and precision grade. Next, we calculated the 
sum of the deviations (expressed as a percentage of the value of the 
U.S. characteristics) of the inner diameter, outer diameter, width, and 
load rating for each potential home-market match and selected the 
bearing with the smallest sum of the deviations. If two or more 
bearings had the same sum of the deviations, we selected the model that 
had the smallest difference-in-merchandise adjustment. Finally, if no 
bearing sold in the home market had a sum of the deviations that was 
less than 40 percent, we concluded that no appropriate comparison 
existed in the home market and we used the constructed value of the 
U.S. model as normal value. See Model-Match Memorandum.
    As a result of our decision to change the model-match methodology, 
we collected and examined physical-characteristics information for 
these reviews which allowed us to ensure that we made appropriate 
matches under the new methodology. In some instances, we have examined 
the respondents' information concerning physical characteristics of the 
merchandise in more depth than in previous reviews under the earlier 
``family'' methodology. We expect that, as our use of this methodology 
continues, we will examine such information in even more detail. See, 
e.g., analysis memorandum for Asahi Seiko dated May 6, 2005.

Normal Value

    Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or 
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When 
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 19 CFR 351.411 and for 
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market 
direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to 
normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from 
normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and 
CEP calculations.
    For some companies, we recalculated or denied certain claims by 
respondents for adjustments to normal value. For Barden's home-market 
sales which were billed in U.S. dollars, we used the actual, 
unconverted U.S.-dollar-denominated price as the starting point for 
normal value and converted sterling-denominated adjustments, using the 
exchange rate on the date of sale of the U.S. sale. For Osaka Pump, we 
made quantity adjustments to two observations for returned merchandise 
as reported in Osaka Pump's response. For NSK, we removed the lump-sum 
billing adjustment NSK reported for one customer because the reported 
adjustment was not relevant to sales of the foreign like product. For 
NPB, we used facts available to recalculate credit expenses in the home 
market because NPB had discounted some of the promissory notes it 
received for its home-market sales but did not report the details fully 
including the discount rate it paid with respect to these transactions. 
For NTN, we changed its bearing-design classifications, did not accept 
its claim for elimination of so-called sample sales from the 
calculation of normal value, and recalculated U.S. customs duties, 
indirect selling expenses for U.S. sales, inventory carrying costs for 
home-market and U.S. sales, and packing for home-market sales. We 
rejected Asahi's claim that some models it sold in the United States 
are virtually identical to models sold in the home market even though 
the inner-diameter dimensions of the inner ring are different. Finally, 
for Koyo and consistent with AFBs 14 (see our response to Comment 21), 
we denied a home-market billing adjustment that Koyo granted on a 
model-specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis 
because we found that the allocation of this adjustment resulted in its 
allocation over sales of models for

[[Page 25543]]

which Koyo had not granted an adjustment, and over sales that had 
occurred outside the period of time for which Koyo had granted the 
adjustment to the customer. For a more detailed discussion of the 
individual changes, please see the Department's company-specific 
analysis memoranda dated May 6, 2005.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the export price or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a 
different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if 
possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Level 
of Trade section below.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no 
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We 
calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the 
Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, 
U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed 
value. 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 each 
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
home market.
    When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 
CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade 
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For 
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting home-market direct selling expenses from constructed value. 
We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect 
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of 
trade as the export price or CEP. If constructed value 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 (8) of the 
Act.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either export price or CEP). 
When there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. 
sales to home-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-
value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home 
market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of 
trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit.
    To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a 
different level of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference 
affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and 
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
    Where the respondent reported no home-market levels of trade that 
were equivalent to the CEP level of trade and where the CEP level of 
trade was at a less advanced stage than any of the home-market levels 
of trade, we were unable to 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 respondents' CEP 
sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value 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.
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from 
Antifriction Bearings Team Regarding Level of Trade, dated May 6, 2005, 
on file in the CRU, Room B-099.

Collapsing Decision

    During the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
antifriction bearings and parts thereof from Germany for the period 
from May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003, the Department determined 
that it was appropriate to collapse FAG and INA as affiliated producers 
for the purposes of calculating an antidumping duty margin. See AFBs 14 
Prelim, 69 FR at 5956. As a result of our analysis of the responses of 
INA and FAG to our supplemental questionnaires, we have found that the 
totality of factual information indicate that it is appropriate to 
continue to collapse FAG and INA as affiliated producers for the 
purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings 
and parts thereof for the period May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004:

                                 FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                         Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France..........................................                7.04
SNR.................................................               13.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG/INA........................................................     3.79
GRW............................................................    61.96
SKF Germany....................................................    17.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italy......................................................     5.83
SKF Italy......................................................     2.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi..........................................................    25.71
Koyo...........................................................    15.66
NSK............................................................    11.88
NTN............................................................     6.75
Nankai Seiko (SMT).............................................     2.38
NPB............................................................    18.17
Osaka Pump.....................................................    11.73
Sapporo........................................................    12.47
Takeshita......................................................     7.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                SINGAPORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB/Pelmec.....................................................     3.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 25544]]


                             UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Company                               Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/FAG.....................................................     2.68
SKF UK.........................................................    61.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 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 at the main Commerce Department 
building at a time and location to be determined.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the 
following: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 
CFR 351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs. The Department will notify all parties 
in each country-specific review as to the applicable briefing schedule. 
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 
are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or at the hearings, if held, not later than 120 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for 
merchandise subject to these reviews.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies 
included in these preliminary results of reviews for which the reviewed 
companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Export-Price Sales

    With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided 
the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal 
value and EP) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total 
number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will 
direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each 
unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries under 
the relevant order during the review period.

Constructed Export-Price Sales

    For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total 
dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of 
those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct the CBP to 
assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries 
under the relevant order during the review period. See 19 CFR 
351.212(b).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each 
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average deposit 
rates (using the EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). 
To accomplish this when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the 
total dumping margins for all CEP sales during the review period by 
multiplying the sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the 
review period to days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total 
net value for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the 
sample CEP total net value by the same ratio. Finally, we divided the 
combined total dumping margins for both EP and CEP sales by the 
combined total value for both EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit 
rate.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative 
reviews for all shipments of ball bearings and parts thereof entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash-
deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established 
in the final results of reviews; (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 less-than-fair-value 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 for the relevant order made 
effective by the final results of review published on July 26, 1993. 
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, 39730 (July 26, 1993). For ball bearings from 
Italy, 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, 61 FR 66472, 66521 
(December 17, 1996). These rates are the ``All Others'' rates from the 
relevant less-than-fair-value investigations. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative reviews.

Notification to Importer

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative reviews are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.


[[Page 25545]]


    Dated: May 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-9623 Filed 5-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S