Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Pursuant to Final Court Decisions, 13078-13080 [E6-3619]

Download as PDF 13078 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings International Trade Administration and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical [A–412–801, A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475– plain bearings and parts thereof (SPBs). Because the time period for filing an 801] appeal has expired and there are now Antifriction Bearings (Other Than final and conclusive court decisions in Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts these actions, we are amending our final Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, results of the reviews and we will and the United Kingdom; Amended instruct U.S. Customs and Border Final Results of Antidumping Duty Protection to liquidate entries subject to Administrative Reviews Pursuant to these reviews. Final Court Decisions EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. AGENCY: Import Administration, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: International Trade Administration, Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/ Department of Commerce. CVD Operations, Office 5, Import SUMMARY: On October 19, 2005, in Administration, U.S. Department of response to its action in SNR Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Roulements et al. v. United States, Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Consol. Court No. 97–10–01825, Slip telephone: (202) 482–3174 or (202) 482– Op. 05–67 (June 13, 2005), the United 4477, respectively. States Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department of Commerce’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (the Department’s) remand Background redetermination concerning the final On January 15, 1997, the Department assessment rates for the administrative published Antifriction Bearings (Other review of the antidumping duty order Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and on antifriction bearings and parts thereof (AFBs) from France. On October Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United 28, 2005, in response to its actions in Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR United States, Court No. 97–10–01800 2081 (January 15, 1997), as amended by (July 7, 2005), and FAG Italia S.p.A. et Antifriction Bearings (Other Than al. v. United States, Court No. 97–02– 00260–S (July 7, 2005), the CIT affirmed Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, the Department’s remand Japan, Singapore, and the United redetermination concerning the final Kingdom; Amended Final Results of assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 14391 (March 26, 1997) on AFBs from Germany and Italy. On (collectively AFBs 6). On October 17, November 4, 2005, in response to its 1997, the Department published action in FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et al. v. United States, Court Antifriction Bearings (Other Than No. 97–02–00260 (July 7, 2005), the CIT Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, affirmed the Department’s remand Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, redetermination concerning the final and the United Kingdom; Final Results assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043 (October 17, on AFBs from Germany. 1997), as amended by Antifriction On April 27, 2001, the CIT affirmed Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller the Department’s remand Bearings) and Parts Thereof From redetermination with respect to the France, Germany, Italy, Japan, antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the France. See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02– United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 00269–S1, Slip. Op. 01–54 (April 27, Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 61963 2001). On December 21, 2000, the CIT (November 20, 1997) (collectively AFBs affirmed the Department’s remand 7). The periods of review for AFBs 6 and redetermination with respect to the AFBs 7 are May 1, 1994, through April antidumping duty orders on AFBs from 30, 1995, and May 1, 1995, through the United Kingdom. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. Court April 30, 1996, respectively. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by No. 97–02–00217, Slip Op. 00–168 these reviews are BBs, CRBs, and SPBs. (December 21, 2000). The periods The AFBs 6 respondents involved in covered by these administrative reviews are May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, the litigation are as follows: and May 1, 1995, through April 30, * FAG Italia S.p.A. and FAG Bearings 1996. The merchandise covered by these Corporation (collectively FAG Italy) wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:18 Mar 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ¨ * FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively FAG Germany) * INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. (collectively INA Germany) * NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. and RHP Bearings Ltd. (collectively NSK/RHP) * NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany) * SNR Roulements (SNR France) * SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF France) * SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany) * SKF Industrie S.p.A. and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Italy) The AFBs 7 respondents involved in the litigation are as follows: ¨ * FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively FAG Germany) * INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. (collectively INA Germany) * NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany) * SNR Roulements (SNR France) * SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF France) * SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany) AFBs 6 from Germany and Italy / AFBs 7 from France and Germany In each of these proceedings, the Department had completed previous remand redeterminations: * FAG Italia, S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00260– S, Slip Op. 00–154 (November 21, 2000) (remanding AFBs 6 with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Italy and instructing the Department to: (1) Attempt to match FAG’s and SKF’s U.S. sales to similar home–market sales before resorting to constructed value (CV); (2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by consideration from FAG’s and SKF’s U.S. sales databases; (3) include all expenses in ‘‘total United expenses’’ in the calculation of ‘‘total expenses’’ for FAG’s constructed export–price (CEP) profit ratio; (4) remove the circumstance–of- sale adjustment for certain advertising expenses from FAG’s normal value (NV); (5) reconsider the decision to calculate SKF’s home– market credit–rate expense based upon price and then apply the rate to cost; and (6) re–examine the programming language used to make certain foreign– currency conversions) ¨ * FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00260, Slip Op. 01–13 (February E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1 wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices 2, 2001) (remanding AFBs 6 with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and instructing the Department to: 1) attempt to match FAG’s and SKF’s U.S. sales to similar home–market sales before resorting to CV; 2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by consideration from FAG’s and SKF’s U.S. sales databases; 3) include all expenses in ‘‘total United States expenses’’ in the calculation of ‘‘total expenses’’ for FAG’s and INA’s CEP–profit ratio; 4) reconsider the decision to calculate SKF’s home–market credit–rate expense based upon price and then apply the rate to cost; and 5) convert certain expenses from the foreign currency in calculating export price and CEP for INA) * SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–10–01825, Slip Op. 00–131 (October 13, 2000) (remanding AFBs 7 with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France and instructing the Department to (1) annul all findings and conclusions made pursuant to the duty–absorption inquiry and (2) include all expenses included in ‘‘total United States expenses’’ in the calculation of ‘‘total expenses’’ for SNR) * NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97– 10–01800, Slip Op. 01–76 (June 22, 2001) (remanding AFBs 7 with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and instructing the Department to: (1) Annul all findings and conclusions made pursuant to the duty–absorption inquiry; (2) attempt to match U.S. sales to similar home– market sales before resorting to CV; (3) reconsider the Department’s decision to deny INA’s downward home–market billing adjustments; (4) clarify how the Department complied with sections 776 and 782 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), for using facts available and applying an adverse inference and, if appropriate, give INA the opportunity to remedy or explain any deficiency regarding its alleged sample sales; and (5) include all expenses included in ‘‘total United States expenses’’ in the calculation of ‘‘total expenses’’ for INA) Although each remand redetermination involved multiple issues, the Department’s methodology for calculating profit for CEP sales was a subject of each remand. Specifically, the CIT directed the Department to include all expenses included in ‘‘total United States expenses’’ in the calculation of ‘‘total expenses’’ when computing the CEP–profit rate. In each proceeding, the CIT affirmed the Department’s remand results in their VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:18 Mar 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 entirety. See SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–10– 01825, Slip Op. 01–17 (February 23, ¨ 2001); FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00260, Slip Op. 01–107 (August 20, 2001); FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02– 00260–S, Slip Op. 01–108 (August 20, 2001); NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–10–01800, Slip Op. 01– 136 (November 27, 2001). The Department appealed the CIT’s decisions concerning the Department’s CEP–profit calculation methodology. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) determined that the CIT had erred in its decision that the Department was required to include imputed credit and inventory carrying costs in ‘‘total expenses’’ when they were included in ‘‘total United States expenses.’’ The CAFC reversed the CIT and remanded the cases with the instructions that respondents be provided an opportunity to make a showing that their dumping margins were determined wrongly because the Department’s use of actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying costs in the calculation of total expenses. See SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, 402 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States, 402 F.3d 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (consolidated appeal). The CIT remanded the proceedings and directed the Department to allow respondents an opportunity to show that their margins were determined incorrectly because the Department’s use of actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying costs. SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–10–01825, Slip Op. 05–67 (June 13, 2005); FAG ¨ Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02– 00260 (July 7, 2005); FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00260–S (July 7, 2005); NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–10– 01800 (July 7, 2005). Because none of the respondents made the required showing, the Department determined that it had used actual expenses as a measure of total expenses in the CEP– profit calculation accurately. In each of the proceedings, the CIT affirmed the remand results. SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97– 10–01825, Slip Op. 05–136 (October 19, ¨ 2005); FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00260, Slip Op. 05–143 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13079 (November 4, 2005); FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00260–S, Slip Op. 05–140 (October 28, 2005); NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–10–01800, Slip Op. 05–141 (October 28, 2005). AFBs 6 from France On October 11, 2000, the CIT remanded AFBs 6 with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France to the Department. See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00269–S1, Slip Op. 00–128 (October 11, 2000). The CIT instructed the Department to: (1) Reconsider its decision to calculate SKF’s home– market credit expense based upon price and then apply that rate to cost; (2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by consideration from SKF’s U.S. sales database and to adjust the dumping margins accordingly; (3) first attempt to match SKF’s U.S. sales to similar home–market sales before resorting to CV; (4) assign the correct level–of-trade code for SKF’s export– price sales; (5) determine whether SKF’s billing adjustment two is insignificant within the meaning of section 777A of the Act; (6) reconsider the treatment of depreciation expenses incurred in France in calculating CEP for SNR. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department’s remand redetermination. See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00269–S1, Slip. Op. 01–54 (April 27, 2001). AFBs 6 from the United Kingdom On May 27, 1997, the CIT granted NSK/RHP’s motion for an expedited remand to correct clerical errors and the Department’s cross–motion for leave to correct an additional clerical error and remanded AFBs 6 with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the United Kingdom. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00217, Slip Op. 97–63 (May 27, 1997). The CIT instructed the Department to: (1) Calculate credit for CV separately by class of merchandise; (2) calculate CV credit by converting the foreign currency values to U.S. dollars only once; (3) correct the programming language so that sales of CRBs were not sampled; (4) include credit insurance when calculating direct selling expenses for cost of production; (5) weight the values for total home–market selling expenses and total home–market movement expenses by a factor of two to establish uniform weighting of home– market expenses; (6) apply the default credit period for those U.S. sales missing payment dates to net selling price; (7) multiply the entered value for E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1 13080 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices sampled U.S. sales by the weighting factor only once when calculating importer–specific duty rates. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department’s remand redetermination. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00217, Slip Op. 97–90 (July 7, 1997). On December 16, 1999, the CIT remanded the case and instructed the Department to exclude from NSK/RHP’s U.S. sales database any sample transactions that were not supported by consideration and to include imputed inventory carrying costs in the calculation of CEP offset when matching CEP sales to CV. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00217, Slip Op. 99–134 at 54 (December 16, 1999). Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department’s remand redetermination. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97–02–00217, Slip Op. 00–168 (December 21, 2000). As there are now final and conclusive court decisions with respect to the companies affected by these remand orders, we are amending our final results of reviews for these companies. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate the relevant entries subject to these reviews in accordance with our remand results. Amended Final Results of Reviews We are now amending the final results of the 1994–1995 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom to reflect the revised weighted–average margins. We determine that the revised weighted– average margins for the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, are as follows:1 BBs (%) FAG Italy ........................................................................................................ SKF Italy ........................................................................................................ FAG Germany ................................................................................................ INA Germany ................................................................................................. SKF Germany ................................................................................................ SNR France ................................................................................................... SKF France .................................................................................................... NSK/RHP—United Kingdom .......................................................................... Also, we are now amending the final results of the 1995–1996 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders CRBs (%) 4.12 2.86 13.42 19.43 2.33 4.29 5.08 15.76 on AFBs from Germany to reflect the revised weighted–average margins. We determine that the revised weighted– --22.59 18.31 9.34 6.36 -15.50 Accordingly, the Department will determine and CBP will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the affected companies. Individual differences between U.S. price and normal value may vary from the above percentages. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 7, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–3619 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am] wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 1 Litigation did not result in any changes to the weighted-average margins for BBs from NTN Germany or SPBs from SKF France. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:18 Mar 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 CRBs (%) 13.25 44.53 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–836] Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut–to-length carbon–quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea. See Certain Cut– to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 67428 AGENCY: 2 The subsequent litigation did not result in any changes in the weighted-average margins for NTN PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 --12.08 -6.19 ---- average margins for the period May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996, are as follows2: BBs (%) FAG Germany ................................................................................................ INA Germany ................................................................................................. SPBs (%) SPBs (%) 19.53 20.09 10.32 28.62 (November 7, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). This review covers one producer/exporter of steel plate. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculation. Therefore, these final results differ from the Preliminary Results. The final weighted–average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm Burke or Magd Zalok, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–3584 or (202) 482– 4162, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Germany, SNR France, SKF France, and SKF Germany. E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13078-13080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3619]



[[Page 13078]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-412-801, A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
Pursuant to Final Court Decisions

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 19, 2005, in response to its action in SNR 
Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip 
Op. 05-67 (June 13, 2005), the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
remand redetermination concerning the final assessment rates for the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on antifriction 
bearings and parts thereof (AFBs) from France. On October 28, 2005, in 
response to its actions in NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. 
United States, Court No. 97-10-01800 (July 7, 2005), and FAG Italia 
S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Court No. 97-02-00260-S (July 7, 2005), 
the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination concerning the 
final assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and Italy. On November 4, 
2005, in response to its action in FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et 
al. v. United States, Court No. 97-02-00260 (July 7, 2005), the CIT 
affirmed the Department's remand redetermination concerning the final 
assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty 
orders on AFBs from Germany.
    On April 27, 2001, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
redetermination with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs 
from France. See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 97-02-00269-S1, Slip. Op. 01-54 (April 27, 2001). On December 21, 
2000, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination with 
respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the United Kingdom. 
See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-
00217, Slip Op. 00-168 (December 21, 2000). The periods covered by 
these administrative reviews are May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, 
and May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996. The merchandise covered by 
these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical 
roller bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical plain bearings 
and parts thereof (SPBs). Because the time period for filing an appeal 
has expired and there are now final and conclusive court decisions in 
these actions, we are amending our final results of the reviews and we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries 
subject to these reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3174 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 15, 1997, the Department published Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 
1997), as amended by Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 14391 (March 26, 1997) (collectively 
AFBs 6). On October 17, 1997, the Department published Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 62 FR 54043 (October 17, 1997), as amended by Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 61963 (November 20, 1997) (collectively 
AFBs 7). The periods of review for AFBs 6 and AFBs 7 are May 1, 1994, 
through April 30, 1995, and May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996, 
respectively. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these 
reviews are BBs, CRBs, and SPBs.
    The AFBs 6 respondents involved in the litigation are as follows:
    [ast] FAG Italia S.p.A. and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively 
FAG Italy)
    [ast] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG and FAG Bearings 
Corporation (collectively FAG Germany)
    [ast] INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. 
(collectively INA Germany)
    [ast] NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. and RHP Bearings Ltd. (collectively 
NSK/RHP)
    [ast] NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing 
Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany)
    [ast] SNR Roulements (SNR France)
    [ast] SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF 
France)
    [ast] SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany)
    [ast] SKF Industrie S.p.A. and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF 
Italy)
    The AFBs 7 respondents involved in the litigation are as follows:
    [ast] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG and FAG Bearings 
Corporation (collectively FAG Germany)
    [ast] INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. 
(collectively INA Germany)
    [ast] NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing 
Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany)
    [ast] SNR Roulements (SNR France)
    [ast] SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF 
France)
    [ast] SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany)

AFBs 6 from Germany and Italy / AFBs 7 from France and Germany

    In each of these proceedings, the Department had completed previous 
remand redeterminations:
    [ast] FAG Italia, S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 00-154 (November 21, 2000) (remanding AFBs 6 
with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Italy and 
instructing the Department to: (1) Attempt to match FAG's and SKF's 
U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to constructed 
value (CV); (2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by 
consideration from FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales databases; (3) include 
all expenses in ``total United expenses'' in the calculation of ``total 
expenses'' for FAG's constructed export-price (CEP) profit ratio; (4) 
remove the circumstance-of- sale adjustment for certain advertising 
expenses from FAG's normal value (NV); (5) reconsider the decision to 
calculate SKF's home-market credit-rate expense based upon price and 
then apply the rate to cost; and (6) re-examine the programming 
language used to make certain foreign-currency conversions)
    [ast] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 01-13 (February

[[Page 13079]]

2, 2001) (remanding AFBs 6 with respect to the antidumping duty orders 
on AFBs from Germany and instructing the Department to: 1) attempt to 
match FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before 
resorting to CV; 2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by 
consideration from FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales databases; 3) include all 
expenses in ``total United States expenses'' in the calculation of 
``total expenses'' for FAG's and INA's CEP-profit ratio; 4) reconsider 
the decision to calculate SKF's home-market credit-rate expense based 
upon price and then apply the rate to cost; and 5) convert certain 
expenses from the foreign currency in calculating export price and CEP 
for INA)
    [ast] SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-
10-01825, Slip Op. 00-131 (October 13, 2000) (remanding AFBs 7 with 
respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France and 
instructing the Department to (1) annul all findings and conclusions 
made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry and (2) include all 
expenses included in ``total United States expenses'' in the 
calculation of ``total expenses'' for SNR)
    [ast] NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-10-01800, Slip Op. 01-76 (June 22, 2001) (remanding AFBs 7 
with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and 
instructing the Department to: (1) Annul all findings and conclusions 
made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry; (2) attempt to match U.S. 
sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to CV; (3) 
reconsider the Department's decision to deny INA's downward home-market 
billing adjustments; (4) clarify how the Department complied with 
sections 776 and 782 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
for using facts available and applying an adverse inference and, if 
appropriate, give INA the opportunity to remedy or explain any 
deficiency regarding its alleged sample sales; and (5) include all 
expenses included in ``total United States expenses'' in the 
calculation of ``total expenses'' for INA)
    Although each remand redetermination involved multiple issues, the 
Department's methodology for calculating profit for CEP sales was a 
subject of each remand. Specifically, the CIT directed the Department 
to include all expenses included in ``total United States expenses'' in 
the calculation of ``total expenses'' when computing the CEP-profit 
rate. In each proceeding, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
results in their entirety. See SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 01-17 (February 23, 2001); FAG 
Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 01-107 (August 20, 2001); FAG Italia 
S.p.A. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 01-
108 (August 20, 2001); NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800, Slip Op. 01-136 (November 
27, 2001).
    The Department appealed the CIT's decisions concerning the 
Department's CEP-profit calculation methodology. The United States 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) determined that the CIT 
had erred in its decision that the Department was required to include 
imputed credit and inventory carrying costs in ``total expenses'' when 
they were included in ``total United States expenses.'' The CAFC 
reversed the CIT and remanded the cases with the instructions that 
respondents be provided an opportunity to make a showing that their 
dumping margins were determined wrongly because the Department's use of 
actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying 
costs in the calculation of total expenses. See SNR Roulements et al. 
v. United States, 402 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and FAG Italia 
S.p.A. v. United States, 402 F.3d 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 
(consolidated appeal). The CIT remanded the proceedings and directed 
the Department to allow respondents an opportunity to show that their 
margins were determined incorrectly because the Department's use of 
actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying 
costs. SNR Roulements et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-
01825, Slip Op. 05-67 (June 13, 2005); FAG Kugelfischer Georg 
Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260 
(July 7, 2005); FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-02-00260-S (July 7, 2005); NTN Bearing Corporation of 
America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800 (July 7, 
2005). Because none of the respondents made the required showing, the 
Department determined that it had used actual expenses as a measure of 
total expenses in the CEP-profit calculation accurately. In each of the 
proceedings, the CIT affirmed the remand results. SNR Roulements et al. 
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 05-136 
(October 19, 2005); FAG Kugelfischer Georg Sch[auml]fer AG et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 05-143 (November 
4, 2005); FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 05-140 (October 28, 2005); NTN Bearing 
Corporation of America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-
10-01800, Slip Op. 05-141 (October 28, 2005).

AFBs 6 from France

    On October 11, 2000, the CIT remanded AFBs 6 with respect to the 
antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France to the Department. See SKF 
USA Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00269-S1, 
Slip Op. 00-128 (October 11, 2000). The CIT instructed the Department 
to: (1) Reconsider its decision to calculate SKF's home-market credit 
expense based upon price and then apply that rate to cost; (2) exclude 
any transactions that were not supported by consideration from SKF's 
U.S. sales database and to adjust the dumping margins accordingly; (3) 
first attempt to match SKF's U.S. sales to similar home-market sales 
before resorting to CV; (4) assign the correct level-of-trade code for 
SKF's export-price sales; (5) determine whether SKF's billing 
adjustment two is insignificant within the meaning of section 777A of 
the Act; (6) reconsider the treatment of depreciation expenses incurred 
in France in calculating CEP for SNR. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed 
the Department's remand redetermination. See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00269-S1, Slip. Op. 01-54 (April 
27, 2001).

AFBs 6 from the United Kingdom

    On May 27, 1997, the CIT granted NSK/RHP's motion for an expedited 
remand to correct clerical errors and the Department's cross-motion for 
leave to correct an additional clerical error and remanded AFBs 6 with 
respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the United Kingdom. 
See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-
00217, Slip Op. 97-63 (May 27, 1997). The CIT instructed the Department 
to: (1) Calculate credit for CV separately by class of merchandise; (2) 
calculate CV credit by converting the foreign currency values to U.S. 
dollars only once; (3) correct the programming language so that sales 
of CRBs were not sampled; (4) include credit insurance when calculating 
direct selling expenses for cost of production; (5) weight the values 
for total home-market selling expenses and total home-market movement 
expenses by a factor of two to establish uniform weighting of home-
market expenses; (6) apply the default credit period for those U.S. 
sales missing payment dates to net selling price; (7) multiply the 
entered value for

[[Page 13080]]

sampled U.S. sales by the weighting factor only once when calculating 
importer-specific duty rates. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the 
Department's remand redetermination. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 97-90 (July 7, 
1997).
    On December 16, 1999, the CIT remanded the case and instructed the 
Department to exclude from NSK/RHP's U.S. sales database any sample 
transactions that were not supported by consideration and to include 
imputed inventory carrying costs in the calculation of CEP offset when 
matching CEP sales to CV. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 99-134 at 54 (December 16, 
1999). Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
redetermination. See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 00-168 (December 21, 2000).
    As there are now final and conclusive court decisions with respect 
to the companies affected by these remand orders, we are amending our 
final results of reviews for these companies. We will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate the relevant entries 
subject to these reviews in accordance with our remand results.

Amended Final Results of Reviews

    We are now amending the final results of the 1994-1995 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from 
France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom to reflect the revised 
weighted-average margins. We determine that the revised weighted-
average margins for the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, are 
as follows:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Litigation did not result in any changes to the weighted-
average margins for BBs from NTN Germany or SPBs from SKF France.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BBs ([percnt])      CRBs ([percnt])      SPBs ([percnt])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italy........................................                 4.12                   --                   --
SKF Italy........................................                 2.86                   --                   --
FAG Germany......................................                13.42                22.59                12.08
INA Germany......................................                19.43                18.31                   --
SKF Germany......................................                 2.33                 9.34                 6.19
SNR France.......................................                 4.29                 6.36                   --
SKF France.......................................                 5.08                   --                   --
NSK/RHP--United Kingdom..........................                15.76                15.50                   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, we are now amending the final results of the 1995-1996 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from 
Germany to reflect the revised weighted-average margins. We determine 
that the revised weighted-average margins for the period May 1, 1995, 
through April 30, 1996, are as follows\2\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The subsequent litigation did not result in any changes in 
the weighted-average margins for NTN Germany, SNR France, SKF 
France, and SKF Germany.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BBs ([percnt])      CRBs ([percnt])      SPBs ([percnt])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Germany......................................                13.25                19.53                10.32
INA Germany......................................                44.53                20.09                28.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department will determine and CBP will assess 
appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise 
produced and/or exported by the affected companies. Individual 
differences between U.S. price and normal value may vary from the above 
percentages. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP 
within 15 days of publication of this notice.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 7, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3619 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.