Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 12170-12177 [E6-3361]
Download as PDF
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
12170
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
P1, Q1) and Staphyloccocal Enterotoxin
(A and B), items subject to the
Regulations and classified under ECCN
1C351, for export from the United States
to North Korea without the required
Department of Commerce license.
Specifically, K.V. Rao asked a coconspirator in the United States to
acquire the toxins from the U.S.
manufacturer and then ship the toxins
to a co-conspirator in the Netherlands,
who would forward the toxins to North
Korea. Contrary to Section 742.2 of the
Regulations, no Department of
Commerce license was obtained for the
export of toxins from the United States
to North Korea.
Whereas, BIS and K.V. Rao have
entered into a Settlement Agreement
pursuant to Section 766.18(a) of the
Regulations whereby they agreed to
settle this matter in accordance with the
terms and conditions set forth therein,
and
Whereas, I have approved the terms of
such Settlement Agreement;
It is therefore ordered:
First, that for a period of four years
from the date of entry of this Order,
Vishwanath Kakade Rao, of Dolphin
International Ltd., 21 Commercial
Complex, Gulboker Park Extension,
New Delhi 110049, India, and when
acting for or on behalf of him, his
representatives, agents, assigns or
employees (‘‘Denied Person’’) may not,
directly or indirectly, participate in any
way in any transaction involving any
commodity, software, or technology
(hereinafter collectively referred to as
‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from
the United States that is subject to the
Regulations, or in any other activity
subject to the Regulations, including,
but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using
any license, License Exception, or
export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations
concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering,
sorting, disposing of, forwarding,
transporting, financing, or otherwise
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the Regulations, or in any
other activity subject to the Regulations;
or
C. Benefiting in any way from any
transaction involving any item exported
or to be exported from the United States
that is subject to the Regulations, or in
any other activity subject to the
Regulations.
Second, that no person may, directly
or indirectly, do any of the following:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of the Denied Person any item subject to
the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
the Denied Person of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States, including financing or other
support activities related to a
transaction whereby the Denied Person
acquires or attempts to acquire such
ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted
acquisition from the Denied Person of
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been exported from the United
States.
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in
the United States any item subject to the
Regulations with knowledge or reason
to know that the item will be, or is
intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction service
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States. For purposes of this paragraph,
servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
Third, that, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any
person, firm, corporation, or business
organization related to K.V. Rao by
affiliation, ownership, control, or
position of responsibility in the conduct
of trade or related services may also be
made subject to the provisions of the
Order.
Fourth, that this Order does not
prohibit any export, reexport, or other
transaction subject to the Regulations
where the only items involved that are
subject to the Regulations are the
foreign-produced direct product of U.S.origin technology.
Fifth, that the proposed charging
letter, the Settlement Agreement, and
this Order shall be made available to the
public.
Sixth, that this Order shall be served
on the Denied Person and on BIS, and
shall be published in the Federal
Register.
This Order, which constitutes the
final agency action in this matter, is
effective immediately.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Entered this 2nd day of March, 2006.
Darryl W. Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 06–2240 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588–
804, A–412–801]
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
United Kingdom: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting administrative reviews of
the antidumping duty orders on ball
bearings and parts thereof from France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom. The merchandise covered by
these orders are ball bearings and parts
thereof (ball bearings) from France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom. The reviews cover 14
manufacturers/exporters. The period of
review is May 1, 2004, through April 30,
2005.
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: March 9, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janis Kalnins or Richard Rimlinger ,
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) 482–1392 and (202)
482–4477, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department
published in the Federal Register (54
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
FR 20900) the antidumping duty orders
on ball bearings from France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
On June 30, 2005, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice
of initiation of administrative reviews of
these orders (70 FR 37749). On January
27, 2006, we extended the due date for
the completion of these preliminary
results of reviews from January 31,
2006, to March 2, 2006 (71 FR 4568).
The list of companies for which we have
conducted administrative reviews of the
various orders on ball bearings are as
follows:
France:
* SKF France S.A. or Sarma (SKF
France)
* SNR Roulements or SNR Europe
(SNR)
Germany:
¨
* Gebruder Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG
(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 INA/FAG)
* SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
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)
Japan:
* Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)1
* NSK Ltd. (NSK)
* NTN Corporation (NTN)
* Nachi–Fujikoshi Corporation
(Nachi)
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
* Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. (NPB)
* Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)
United Kingdom:
* The Barden Corporation (UK)
Limited; FAG (U.K.) Limited
1 On February 3, 2006, Koyo filed a request for a
changed-circumstances review of the order on ball
bearings from Japan with the Department. As Koyo
explained, the request for such a review is
precipitated by the merger of Koyo and an affiliated
company that has resulted in the creation of JTEKT
Corporation. Koyo requests that JTEKT Corporation
be recognized as its successor-in-interest for
antidumping-duty purposes. The Department is
considering the request for the review separately
from the ongoing administrative review.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
(collectively Barden/FAG)
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12171
(Scope Memorandum) from the
Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie
Parkhill, dated March 2, 2006. 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 04/05 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 NTN, Nachi, FAG Italy, SNR, NSK,
SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF France,
and Koyo. 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
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department, fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested, significantly
impedes a proceeding under the
antidumping statute, or provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified, the Department shall use,
subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the
Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act,
the Department shall not decline to
consider submitted information if that
information is necessary to the
determination but does not meet all of
the requirements established by the
Department provided that all of the
following requirements are met: (1) the
information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability; and (5)
the information can be used without
undue difficulties.
In addition, section 776(b) of the Act
provides that, if the Department finds
that an interested party ‘‘has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for
information,’’ the Department may use
information that is adverse to the
interests of that party as facts otherwise
available.
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
12172
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
We found at verification that Nachi
reported the physical characteristics for
a number of models incorrectly. See
Nachi Verification Report dated
February 9, 2006, at pages 4–5. As
explained in the verification report, we
found that Nachi reported incorrect
physical characteristics for 16 of the 40
models we examined at verification.
Each time we selected additional
models for verification, we found
additional models with incorrectly
reported physical characteristics.
Because of this, we must conclude that
the errors were systemic in nature.
Accordingly, we determine that it is
appropriate to use the facts available to
account for the fact that Nachi
misreported its physical characteristics
for a substantial proportion of its
models. Because the correct physical
characteristics appeared on Nachi’s
technical drawings and in its catalogs
that we examined at verification, we
find that Nachi’s failure to report the
critical information accurately indicates
that the company did not act to the best
of its ability in reporting the
information. Moreover, because Nachi
did not act to the best of its ability in
reporting these characteristics, it is
appropriate to use adverse inferences in
addressing the errors in the
characteristics Nachi reported in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act.
The matching of U.S. and home–
market models is at the core of our
antidumping analysis because it
determines which sales we use as the
basis for normal value. In order to
conduct an accurate model match we
must be satisfied that the physical
characteristics the respondent reports
for its sales are accurate. Because we
found at verification that Nachi reported
incorrect physical characteristics for a
substantial proportion of its models,
however, we are not satisfied that we
can make accurate comparisons of
similar merchandise using Nachi’s
reported physical characteristics.
Moreover, we cannot be certain that, for
any of the U.S. sales for which we
would not find a match using Nachi’s
reported physical characteristics, we
would not find a similar match had
Nachi reported its physical
characteristics correctly. Accordingly,
we can have no confidence in the
normal values we would identify (or, in
the case of constructed value, do not
identify) using Nachi’s reported
physical characteristics and, therefore,
we cannot calculate accurate dumping
margins for those U.S. sales.
Because we identify matches of
identical U.S. and home–market models
on the basis of control number rather
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
than physical characteristics, the
verification finding has no impact on
the identical matches we found for
Nachi. As a result, we can calculate
margins for Nachi’s U.S. sales for which
we found an identical product sold in
the home market. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that it is
appropriate to limit the application of
adverse facts available to non–identical
(i.e., similar and constructed–value)
matches.
As adverse facts available, we have
selected the highest margin we have
determined for Nachi in any previous
segment of this proceeding and applied
this rate to all U.S. sales for which we
found no identical match. This rate is
48.69 percent which we established for
Nachi in Final Determinations of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value; Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Japan,
54 FR 19101 (May 3, 1989).
Furthermore, as required by section
776(c) of the Act, we were able to
corroborate this margin with respect to
Nachi. For a detailed explanation of
how we corroborated this margin with
respect to Nachi, see the March 2, 2006,
analysis memorandum for Nachi for the
preliminary results.
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 30 - June 5, 2004; August 22 August 28, 2004; September 5 September 11, 2004; October 31 November 6, 2004; February 6 February 12, 2005; February 27 - March
5, 2005. We reviewed all EP sales
transactions the respondents 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA)
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No.
103–316 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 section
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 markets. 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. 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.
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
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
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
estimated value added in the United
States by all further–manufacturing
firms, except NPB, 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/FAG, INA/FAG,
Koyo, Nachi, NSK, NTN, SKF France,
SKF Germany, and SKF Italy, dated
March 2, 2006. 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, 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, this
firm submitted complete responses to
our further–manufacturing
questionnaire which included the costs
of the further processing performed by
its U.S. affiliates. Because the majority
of its products sold in the United States
were further processed, we analyzed all
sales. No other adjustments to EP or CEP
were claimed or allowed.
Nachi reported certain sales to U.S.
customers as EP sales. We treated the
sales in question as CEP sales. Due to
the business–proprietary nature of this
matter see our preliminary analysis
memorandum for Nachi dated March 2,
2006, for further details.
For NTN, we calculated a direct
selling expense for NTN’s EP sales,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
attributable to NTN’s U.S. affiliate’s
provision of technical support and other
selling–support functions to NTN’s EP
customer. We identified and extracted
the value of these expenses, captured in
NTN’s calculation of indirect selling
expenses for CEP sales, and allocated
this value over NTN’s EP sales to this
customer. In addition, we revised NTN’s
calculation of inventory carrying costs
incurred in the home market for NTN’s
EP and CEP sales by applying the
inventory carrying cost factor calculated
by NTN to the total cost of manufacture
value it reported for each model instead
of the gross unit price of each sale in the
U.S. sales list.
For NTN we recalculated indirect
selling expenses incurred in the home
market for NTN’s CEP sales because we
found that certain expenses, such as
welfare, the reserve for retirement, and
the reserve for bonuses, were not
captured by NTN in its calculation of
indirect selling expenses. Also, NTN
reported commissions in the home
market but did not report indirect
selling expenses for its EP sales. In order
to apply the calculation of a commission
offset, where applicable, we calculated
indirect selling expenses incurred in the
home market for NTN’s EP sales using
the information NTN provided with
respect to its calculation of indirect
selling expenses for NTN’s CEP sales. In
addition, we corrected certain product
characteristics with respect to certain
United States models which NTN had
reported incorrectly in its sales
databases.
Further, we corrected reported errors
in the sales quantities and billing
adjustments for a number of NTN’s
reported CEP sales. We deducted early
payment discounts which NTN did not
report with respect to NTN’s CEP sales
to certain U.S. customers. We corrected
a rebate factor, which NTN misreported,
with respect to NTN’s CEP sales to a
certain U.S. customer. We included
unreported terminal charges associated
with NTN’s air shipments to the United
States in the calculation of our
deduction for ocean and air freight
expenses. We recalculated NTN’s re–
packing expenses for NTN’s reported
CEP sales because we found the
methodology used by NTN to allocate
such expenses contained a number of
distortions and did not distinguish
between the packing requirement for
different customer categories.
Finally, we have determined that
NTN’s allocation of international and
inland freight expenses based on the
value of the shipped product causes
substantial distortions and could
otherwise mask dumping. See the
Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12173
‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Ball
Bearings and Parts Thereof;
Examination of Allocation Basis Used in
the Calculation of Freight Expenses,’’
dated March 2, 2006. We recalculated
the expenses in question for NTN using
a weight–based allocation for purposes
of this administrative review. With
respect to other respondents in these
administrative reviews that used a
value–based methodology to allocate
freight expenses, we recognize that no
longer accepting value–based freight–
expense allocation methodologies is a
significant change in practice.
Moreover, we do not have all of the data
(e.g., the per–unit weight of the
bearings) we would need to reallocate
these respondents’ freight expenses.
Therefore, we have not reallocated other
respondents’ freight expenses in the
current reviews. For future reviews of
these orders, we will not accept value–
based methodologies for the allocation
of inland freight or international freight
expenses except in situations where the
freight charges are, in fact, incurred on
a value, not weight or volume, basis
(e.g., marine insurance).
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
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
12174
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
to the period of review, and sales in the
month following the period of review.
The sample months were February,
June, August, September, and November
of 2004 and February, March, and May
of 2005.
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.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Cost of Production
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/
FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/FAG, Koyo,
NSK, NPB, Nachi, NTN, SKF France,
SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR. See
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof
from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom:
Final Results Of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, 70 FR 54711 (September
16, 2005) (AFBs 15). Therefore, we have
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
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
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 were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard
any below–cost sales of that product
because the below–cost sales were not
made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time. When 20
percent or more 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 the
Department’s analysis memoranda for
Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/
FAG, Koyo, NSK, NPB, Nachi, NTN,
SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy,
and SNR, dated March 2, 2006. Based
on this test, we disregarded below–cost
sales with respect to all of the above–
mentioned companies.
Model–Match Methodology
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 COP test of
the identical product during the
relevant month. We calculated the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
weighted–average home–market prices
on a level of trade–specific basis. 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 was sold at the same level of
trade as the U.S. sale and was the
closest contemporaneous sale to the
U.S. sale. If two or more models were
sold at the same level of trade and were
sold equally contemporaneously, 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. For a full discussion of
the model–match methodology for these
reviews, see AFBs 15.
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 NTN we did not accept its claim
for an elimination of so–called sample
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
sales and high–profit sales in the home
market from the calculation of normal
value because NTN did not demonstrate
that these sales were made outside the
ordinary course of trade. We corrected
certain product characteristics with
respect to certain home–market models
which NTN had reported incorrectly in
its sales databases. We recalculated
NTN’s packing expenses for reported
home–market sales because we found
the methodology it used to allocate such
expenses contained a number of
distortions and did not distinguish
between packing requirements for
different customer categories.
Further, we revised NTN’s calculation
of inventory carrying costs incurred in
the home market for its home–market
sales by applying the inventory carrying
cost factor it calculated to the total cost
of manufacture value it reported for
each model instead of the gross unit
price of each sale in the home market.
We revised the financial–expenses
factor with respect to COP and
constructed–value information NTN
reported to capture foreign–exchange
gains/losses on transactions and
foreign–exchange gains/losses on
translations of asset and liability
accounts stated in foreign currencies
into domestic currency as well as
hedging expenses associated with the
foreign–exchange and currency options
contracts NTN used. Further, based on
our findings at verification and
consistent with AFBs 15, we denied
NTN’s claim for other discounts in the
home market that NTN granted on a
model–specific basis to certain
customers for specific periods but
allocated incorrectly over sales of all
models to the same customers and a
similar claim for which NTN had
allocated its discounts over sales that
had occurred outside the period of time
for which NTN had granted the
adjustment to such customers. Finally,
as discussed above with respect to
NTN’s U.S. sales, we re–calculated
NTN’s inland–freight expenses to reflect
the basis on which they were incurred
(i.e., weight basis).
For NPB, we recalculated credit
expenses in the home market because
NPB discounted some of the promissory
notes it received for its home–market
sales and reported the average discount
rate the company paid with respect to
these transactions.
For Koyo and consistent with AFBs 15
at Comment 11, we denied certain
negative home–market billing
adjustments that Koyo granted on a
model–specific basis but reported on a
broad customer–specific basis because
we found that the allocation of these
adjustments resulted in its allocation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
over sales of models for 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 memorandum dated March 2,
2006.
We have also examined the business
relationship between Koyo and one of
its home- market affiliated suppliers and
have determined that it is appropriate to
collapse these companies as one entity.
Our decision to collapse these
companies was based on our conclusion
that a potential exists for Koyo to
manipulate prices and production. Due
to the business–proprietary nature of
this matter, see the decision
memorandum to Laurie Parkhill
regarding Koyo and its affiliated
supplier, dated March 2, 2006, for
further details. We will be obtaining
additional information from Koyo to
implement this decision fully prior to
our final results of these administrative
reviews.
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
EP 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12175
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 EP 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 EP 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 the foreign like
product. Furthermore, we have no other
information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a
level–of-trade adjustment. For
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
12176
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
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. The
CEP–offset adjustment to normal value
was subject to the offset cap, calculated
as the sum of home–market indirect
selling expenses up to the amount of
U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted
from CEP (or, if there were no home–
market commissions, the sum of U.S.
indirect selling expenses and U.S.
commissions).
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 March 2, 2006, on file in
the CRU, room B–099.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our reviews, we
preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted–average
dumping margins on ball bearings and
parts thereof exist for the period May 1,
2004, through April 30, 2005:
FRANCE
Company
GERMANY
Company
Margin
FAG/INA .......................
GRW .............................
SKF Germany ...............
4.03
1.21
7.35
ITALY
Company
Margin
FAG Italy .......................
SKF Italy .......................
2.52
16.04
JAPAN
Company
Margin
Koyo ..............................
NSK ..............................
NTN ..............................
Nachi .............................
NPB ..............................
Sapporo ........................
17.85
6.62
13.32
28.33
25.91
9.01
UNITED KINGDOM
Company
Margin
Barden/FAG ..................
0.23
Comments
We will disclose the calculations used
in our analysis to parties to these
12.56 reviews within five days of the date of
12.79
publication of this notice. Any
Margin (percent)
SKF France ..................
SNR ..............................
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 Department building at times
and locations 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 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 hearings will be
limited to those raised in the respective
case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from
interested parties and rebuttal briefs,
limited to the issues raised in the
respective case briefs, may be submitted
not later than the dates shown below for
general issues and the respective
country–specific reviews. Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
these proceedings are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a
statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument. 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.
Case
Briefs due
General Issues .........................................................................................................................................
Germany ..................................................................................................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................................................................................................
United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................................
France ......................................................................................................................................................
Japan .......................................................................................................................................................
April 3,
April 4,
April 5,
April 6,
April 7,
April 10,
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
Rebuttals due
April
April
April
April
April
April
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
17,
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
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
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
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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 these reviews, a
prior review, or the less–than-fair–value
investigations but the manufacturer is,
the cash–deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; (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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
Dated: March 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–3361 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am]
EFFECTIVE DATE:
12177
March 9, 2006.
Fred
Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone : (202) 482–2924 or (202)
482–0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
On November 14, 2005, Hilton Forge
requested that the Department conduct
a changed circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on flanges from
India pursuant to section 751(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.216. HMFL
claims to be the successor–in-interest to
Hilton Forge, and, as such, claims to be
entitled to receive the same
antidumping treatment as Hilton Forge.
On January 18, 2006, and February 3,
2006, at the request of the Department,
HMFL submitted additional information
and documentation pertaining to its
changed circumstances request.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
are certain forged stainless steel flanges,
both finished and not finished,
generally manufactured to specification
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such
as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope
International Trade Administration
includes five general types of flanges.
They are weld–neck, used for butt–weld
A–533–809
line connection; threaded, used for
threaded line connections; slip–on and
Notice of Preliminary Results of
lap joint, used with stub–ends/butt–
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review; Certain Forged weld line connections; socket weld,
used to fit pipe into a machined
Stainless Steel Flanges From India
recession; and blind, used to seal off a
AGENCY: Import Administration,
line. The sizes of the flanges within the
International Trade Administration,
scope range generally from one to six
Department of Commerce.
inches; however, all sizes of the above–
SUMMARY: On January 4, 2006, the
described merchandise are included in
Department of Commerce (the
the scope. Specifically excluded from
Department) published a notice of
the scope of this order are cast stainless
initiation of changed circumstances
steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges
review of the antidumping duty order
generally are manufactured to
on certain forged stainless steel flanges
specification ASTM A–351. The flanges
(flanges) from India to determine
subject to this order are currently
whether Hilton Metal Forging Ltd.
classifiable under subheadings
(HMFL) is the successor–in-interest
7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the
company to Hilton Forge. See Notice of
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Although the HTS subheading is
Circumstances Review: Certain Forged
provided for convenience and customs
Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 71
purposes, the written description of the
FR 327 (January 4, 2006). We have
merchandise under review is
preliminarily determined that HMFL is
dispositive.
the successor–in-interest to Hilton Forge
Preliminary Results of Review
for purposes of determining
antidumping liability in this
In antidumping duty changed
proceeding. Interested parties are
circumstances reviews involving a
invited to comment on these
successor–in-interest determination, the
preliminary results.
Department typically examines several
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12170-12177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3361]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-412-801]
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results 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 (the Department) is conducting administrative
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts
thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The
merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof
(ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom. The reviews cover 14 manufacturers/exporters. The period of
review is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005.
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: March 9, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins or Richard Rimlinger ,
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-
1392 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
(54
[[Page 12171]]
FR 20900) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. On June 30, 2005, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation
of administrative reviews of these orders (70 FR 37749). On January 27,
2006, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary
results of reviews from January 31, 2006, to March 2, 2006 (71 FR
4568). The list of companies for which we have conducted administrative
reviews of the various orders on ball bearings are as follows:
France:
* SKF France S.A. or Sarma (SKF France)
* SNR Roulements or SNR Europe (SNR)
Germany:
* Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG (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 INA/FAG)
* SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
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)
Japan:
* Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On February 3, 2006, Koyo filed a request for a changed-
circumstances review of the order on ball bearings from Japan with
the Department. As Koyo explained, the request for such a review is
precipitated by the merger of Koyo and an affiliated company that
has resulted in the creation of JTEKT Corporation. Koyo requests
that JTEKT Corporation be recognized as its successor-in-interest
for antidumping-duty purposes. The Department is considering the
request for the review separately from the ongoing administrative
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NSK Ltd. (NSK)
* NTN Corporation (NTN)
* Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi)
* Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. (NPB)
* Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)
United Kingdom:
* The Barden Corporation (UK) Limited; FAG (U.K.) Limited
(collectively Barden/FAG)
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 March 2, 2006. 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 04/05 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 NTN, Nachi, FAG Italy, SNR, NSK, SKF Germany, SKF
Italy, SKF France, and Koyo. 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
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e)
of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department
shall not decline to consider submitted information if that information
is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the
requirements established by the Department provided that all of the
following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to
the interests of that party as facts otherwise available.
[[Page 12172]]
We found at verification that Nachi reported the physical
characteristics for a number of models incorrectly. See Nachi
Verification Report dated February 9, 2006, at pages 4-5. As explained
in the verification report, we found that Nachi reported incorrect
physical characteristics for 16 of the 40 models we examined at
verification.
Each time we selected additional models for verification, we found
additional models with incorrectly reported physical characteristics.
Because of this, we must conclude that the errors were systemic in
nature. Accordingly, we determine that it is appropriate to use the
facts available to account for the fact that Nachi misreported its
physical characteristics for a substantial proportion of its models.
Because the correct physical characteristics appeared on Nachi's
technical drawings and in its catalogs that we examined at
verification, we find that Nachi's failure to report the critical
information accurately indicates that the company did not act to the
best of its ability in reporting the information. Moreover, because
Nachi did not act to the best of its ability in reporting these
characteristics, it is appropriate to use adverse inferences in
addressing the errors in the characteristics Nachi reported in
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
The matching of U.S. and home-market models is at the core of our
antidumping analysis because it determines which sales we use as the
basis for normal value. In order to conduct an accurate model match we
must be satisfied that the physical characteristics the respondent
reports for its sales are accurate. Because we found at verification
that Nachi reported incorrect physical characteristics for a
substantial proportion of its models, however, we are not satisfied
that we can make accurate comparisons of similar merchandise using
Nachi's reported physical characteristics. Moreover, we cannot be
certain that, for any of the U.S. sales for which we would not find a
match using Nachi's reported physical characteristics, we would not
find a similar match had Nachi reported its physical characteristics
correctly. Accordingly, we can have no confidence in the normal values
we would identify (or, in the case of constructed value, do not
identify) using Nachi's reported physical characteristics and,
therefore, we cannot calculate accurate dumping margins for those U.S.
sales.
Because we identify matches of identical U.S. and home-market
models on the basis of control number rather than physical
characteristics, the verification finding has no impact on the
identical matches we found for Nachi. As a result, we can calculate
margins for Nachi's U.S. sales for which we found an identical product
sold in the home market. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that it
is appropriate to limit the application of adverse facts available to
non-identical (i.e., similar and constructed-value) matches.
As adverse facts available, we have selected the highest margin we
have determined for Nachi in any previous segment of this proceeding
and applied this rate to all U.S. sales for which we found no identical
match. This rate is 48.69 percent which we established for Nachi in
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from
Japan, 54 FR 19101 (May 3, 1989). Furthermore, as required by section
776(c) of the Act, we were able to corroborate this margin with respect
to Nachi. For a detailed explanation of how we corroborated this margin
with respect to Nachi, see the March 2, 2006, analysis memorandum for
Nachi for the preliminary results.
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 30 - June 5, 2004; August 22 - August 28, 2004; September 5 -
September 11, 2004; October 31 - November 6, 2004; February 6 -
February 12, 2005; February 27 - March 5, 2005. We reviewed all EP
sales transactions the respondents 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 Statement
of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316 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
section 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 markets. 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. 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.
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
[[Page 12173]]
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 estimated value added in the United
States by all further-manufacturing firms, except NPB, 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/FAG, INA/FAG, Koyo, Nachi, NSK, NTN, SKF France,
SKF Germany, and SKF Italy, dated March 2, 2006. 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, 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, this firm submitted
complete responses to our further-manufacturing questionnaire which
included the costs of the further processing performed by its U.S.
affiliates. Because the majority of its products sold in the United
States were further processed, we analyzed all sales. No other
adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed.
Nachi reported certain sales to U.S. customers as EP sales. We
treated the sales in question as CEP sales. Due to the business-
proprietary nature of this matter see our preliminary analysis
memorandum for Nachi dated March 2, 2006, for further details.
For NTN, we calculated a direct selling expense for NTN's EP sales,
attributable to NTN's U.S. affiliate's provision of technical support
and other selling-support functions to NTN's EP customer. We identified
and extracted the value of these expenses, captured in NTN's
calculation of indirect selling expenses for CEP sales, and allocated
this value over NTN's EP sales to this customer. In addition, we
revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs incurred in the
home market for NTN's EP and CEP sales by applying the inventory
carrying cost factor calculated by NTN to the total cost of manufacture
value it reported for each model instead of the gross unit price of
each sale in the U.S. sales list.
For NTN we recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the
home market for NTN's CEP sales because we found that certain expenses,
such as welfare, the reserve for retirement, and the reserve for
bonuses, were not captured by NTN in its calculation of indirect
selling expenses. Also, NTN reported commissions in the home market but
did not report indirect selling expenses for its EP sales. In order to
apply the calculation of a commission offset, where applicable, we
calculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market for
NTN's EP sales using the information NTN provided with respect to its
calculation of indirect selling expenses for NTN's CEP sales. In
addition, we corrected certain product characteristics with respect to
certain United States models which NTN had reported incorrectly in its
sales databases.
Further, we corrected reported errors in the sales quantities and
billing adjustments for a number of NTN's reported CEP sales. We
deducted early payment discounts which NTN did not report with respect
to NTN's CEP sales to certain U.S. customers. We corrected a rebate
factor, which NTN misreported, with respect to NTN's CEP sales to a
certain U.S. customer. We included unreported terminal charges
associated with NTN's air shipments to the United States in the
calculation of our deduction for ocean and air freight expenses. We
recalculated NTN's re-packing expenses for NTN's reported CEP sales
because we found the methodology used by NTN to allocate such expenses
contained a number of distortions and did not distinguish between the
packing requirement for different customer categories.
Finally, we have determined that NTN's allocation of international
and inland freight expenses based on the value of the shipped product
causes substantial distortions and could otherwise mask dumping. See
the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof;
Examination of Allocation Basis Used in the Calculation of Freight
Expenses,'' dated March 2, 2006. We recalculated the expenses in
question for NTN using a weight-based allocation for purposes of this
administrative review. With respect to other respondents in these
administrative reviews that used a value-based methodology to allocate
freight expenses, we recognize that no longer accepting value-based
freight-expense allocation methodologies is a significant change in
practice. Moreover, we do not have all of the data (e.g., the per-unit
weight of the bearings) we would need to reallocate these respondents'
freight expenses. Therefore, we have not reallocated other respondents'
freight expenses in the current reviews. For future reviews of these
orders, we will not accept value-based methodologies for the allocation
of inland freight or international freight expenses except in
situations where the freight charges are, in fact, incurred on a value,
not weight or volume, basis (e.g., marine insurance).
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
[[Page 12174]]
to the period of review, and sales in the month following the period of
review. The sample months were February, June, August, September, and
November of 2004 and February, March, and May of 2005.
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
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/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/FAG, Koyo, NSK, NPB, Nachi,
NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR. See Antifriction
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results Of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum,
70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005) (AFBs 15). Therefore, we have
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.
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.
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
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 were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the
below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more 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 the Department's
analysis memoranda for Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/FAG, Koyo, NSK,
NPB, Nachi, NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR, dated
March 2, 2006. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with
respect to all of the above-mentioned companies.
Model-Match Methodology
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 COP test of the identical product
during the relevant month. We calculated the weighted-average home-
market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. 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 was sold at the same level of trade as the
U.S. sale and was the closest contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. If
two or more models were sold at the same level of trade and were sold
equally contemporaneously, 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. For a full discussion of the model-match methodology for
these reviews, see AFBs 15.
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 NTN we did not accept its claim for an elimination of so-called
sample
[[Page 12175]]
sales and high-profit sales in the home market from the calculation of
normal value because NTN did not demonstrate that these sales were made
outside the ordinary course of trade. We corrected certain product
characteristics with respect to certain home-market models which NTN
had reported incorrectly in its sales databases. We recalculated NTN's
packing expenses for reported home-market sales because we found the
methodology it used to allocate such expenses contained a number of
distortions and did not distinguish between packing requirements for
different customer categories.
Further, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs
incurred in the home market for its home-market sales by applying the
inventory carrying cost factor it calculated to the total cost of
manufacture value it reported for each model instead of the gross unit
price of each sale in the home market. We revised the financial-
expenses factor with respect to COP and constructed-value information
NTN reported to capture foreign-exchange gains/losses on transactions
and foreign-exchange gains/losses on translations of asset and
liability accounts stated in foreign currencies into domestic currency
as well as hedging expenses associated with the foreign-exchange and
currency options contracts NTN used. Further, based on our findings at
verification and consistent with AFBs 15, we denied NTN's claim for
other discounts in the home market that NTN granted on a model-specific
basis to certain customers for specific periods but allocated
incorrectly over sales of all models to the same customers and a
similar claim for which NTN had allocated its discounts over sales that
had occurred outside the period of time for which NTN had granted the
adjustment to such customers. Finally, as discussed above with respect
to NTN's U.S. sales, we re-calculated NTN's inland-freight expenses to
reflect the basis on which they were incurred (i.e., weight basis).
For NPB, we recalculated credit expenses in the home market because
NPB discounted some of the promissory notes it received for its home-
market sales and reported the average discount rate the company paid
with respect to these transactions.
For Koyo and consistent with AFBs 15 at Comment 11, we denied
certain negative home-market billing adjustments that Koyo granted on a
model-specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis
because we found that the allocation of these adjustments resulted in
its allocation over sales of models for 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 memorandum dated March 2, 2006.
We have also examined the business relationship between Koyo and
one of its home- market affiliated suppliers and have determined that
it is appropriate to collapse these companies as one entity. Our
decision to collapse these companies was based on our conclusion that a
potential exists for Koyo to manipulate prices and production. Due to
the business-proprietary nature of this matter, see the decision
memorandum to Laurie Parkhill regarding Koyo and its affiliated
supplier, dated March 2, 2006, for further details. We will be
obtaining additional information from Koyo to implement this decision
fully prior to our final results of these administrative reviews.
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 EP 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 EP 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 EP 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 the foreign like product.
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For
[[Page 12176]]
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. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was
subject to the offset cap, calculated as the sum of home-market
indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling
expenses deducted from CEP (or, if there were no home-market
commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S.
commissions).
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 March 2,
2006, on file in the CRU, room B-099.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings
and parts thereof exist for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30,
2005:
FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France.......................................... 12.56
SNR................................................. 12.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG/INA............................................. 4.03
GRW................................................. 1.21
SKF Germany......................................... 7.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italy........................................... 2.52
SKF Italy........................................... 16.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo................................................ 17.85
NSK................................................. 6.62
NTN................................................. 13.32
Nachi............................................... 28.33
NPB................................................. 25.91
Sapporo............................................. 9.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/FAG.......................................... 0.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Department building
at times and locations 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 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 hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than the dates shown
below for general issues and the respective country-specific reviews.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings
are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Briefs due Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues.................. April 3, 2006 April 10, 2006
Germany......................... April 4, 2006 April 11, 2006
Italy........................... April 5, 2006 April 12, 2006
United Kingdom.................. April 6, 2006 April 13, 2006
France.......................... April 7, 2006 April 14, 2006
Japan........................... April 10, 2006 April 17, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
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 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
[[Page 12177]]
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 these reviews, a
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigations but the
manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (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.
Dated: March 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3361 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S