Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent to Rescind Review in Part, 31271-31278 [E7-10913]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Dated: May 31, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–10946 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am]
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department
published in the Federal Register (54
FR 20900–10) the antidumping duty
orders on ball bearings from France,
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and
the United Kingdom. On July 3, 2006, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
published a notice of initiation of
administrative reviews of these orders
International Trade Administration
(71 FR 37892). On October 16, 2006, we
announced the rescission of the reviews
[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588– with respect to certain firms for which
804, A–559–801, A–412–801]
we received timely withdrawals of the
requests to review these firms (71 FR
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
60688). On January 18, 2007, we
France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
extended the due date for the
Singapore, and the United Kingdom:
completion of these preliminary results
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
of reviews from January 31, 2007, to
Duty Administrative Reviews and
March 19, 2007 (72 FR 2261). On March
Intent to Rescind Review in Part
23, 2007, we extended the due date for
the completion of these preliminary
AGENCY: Import Administration,
results from March 19, 2007, to April 2,
International Trade Administration,
2007 (72 FR 13743). On April 5, 2007,
Department of Commerce.
we extended the due date for the
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
completion of these preliminary results
interested parties, the Department of
from April 2, 2007, to May 31, 2007 (72
Commerce (the Department) is
FR 16764).
conducting administrative reviews of
On August 28, 2006, pursuant to
the antidumping duty orders on ball
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
bearings and parts thereof from France,
as amended (the Act), the International
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and
Trade Commission determined that
the United Kingdom. The merchandise
covered by these orders are ball bearings revocation of the antidumping duty
order on ball bearings from Singapore
and parts thereof (ball bearings) from
would not be likely to lead to
France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
continuation or recurrence of material
Singapore, and the United Kingdom.
injury. See Certain Bearings from China,
The reviews cover 21 manufacturers/
et al.: Investigation Nos. 731–TA–344, et
exporters. The period of review is May
al. (Second Review) (USITC Publication
1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.
3876, August 28, 2006). As a result of
We have preliminarily determined
this determination, the Department
that sales have been made below normal
revoked the antidumping duty order on
value by various companies subject to
ball bearings from Singapore, effective
these reviews. If these preliminary
as of July 11, 2005. See Antifriction
results are adopted in our final results
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France
of administrative reviews, we will
and Singapore: Revocation of
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Antidumping Duty Orders, 71 FR 54468
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
(September 15, 2006). Therefore, the
duties on all appropriate entries.
period covered by the administrative
We invite interested parties to
review of the order on ball bearings
comment on these preliminary results.
from Singapore is May 1, 2005, through
Parties who submit comments in these
July 10, 2005. For the remaining orders
reviews are requested to submit with
subject to these administrative reviews,
each argument (1) a statement of the
the period of review covered is May 1,
issue and (2) a brief summary of the
2005, through April 30, 2006. The
argument.
Department is conducting these
administrative reviews in accordance
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007.
with section 751 of the Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The list of companies for which we
Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger,
are currently conducting administrative
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
reviews of the antidumping duty orders
Administration, International Trade
on ball bearings are as follows:
Administration, U.S. Department of
France:
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
* SKF France S.A. or SFK Aerospace
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
France S.A. (SKF France)
telephone: (202) 482–5760 and (202)
* SNR Roulements or SNR Europe
482–4477, respectively.
(SNR)
Germany:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31271
¨
* Gebruder Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG
(GRW)
* Schaeffler KG (formerly known as
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))
(Schaeffler Germany)
* SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
Italy:
* Schaeffler Italia S.r.l. (formerly
known as FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG
Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM
und Handel AG (collectively FAG
Italy)) (Schaeffler 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:
* Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. (Aisin Seiki)
* Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi Seiko)
* Canon Inc. (Canon)
* JTEKT Corporation (formerly known
as Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.) (JTEKT)
* Mori Seiki Co., Ltd. (Mori Seiki)
* Nachi–Fujikoshi Corporation
(Nachi)
* Nankai Seiko Co., Ltd. (Nankai
Seiko)
* Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. (NPB)
* NSK Ltd. (NSK)
* NTN Corporation (NTN)
* Osaka Pump Co., Ltd. (Osaka Pump)
* Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)
* KYK Corporation Ltd. (formerly
known as Tottori Yamakai Bearing
Seisakusho, Ltd.) (KYK)
Singapore:
* NMB Singapore Ltd. and Pelmec
Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec)
United Kingdom:
* The Barden Corporation (UK)
Limited; Schaeffler (UK) Ltd.
(formerly known as the Barden
Corporation (UK) Ltd.; FAG (UK)
Ltd. (collectively Barden/FAG))
(collectively Barden/Schaeffler UK)
Intent to Rescind Review in Part
In a September 18, 2006, submission,
KYK stated that its predecessor–ininterest, Tottori Yamakai Bearing
Seisakusho Ltd., used the trade name
‘‘KYK’’ and produced finished bearings
in Japan from 1952 until it went
bankrupt in 2000. KYK stated that, since
emerging from bankruptcy in 2002, it
has not resumed production operations
in Japan and that all of the subject
merchandise that KYK sold during the
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
31272
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
period of review was of Chinese origin.
We have received no comments on this
submission. Because we preliminarily
find that KYK had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the period
of review, we intend to rescind the
administrative review with respect to
this company. If we continue to find
that KYK had no shipments of
Japanese–made ball bearings at the time
of our final results of administrative
review, we will rescind our review for
KYK.
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 (HTS)
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 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,
8482.99.35, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.6595,
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40,
8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20,
8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50,
8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30,
8708.93.6000, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.3100,
8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.58,
8708.99.8015, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00,
8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and
8803.90.90.
As a result of recent changes to the
HTS, effective February 2, 2007, the
subject merchandise is also classifiable
under the following additional HTS
item numbers: 8708.30.50.90,
8708.40.75.00, 8708.50.79.00,
8708.50.8900, 8708.50.91.50,
8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.6060,
8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00,
8708.94.75, 8708.95.20.00,
8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68,
8708.99.81.80.
Although the HTS 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
from the Antifriction Bearings Team to
Laurie Parkhill, dated May 29, 2007,
which is on file in the Central Records
Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce
building, room B–099, in the General
Issues record (A–100–001) for the 2005–
2006 reviews.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of 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 Aisin Seiki,
Mori Seiki, Schaeffler Germany, and
SKF Italy. Our verification results are
outlined in the public versions of the
verification reports, which are on file in
the CRU, room B–099.
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
U.S. 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(c)(2) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
review period, for a total of six weeks,
and analyzed each transaction made in
those six weeks. The sample weeks are
as follows: May 29, 2005 - June 4, 2005;
July 17, 2005 - July 23, 2005; October
23, 2005 - October 29, 2005; November
27, 2005 - December 3, 2005; January 8,
2006 - January 14, 2006; March 19, 2006
- March 25, 2006. 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
Act applied to all firms that added value
in the United States except Aisin Seiki,
Asahi Seiko, and 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
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 accounted for at least 65 percent
of the price charged to the first
unaffiliated customer for the
merchandise as sold in the United
States, except as discussed below. 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 the analysis memoranda for Canon,
Barden/Schaeffler UK, JTEKT, Mori
Seiki, Nachi, NSK, NTN, Sapporo,
Schaeffler Germany, Schaeffler Italy,
SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy,
and SNR dated May 29, 2007.
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 Asahi Seiko and NPB, we
determined that the special rule did not
apply because the value added in the
United States did not exceed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
substantially the value of the subject
merchandise. For Aisin Seiki, we
determined that the special rule did not
apply because, even though the value
added in the United States exceeded
substantially the value of the subject
merchandise, the remaining non–
further-manufactured sales were not of
a sufficient quantity to provide a
reasonable basis for comparison.
Consequently, these firms submitted
complete responses to our further–
manufacturing questionnaire which
included the costs of the further
processing performed by their U.S.
affiliates. Because the majority of their
products sold in the United States were
further processed, we analyzed all sales.
For NTN, we removed all zero–priced
transactions from our analysis and there
was no other record evidence indicating
that NTN received consideration for
these transactions although we did
include the so–called ‘‘sample’’ sales
where NTN did receive compensation.
In addition, based on NTN’s response to
our supplemental questionnaire, we
calculated a direct selling expense for
NTN’s EP sales, attributable to the
provision of technical support and other
selling–support functions to NTN’s EP
customer by NTN’s U.S. affiliate.
Furthermore, we accounted for NTN’s
re–calculation of its re–packing expense
with respect to its reported CEP sales to
capture differences in expenses
associated with packing materials,
packing labor, and packing labor
overhead inherent in packing
requirements with respect to different
customer categories.
In addition, we revised NTN’s
calculation of inventory carrying costs
incurred in Japan for NTN’s EP and CEP
sales by applying the factor NTN
calculated for inventory carrying costs
to the total cost of manufacture value it
reported for each bearing model.
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)(1) of
the Act. With the exception of Aisin
Seiki, 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, with the
exception of Aisin Seiki, we based
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31273
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. Aisin
Seiki did not make sales to any other
market so we based normal value on
constructed value (CV).
Due to the extremely large number of
home–market transactions that occurred
during the period of review and the
resulting administrative burden
involved in examining all of these
transactions, we sampled sales to
calculate normal value in accordance
with section 777A of the Act. When a
firm had more than 10,000 home–
market sales transactions on a country–
specific basis, we used sales in sample
months that corresponded to the sample
weeks which we selected for U.S. CEP
sales, sales in a month prior to the
period of review, and sales in the month
following the period of review. The
sample months were February, June,
July, October, and November 2005 and
January, March, and May 2006.
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, we 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
In accordance with section 773(b) of
the Act, we disregarded below–cost
sales in the 2004–2005 reviews with
respect to ball bearings sold by Asahi
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
31274
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
Seiko, Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW,
JTEKT, Nachi, NPB, NSK, NTN,
Schaeffler Germany, SKF France, SKF
Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR and in the
2003–2004 reviews with respect to ball
bearings sold by Nankai Seiko, NMB/
Pelmec, and Osaka Pump. See Ball
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France,
et al.: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR
40064, 40065–66 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs
16), and Antifriction Bearings and Parts
Thereof from France, et al.: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711,
54712 (September 16, 2005) (AFBs 15).
These represent reviews for the last
completed segments for the firms
indicated above. 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. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 analysis
memoranda for Asahi Seiko, Barden/
Schaeffler UK, GRW, JTEKT, Nachi,
Nankai Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, NPB, NSK,
NTN, Osaka Pump, Schaeffler Germany,
Schaeffler Italy, SKF France, SKF
Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR dated
May 29, 2007. Based on this test, we
disregarded below–cost sales with
respect to all of the above–mentioned
companies.
We received allegations from Timken
US Corporation (Timken), the
petitioner, that Aisin Seiki, Canon, and
Mori Seiki sold ball bearings in the
home market at prices below the COP.
Timken requested that the Department
initiate a cost investigation of these
three respondents’ home–market sales
of ball bearings. We found that Timken’s
COP allegations did not provide
reasonable bases upon which to initiate
the COP investigations of these three
respondents. Therefore, we declined to
initiate the COP investigations of these
three respondents. See the Memoranda
to Laurie Parkhill concerning Timken’s
COP allegations on Aisin Seiki, Canon,
and Mori Seiki dated January 10, 2007,
January 11, 2007, and January 24, 2007,
respectively.
Model–Match Methodology
For all respondents except Aisin
Seiki, 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–
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 CV
of the U.S. model as normal value. For
a full discussion of the model–match
methodology for these reviews, see
AFBs 15 at Comments 2, 3, 4, and 5 and
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof
from France, et al.: Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR
25538, 25542 (May 13, 2005).
Normal Value
Home–market prices were based on
the packed, ex–factory, or delivered
prices to affiliated or unaffiliated
purchasers. When applicable, we made
adjustments for differences in packing
and for movement expenses in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act. We also made
adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for
differences in circumstances of sale in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For
comparisons to EP, we made
circumstance–of-sale adjustments by
deducting home–market direct selling
expenses from and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses to normal value. For
comparisons to CEP, we made
circumstance–of-sale adjustments by
deducting home–market direct selling
expenses from normal value. We also
made adjustments, when applicable, for
home–market indirect selling expenses
to offset U.S. commissions in EP and
CEP calculations.
For NTN’s sales of samples in the
home market, we have determined that
these sales were made outside the
ordinary course of trade and have
excluded them from our calculation of
normal value. We did not accept NTN’s
claim for an elimination of so–called
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. Furthermore,
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
we accounted for NTN’s re–calculation
of its packing expense for reported
home–market sales to capture
differences in expenses associated with
packing materials inherent in packing
requirements with respect to different
customer categories.
In addition, we revised NTN’s
calculation of inventory carrying costs
incurred in the home market for its
home–market sales by applying the
factor for inventory carrying costs it
calculated to the total cost of
manufacture value it reported for each
bearing model.
For JTEKT, consistent with
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof
From France, et al.: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, Rescission of Administrative
Reviews in Part, and Determination To
Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574
(September 15, 2004), and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 21, AFBs 15
at Comment 10, and AFBs 16 at
Comment 22, we denied certain
negative home–market billing
adjustments that JTEKT granted on a
model–specific basis but reported on a
broad customer–specific basis. See the
analysis memorandum for JTEKT dated
May 29, 2007, for a more detailed
discussion.
In the last administrative review, we
examined the relationship between
JTEKT and one of its affiliated home–
market firms and determined that it is
appropriate to collapse these two
companies as one entity. See AFBs 16 at
Comment 18. In this review, we have
examined the business relationship
between JTEKT and its affiliate and
determined that it is appropriate to
continue to collapse these two
companies as one entity based on
additional facts we obtained in this
administrative review.
JTEKT and its affiliate at issue are in
a parent–subsidiary relationship in
which JTEKT controls its subsidiary’s
decision–making bodies that decide on
the subsidiary’s business policy,
finance, and operations because JTEKT
owns more than 40 percent of its
subsidiary’s shares and JTEKT sells a
significant portion of ball bearings
manufactured by its subsidiary under an
agreement that dates back to 1963. This
parent–subsidiary relationship is
established under Japan’s Ministry of
Finance Ordinance No. 59, Article 8(3)
and 8(4) (hereafter Ordinance No. 59).
JTEKT discloses the financial
information of its subsidiary under
certain circumstances in accordance
with the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s Rules
on Timely Disclosure of Corporate
Information by Issuer of Listed Security
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
and the Like, Article 2–2-(3). JTEKT
develops products with this subsidiary.
This subsidiary also markets itself as a
company associated with JTEKT and
JTEKT’s other subsidiaries.
In its November 15, 2006, comment,
Timken refers to the Department’s
decision in AFBs 16 to collapse JTEKT
and its subsidiary after considering
several factors and Timken supports the
continued collapsing of JTEKT and its
subsidiary. Timken argues that a
majority–share ownership or a
company’s ability to ‘‘compel’’ another
company to share the other company’s
information with the company is not a
necessary prerequisite to collapse two
companies. JTEKT opposes our decision
to collapse it with its subsidiary,
arguing that JTEKT is not the parent of
its subsidiary under the Commercial
Code of Japan, Article 211–2, para. 3
(Law No. 48 of March 9, 1899) (hereafter
Article 211–2), which requires that a
company own the majority share of
another company to be a parent
company of the other company. JTEKT
argues that Ordinance No. 59 is for
financial purposes only. Therefore,
JTEKT claims, it cannot compel its
subsidiary to share the subsidiary’s
confidential production and sales
information with it.
While Article 211–2 is silent on other
circumstances in which JTEKT may be
the parent company of another
company, Ordinance No. 59 sets forth
other specific circumstances in which
JTEKT is the parent company of its
subsidiary at issue and, therefore,
controls its subsidiary’s decision–
making bodies that decide on the
subsidiary’s business policies, finance,
and operations. The parent–subsidiary
relationship and the business activities
between these two companies confirm
that JTEKT controls its subsidiary’s
decision–making bodies in view of their
business, financial, and operational
relationship. Therefore, we
preliminarily find that JTEKT can
compel its subsidiary to share its
subsidiary’s production and sales
information with JTEKT.
We continue to find that these two
companies have intertwined operations
and that a potential exists for JTEKT to
manipulate prices and production of its
subsidiary supplier, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f)(2). Therefore, for purpose of
these preliminary results, we continue
to collapse these two companies for this
review. See the analysis memorandum
for JTEKT dated May 29, 2007, for
further details that include reference to
JTEKT’s business–proprietary
information.
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31275
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 the
Level of Trade section below.
Actual Costs
Where the sale to an exporter or a
reseller is of finished subject
merchandise, the Department’s practice
is to rely on the COP or CV of the
producer. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries From Chile, 70 FR 6618
(February 8, 2005), and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3, and
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review:
Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 6524
(February 12, 2007), and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 8. Pursuant
to section 773(e)(1) of the Act, CV shall
be based upon the cost of materials and
fabrication or other processing of any
kind employed in producing the
merchandise. See the Constructed Value
section below.
In our original questionnaire dated
July 10, 2006, we instructed
respondents that, if they met the
requirement for providing COP or CV
information, they were to respond to
Question 8 of Appendix V of the
questionnaire by July 31, 2006. In
Question 8, we sought information
concerning each respondent’s total sales
of bearings manufactured by unaffiliated
suppliers, the suppliers’ identities, and
whether each respondent produced
bearings that were the same as the
bearings it purchased from the
unaffiliated suppliers during the period
of review. We requested this
information to determine whether to
require individual respondents to report
their unaffiliated suppliers’ actual COP
or CV data. We clarified this request
following questions from respondents.
See the Memorandum to Laurie
Parkhill, Office Director, entitled ‘‘Sales
of Merchandise Under Review Supplied
by an Unaffiliated Producer in the
2005–2006 Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Ball Bearings and Parts
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Singapore, and the United
Kingdom,’’ dated July 27, 2006.
After analyzing the information we
received from certain respondents in
response to Question 8, we required
Schaeffler Italy and SKF Germany to
report COP/CV information for certain
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
31276
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
of their unaffiliated suppliers. See
Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled
‘‘Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom:
Calculation of the Cost of Production
and Constructed Value for Merchandise
Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers,’’
dated September 7, 2006. (Since the
issuance of the memorandum, we have
rescinded the reviews of two other
companies for which we made a similar
determination.) In that same
memorandum, we also stated that
companies that had not responded to
Question 8 would be required to report
CV information of their unaffiliated
suppliers if we were to determine that
the calculation of their dumping margin
necessitated the use of CV for normal
value. We made the memorandum
available to all respondents in these
reviews.
We received actual–cost information
for the bearings SKF Germany and
Schaeffler Italy had purchased from the
respective suppliers we identified in our
September 7, 2006, memoranda to the
file entitled ‘‘Ball Bearings and Parts
Thereof from Germany: SKF Germany’s
Sales of Merchandise Produced by
Unaffiliated Suppliers’’ and ‘‘Ball
Bearings and Parts Thereof from Italy:
FAG Italy’s Sales of Merchandise
Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers.’’
Three of the respondents in the Japan
review, Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori
Seiki, did not respond to Question 8 in
a timely manner. Aisin Seiki, Canon,
and Mori Seiki notified us in their
original questionnaire responses dated
October 4, 2006, October 3, 2006, and
September 27, 2006, respectively, that
they had purchased all of their bearings
from Japanese producers but did not
report actual–cost information. Over the
course of the review, we requested
information from Aisin Seiki, Canon,
and Mori Seiki about their purchases
and cost information. They responded
that, although they had asked their
unaffiliated suppliers to provide the
information, the unaffiliated suppliers
refused to provide the actual–cost
information for virtually all models
these resellers sold.
On March 30, 2007, we requested that
all manufacturers that produced
bearings in Japan and sold bearings to
Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki,
either directly or through an affiliated
sales company, provide actual–cost
information for such bearings. See
letters to certain manufacturers from
Laurie Parkhill dated March 30, 2007, in
the file containing business–proprietary
information in the Japan proceeding.
These manufacturers submitted the
required information and we used it,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
where necessary, in our margin
calculations for the three firms. Where
Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki did
not purchase bearings directly from the
manufacturers or an affiliated sales
company but obtained the bearings from
another unaffiliated party in the sales
chain or where Aisin Seiki, Canon, and
Mori Seiki purchased bearings from
manufacturers or their affiliates but
these suppliers did not produce the
bearings, we used the prices at which
the three firms acquired the bearings at
issue, as needed, for our margin
calculations. For Aisin Seiki, Canon,
and Mori Seiki, we had all necessary
actual or acquisition costs to complete
our margin calculations.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act, we used CV as the basis for
normal value when there were no usable
sales of the foreign like product in the
comparison market or, in the case of
Aisin Seiki, where the company did not
have a viable home or third–country
market. We calculated CV 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 CV. 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 (with the exception of Aisin
Seiki, which we describe below) 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 CV 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 CV. For comparisons
to CEP, we made circumstance–of-sale
adjustments by deducting home–market
direct selling expenses from CV. 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 CV at
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP.
If CV 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
We calculated G&A expenses and
interest expenses by obtaining rates for
these items from Aisin Seiki’s
unconsolidated financial statements and
applying them to the total costs, G&A,
and interest expense of the bearing
models Aisin Seiki sold to the United
States. Because Aisin Seiki did not have
a viable comparison market, in
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii)
of the Act, we calculated selling
expenses and profit for Aisin Seiki’s CV
based on the weighted–average selling
expenses and profit we calculated for
the other exporters or producers subject
to the review in connection with sales
of the foreign like product, in the
ordinary course of trade, in the foreign
country. See the analysis memorandum
for Aisin Seiki dated May 29, 2007, for
a more detailed discussion of our
calculation of CV for Aisin Seiki.
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 CV, 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–toLength 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 calculate 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
31277
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
appropriate basis for determining a
level–of-trade adjustment. For
respondents’ CEP sales, to the extent
possible, we determined normal value at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sale
to the unaffiliated customer and made a
CEP–offset adjustment in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The
CEP–offset adjustment to normal value
was subject to the so–called 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 entitled ‘‘Antifriction
Bearings and Parts Thereof from Various
Countries - 2005/2006 Level–of-Trade
Analysis,’’ dated May 29, 2007, 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 from various countries
exist for the period May 1, 2005,
through April 30, 2006:
Company
Margin
GRW .............................
Schaeffler Germany ......
SKF Germany ...............
0.35
3.03
11.06
ITALY
Company
Margin
Schaeffler Italy ..............
SKF Italy .......................
1.60
8.83
JAPAN
Company
Margin
Aisin Seiki .....................
Asahi Seiko ...................
Canon ...........................
JTEKT ...........................
Mori Seiki ......................
Nachi .............................
Nankai Seiko ................
NPB ..............................
NSK ..............................
NTN ..............................
Osaka Pump .................
Sapporo ........................
6.48
1.28
10.50
15.85
1.93
11.46
3.01
26.89
3.66
7.76
4.76
7.63
SINGAPORE
Company
Margin
NMB/Pelmec .................
FRANCE
Company
Comments
GERMANY
12.61
UNITED KINGDOM
Margin (percent)
Company
SKF France ..................
SNR ..............................
8.99
13.32
Margin
Barden/Schaeffler UK ...
0.28
Case
Briefs due
General Issues .....................................................................................................
Germany ..............................................................................................................
Italy ......................................................................................................................
Singapore and United Kingdom ..........................................................................
France ..................................................................................................................
Japan ...................................................................................................................
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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
July
July
July
July
July
July
assessment rate or value for
merchandise subject to these reviews.
We will issue instructions to CBP 15
days after publication of the final results
of these reviews.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of
Antidumping Duties). This clarification
will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review produced by companies
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Rebuttals due
2,
3,
5,
5,
6,
9,
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
July 9,
July 10,
July 12,
July 12,
July 13,
July 16,
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
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 Assessment of
Antidumping Duties.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
31278
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
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
relevant order during the review period.
See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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, with the exception of
ball bearings and parts thereof from
Singapore for which the Department
revoked the order effective July 11,
2005, 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–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 further notice.
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: May 29, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–10913 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
International Trade Administration
[A–570–822]
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers
from the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marin Weaver at (202) 482–2336 or
Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On November 27, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the initiation of
the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
helical spring lock washers (‘‘HSLWs’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’). See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006).
This review covers the period October 1,
2005, through September 30, 2006. The
preliminary results of review are
currently due no later than July 3, 2007.
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Review
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Department shall make a
preliminary determination in an
administrative review of an
antidumping duty order within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of the date of publication of the
order. The Act further provides,
however, that the Department may
extend that 245-day period to 365 days
if it determines it is not practicable to
complete the review within the
foregoing time period.
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
HSLWs from the PRC within this time
limit. Specifically, due to the
verification of the questionnaire
responses scheduled in June, we find
that additional time is needed to
complete these preliminary results.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31271-31278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10913]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-559-801, A-412-801]
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent to Rescind Review in
Part
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, Singapore, and the United
Kingdom. The merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and
parts thereof (ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The reviews cover 21 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.
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: June 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun 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-
5760 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
(54 FR 20900-10) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. On
July 3, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a
notice of initiation of administrative reviews of these orders (71 FR
37892). On October 16, 2006, we announced the rescission of the reviews
with respect to certain firms for which we received timely withdrawals
of the requests to review these firms (71 FR 60688). On January 18,
2007, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary
results of reviews from January 31, 2007, to March 19, 2007 (72 FR
2261). On March 23, 2007, we extended the due date for the completion
of these preliminary results from March 19, 2007, to April 2, 2007 (72
FR 13743). On April 5, 2007, we extended the due date for the
completion of these preliminary results from April 2, 2007, to May 31,
2007 (72 FR 16764).
On August 28, 2006, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission
determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on ball
bearings from Singapore would not be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury. See Certain Bearings from China, et al.:
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-344, et al. (Second Review) (USITC
Publication 3876, August 28, 2006). As a result of this determination,
the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings from
Singapore, effective as of July 11, 2005. See Antifriction Bearings and
Parts Thereof from France and Singapore: Revocation of Antidumping Duty
Orders, 71 FR 54468 (September 15, 2006). Therefore, the period covered
by the administrative review of the order on ball bearings from
Singapore is May 1, 2005, through July 10, 2005. For the remaining
orders subject to these administrative reviews, the period of review
covered is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. The Department is
conducting these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751
of the Act.
The list of companies for which we are currently conducting
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings
are as follows:
France:
* SKF France S.A. or SFK Aerospace France S.A. (SKF France)
* SNR Roulements or SNR Europe (SNR)
Germany:
* Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG (GRW)
* Schaeffler KG (formerly known as 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))
(Schaeffler Germany)
* SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
Italy:
* Schaeffler Italia S.r.l. (formerly known as FAG Italia S.p.A.;
FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG (collectively FAG
Italy)) (Schaeffler 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:
* Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. (Aisin Seiki)
* Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi Seiko)
* Canon Inc. (Canon)
* JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.)
(JTEKT)
* Mori Seiki Co., Ltd. (Mori Seiki)
* Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi)
* Nankai Seiko Co., Ltd. (Nankai Seiko)
* Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. (NPB)
* NSK Ltd. (NSK)
* NTN Corporation (NTN)
* Osaka Pump Co., Ltd. (Osaka Pump)
* Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)
* KYK Corporation Ltd. (formerly known as Tottori Yamakai Bearing
Seisakusho, Ltd.) (KYK)
Singapore:
* NMB Singapore Ltd. and Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec)
United Kingdom:
* The Barden Corporation (UK) Limited; Schaeffler (UK) Ltd.
(formerly known as the Barden Corporation (UK) Ltd.; FAG (UK) Ltd.
(collectively Barden/FAG)) (collectively Barden/Schaeffler UK)
Intent to Rescind Review in Part
In a September 18, 2006, submission, KYK stated that its
predecessor-in-interest, Tottori Yamakai Bearing Seisakusho Ltd., used
the trade name ``KYK'' and produced finished bearings in Japan from
1952 until it went bankrupt in 2000. KYK stated that, since emerging
from bankruptcy in 2002, it has not resumed production operations in
Japan and that all of the subject merchandise that KYK sold during the
[[Page 31272]]
period of review was of Chinese origin. We have received no comments on
this submission. Because we preliminarily find that KYK had no
shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review, we intend
to rescind the administrative review with respect to this company. If
we continue to find that KYK had no shipments of Japanese-made ball
bearings at the time of our final results of administrative review, we
will rescind our review for KYK.
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 (HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 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, 8482.99.35,
8482.99.2580, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40,
8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50,
8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.6000, 8708.99.06,
8708.99.3100, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.8015,
8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and
8803.90.90.
As a result of recent changes to the HTS, effective February 2,
2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following
additional HTS item numbers: 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.00,
8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.8900, 8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00,
8708.70.6060, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.20.00,
8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, 8708.99.81.80.
Although the HTS 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 from the Antifriction Bearings
Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated May 29, 2007, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce building, room B-099,
in the General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 2005-2006 reviews.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of 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 Aisin Seiki,
Mori Seiki, Schaeffler Germany, and SKF Italy. Our verification results
are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, which
are on file in the CRU, room B-099.
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 U.S.
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(c)(2) 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 29, 2005 - June 4, 2005; July 17, 2005 - July 23, 2005; October 23,
2005 - October 29, 2005; November 27, 2005 - December 3, 2005; January
8, 2006 - January 14, 2006; March 19, 2006 - March 25, 2006. 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
[[Page 31273]]
Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States except
Aisin Seiki, Asahi Seiko, and 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 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 accounted for at least 65
percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the
merchandise as sold in the United States, except as discussed below.
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 the
analysis memoranda for Canon, Barden/Schaeffler UK, JTEKT, Mori Seiki,
Nachi, NSK, NTN, Sapporo, Schaeffler Germany, Schaeffler Italy, SKF
France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR dated May 29, 2007.
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 Asahi Seiko and 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. For Aisin Seiki, we
determined that the special rule did not apply because, even though the
value added in the United States exceeded substantially the value of
the subject merchandise, the remaining non-further-manufactured sales
were not of a sufficient quantity to provide a reasonable basis for
comparison. Consequently, these firms submitted complete responses to
our further-manufacturing questionnaire which included the costs of the
further processing performed by their U.S. affiliates. Because the
majority of their products sold in the United States were further
processed, we analyzed all sales.
For NTN, we removed all zero-priced transactions from our analysis
and there was no other record evidence indicating that NTN received
consideration for these transactions although we did include the so-
called ``sample'' sales where NTN did receive compensation. In
addition, based on NTN's response to our supplemental questionnaire, we
calculated a direct selling expense for NTN's EP sales, attributable to
the provision of technical support and other selling-support functions
to NTN's EP customer by NTN's U.S. affiliate. Furthermore, we accounted
for NTN's re-calculation of its re-packing expense with respect to its
reported CEP sales to capture differences in expenses associated with
packing materials, packing labor, and packing labor overhead inherent
in packing requirements with respect to different customer categories.
In addition, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying
costs incurred in Japan for NTN's EP and CEP sales by applying the
factor NTN calculated for inventory carrying costs to the total cost of
manufacture value it reported for each bearing model.
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)(1) of the Act. With the exception of
Aisin Seiki, 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, with the
exception of Aisin Seiki, 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. Aisin Seiki did not make sales
to any other market so we based normal value on constructed value (CV).
Due to the extremely large number of home-market transactions that
occurred during the period of review and the resulting administrative
burden involved in examining all of these transactions, we sampled
sales to calculate normal value in accordance with section 777A of the
Act. When a firm had more than 10,000 home-market sales transactions on
a country-specific basis, we used sales in sample months that
corresponded to the sample weeks which we selected for U.S. CEP sales,
sales in a month prior to the period of review, and sales in the month
following the period of review. The sample months were February, June,
July, October, and November 2005 and January, March, and May 2006.
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, we 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
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-
cost sales in the 2004-2005 reviews with respect to ball bearings sold
by Asahi
[[Page 31274]]
Seiko, Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, JTEKT, Nachi, NPB, NSK, NTN,
Schaeffler Germany, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR and in
the 2003-2004 reviews with respect to ball bearings sold by Nankai
Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, and Osaka Pump. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
from France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 40064, 40065-66 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16), and
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711, 54712
(September 16, 2005) (AFBs 15). These represent reviews for the last
completed segments for the firms indicated above. 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. 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
analysis memoranda for Asahi Seiko, Barden/Schaeffler UK, GRW, JTEKT,
Nachi, Nankai Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, NPB, NSK, NTN, Osaka Pump, Schaeffler
Germany, Schaeffler Italy, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR
dated May 29, 2007. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales
with respect to all of the above-mentioned companies.
We received allegations from Timken US Corporation (Timken), the
petitioner, that Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki sold ball bearings
in the home market at prices below the COP. Timken requested that the
Department initiate a cost investigation of these three respondents'
home-market sales of ball bearings. We found that Timken's COP
allegations did not provide reasonable bases upon which to initiate the
COP investigations of these three respondents. Therefore, we declined
to initiate the COP investigations of these three respondents. See the
Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill concerning Timken's COP allegations on
Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki dated January 10, 2007, January 11,
2007, and January 24, 2007, respectively.
Model-Match Methodology
For all respondents except Aisin Seiki, 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 CV of the U.S. model as normal value. For a
full discussion of the model-match methodology for these reviews, see
AFBs 15 at Comments 2, 3, 4, and 5 and Antifriction Bearings and Parts
Thereof from France, et al.: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 25538, 25542 (May 13,
2005).
Normal Value
Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP,
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market
direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to
normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from
normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and
CEP calculations.
For NTN's sales of samples in the home market, we have determined
that these sales were made outside the ordinary course of trade and
have excluded them from our calculation of normal value. We did not
accept NTN's claim for an elimination of so-called 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. Furthermore,
[[Page 31275]]
we accounted for NTN's re-calculation of its packing expense for
reported home-market sales to capture differences in expenses
associated with packing materials inherent in packing requirements with
respect to different customer categories.
In addition, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying
costs incurred in the home market for its home-market sales by applying
the factor for inventory carrying costs it calculated to the total cost
of manufacture value it reported for each bearing model.
For JTEKT, consistent with Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof
From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574 (September 15,
2004), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
21, AFBs 15 at Comment 10, and AFBs 16 at Comment 22, we denied certain
negative home-market billing adjustments that JTEKT granted on a model-
specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis. See the
analysis memorandum for JTEKT dated May 29, 2007, for a more detailed
discussion.
In the last administrative review, we examined the relationship
between JTEKT and one of its affiliated home-market firms and
determined that it is appropriate to collapse these two companies as
one entity. See AFBs 16 at Comment 18. In this review, we have examined
the business relationship between JTEKT and its affiliate and
determined that it is appropriate to continue to collapse these two
companies as one entity based on additional facts we obtained in this
administrative review.
JTEKT and its affiliate at issue are in a parent-subsidiary
relationship in which JTEKT controls its subsidiary's decision-making
bodies that decide on the subsidiary's business policy, finance, and
operations because JTEKT owns more than 40 percent of its subsidiary's
shares and JTEKT sells a significant portion of ball bearings
manufactured by its subsidiary under an agreement that dates back to
1963. This parent-subsidiary relationship is established under Japan's
Ministry of Finance Ordinance No. 59, Article 8(3) and 8(4) (hereafter
Ordinance No. 59). JTEKT discloses the financial information of its
subsidiary under certain circumstances in accordance with the Tokyo
Stock Exchange's Rules on Timely Disclosure of Corporate Information by
Issuer of Listed Security and the Like, Article 2-2-(3). JTEKT develops
products with this subsidiary. This subsidiary also markets itself as a
company associated with JTEKT and JTEKT's other subsidiaries.
In its November 15, 2006, comment, Timken refers to the
Department's decision in AFBs 16 to collapse JTEKT and its subsidiary
after considering several factors and Timken supports the continued
collapsing of JTEKT and its subsidiary. Timken argues that a majority-
share ownership or a company's ability to ``compel'' another company to
share the other company's information with the company is not a
necessary prerequisite to collapse two companies. JTEKT opposes our
decision to collapse it with its subsidiary, arguing that JTEKT is not
the parent of its subsidiary under the Commercial Code of Japan,
Article 211-2, para. 3 (Law No. 48 of March 9, 1899) (hereafter Article
211-2), which requires that a company own the majority share of another
company to be a parent company of the other company. JTEKT argues that
Ordinance No. 59 is for financial purposes only. Therefore, JTEKT
claims, it cannot compel its subsidiary to share the subsidiary's
confidential production and sales information with it.
While Article 211-2 is silent on other circumstances in which JTEKT
may be the parent company of another company, Ordinance No. 59 sets
forth other specific circumstances in which JTEKT is the parent company
of its subsidiary at issue and, therefore, controls its subsidiary's
decision-making bodies that decide on the subsidiary's business
policies, finance, and operations. The parent-subsidiary relationship
and the business activities between these two companies confirm that
JTEKT controls its subsidiary's decision-making bodies in view of their
business, financial, and operational relationship. Therefore, we
preliminarily find that JTEKT can compel its subsidiary to share its
subsidiary's production and sales information with JTEKT.
We continue to find that these two companies have intertwined
operations and that a potential exists for JTEKT to manipulate prices
and production of its subsidiary supplier, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f)(2). Therefore, for purpose of these preliminary results, we
continue to collapse these two companies for this review. See the
analysis memorandum for JTEKT dated May 29, 2007, for further details
that include reference to JTEKT's business-proprietary information.
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 the Level of
Trade section below.
Actual Costs
Where the sale to an exporter or a reseller is of finished subject
merchandise, the Department's practice is to rely on the COP or CV of
the producer. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From
Chile, 70 FR 6618 (February 8, 2005), and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3, and Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 6524 (February 12, 2007), and the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. Pursuant to
section 773(e)(1) of the Act, CV shall be based upon the cost of
materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in
producing the merchandise. See the Constructed Value section below.
In our original questionnaire dated July 10, 2006, we instructed
respondents that, if they met the requirement for providing COP or CV
information, they were to respond to Question 8 of Appendix V of the
questionnaire by July 31, 2006. In Question 8, we sought information
concerning each respondent's total sales of bearings manufactured by
unaffiliated suppliers, the suppliers' identities, and whether each
respondent produced bearings that were the same as the bearings it
purchased from the unaffiliated suppliers during the period of review.
We requested this information to determine whether to require
individual respondents to report their unaffiliated suppliers' actual
COP or CV data. We clarified this request following questions from
respondents. See the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director,
entitled ``Sales of Merchandise Under Review Supplied by an
Unaffiliated Producer in the 2005-2006 Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom,'' dated July 27, 2006.
After analyzing the information we received from certain
respondents in response to Question 8, we required Schaeffler Italy and
SKF Germany to report COP/CV information for certain
[[Page 31276]]
of their unaffiliated suppliers. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill
entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Calculation of the Cost of
Production and Constructed Value for Merchandise Produced by
Unaffiliated Suppliers,'' dated September 7, 2006. (Since the issuance
of the memorandum, we have rescinded the reviews of two other companies
for which we made a similar determination.) In that same memorandum, we
also stated that companies that had not responded to Question 8 would
be required to report CV information of their unaffiliated suppliers if
we were to determine that the calculation of their dumping margin
necessitated the use of CV for normal value. We made the memorandum
available to all respondents in these reviews.
We received actual-cost information for the bearings SKF Germany
and Schaeffler Italy had purchased from the respective suppliers we
identified in our September 7, 2006, memoranda to the file entitled
``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany: SKF Germany's Sales of
Merchandise Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers'' and ``Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof from Italy: FAG Italy's Sales of Merchandise Produced
by Unaffiliated Suppliers.'' Three of the respondents in the Japan
review, Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki, did not respond to Question
8 in a timely manner. Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki notified us in
their original questionnaire responses dated October 4, 2006, October
3, 2006, and September 27, 2006, respectively, that they had purchased
all of their bearings from Japanese producers but did not report
actual-cost information. Over the course of the review, we requested
information from Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki about their
purchases and cost information. They responded that, although they had
asked their unaffiliated suppliers to provide the information, the
unaffiliated suppliers refused to provide the actual-cost information
for virtually all models these resellers sold.
On March 30, 2007, we requested that all manufacturers that
produced bearings in Japan and sold bearings to Aisin Seiki, Canon, and
Mori Seiki, either directly or through an affiliated sales company,
provide actual-cost information for such bearings. See letters to
certain manufacturers from Laurie Parkhill dated March 30, 2007, in the
file containing business-proprietary information in the Japan
proceeding. These manufacturers submitted the required information and
we used it, where necessary, in our margin calculations for the three
firms. Where Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki did not purchase
bearings directly from the manufacturers or an affiliated sales company
but obtained the bearings from another unaffiliated party in the sales
chain or where Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki purchased bearings
from manufacturers or their affiliates but these suppliers did not
produce the bearings, we used the prices at which the three firms
acquired the bearings at issue, as needed, for our margin calculations.
For Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki, we had all necessary actual or
acquisition costs to complete our margin calculations.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the
basis for normal value when there were no usable sales of the foreign
like product in the comparison market or, in the case of Aisin Seiki,
where the company did not have a viable home or third-country market.
We calculated CV 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 CV. 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 (with the
exception of Aisin Seiki, which we describe below) 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 CV 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 CV. For comparisons to CEP, we made
circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct
selling expenses from CV. 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 CV at the same level of trade as the
EP or CEP. If CV 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.
We calculated G&A expenses and interest expenses by obtaining rates
for these items from Aisin Seiki's unconsolidated financial statements
and applying them to the total costs, G&A, and interest expense of the
bearing models Aisin Seiki sold to the United States. Because Aisin
Seiki did not have a viable comparison market, in accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, we calculated selling expenses and
profit for Aisin Seiki's CV based on the weighted-average selling
expenses and profit we calculated for the other exporters or producers
subject to the review in connection with sales of the foreign like
product, in the ordinary course of trade, in the foreign country. See
the analysis memorandum for Aisin Seiki dated May 29, 2007, for a more
detailed discussion of our calculation of CV for Aisin Seiki.
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 CV, 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 calculate 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
[[Page 31277]]
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For
respondents' CEP sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal
value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated
customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was
subject to the so-called 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 entitled ``Antifriction Bearings and Parts
Thereof from Various Countries - 2005/2006 Level-of-Trade Analysis,''
dated May 29, 2007, 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 from various countries exist for the period May 1,
2005, through April 30, 2006:
FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France.......................................... 8.99
SNR................................................. 13.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRW................................................. 0.35
Schaeffler Germany.................................. 3.03
SKF Germany......................................... 11.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schaeffler Italy.................................... 1.60
SKF Italy........................................... 8.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aisin Seiki......................................... 6.48
Asahi Seiko......................................... 1.28
Canon............................................... 10.50
JTEKT............................................... 15.85
Mori Seiki.......................................... 1.93
Nachi............................................... 11.46
Nankai Seiko........................................ 3.01
NPB................................................. 26.89
NSK................................................. 3.66
NTN................................................. 7.76
Osaka Pump.......................................... 4.76
Sapporo............................................. 7.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGAPORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB/Pelmec.......................................... 12.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/Schaeffler UK................................ 0.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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...................................... July 2, 2007 July 9, 2007
Germany............................................. July 3, 2007 July 10, 2007
Italy............................................... July 5, 2007 July 12, 2007
Singapore and United Kingdom........................ July 5, 2007 July 12, 2007
France.............................................. July 6, 2007 July 13, 2007
Japan............................................... July 9, 2007 July 16, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. We will issue instructions to CBP
15 days after publication of the final results of these reviews.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
of Antidumping Duties). 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 Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
[[Page 31278]]
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
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, with the exception of ball bearings and parts thereof
from Singapore for which the Department revoked the order effective
July 11, 2005, 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 further
notice.
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: May 29, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-10913 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S