Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review, in Part, 41207-41215 [2011-17480]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
Shipments’’ section, above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, or the
LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 10.17
percent, the all-others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,
70 FR 5147, 5148 (Feb. 1, 2005). These
deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility,
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results of review in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: July 5, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues in Decision
Memorandum
General Issues
1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Selection of Respondents Using a
Sampling Methodology
3. Treatment of Assessed Antidumping
Duties
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
4. Treatment of Income Earned on
Antidumping Duty Deposits
[FR Doc. 2011–17486 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
International Trade Administration
[A–570–601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2009–2010
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order and Intent To
Rescind Administrative Review, in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is currently
conducting the 2009–2010
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on tapered
roller bearings and parts thereof,
finished and unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),
covering the period June 1, 2009,
through May 31, 2010. We have
preliminarily determined that sales have
been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’)
by certain companies subject to this
review. Additionally, we are
announcing that we intend to rescind
the review with respect to entries of
TRBs exported by Tainshui Hailin
Import and Export Corporation (‘‘Hailin
I&E’’) produced by any manufacturer
other than Hailin Bearing Factory (‘‘HB
Factory’’). We have preliminarily
determined that Gansu Hailin Zhongke
Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hailin
Zhongke’’) is successor-in-interest to HB
Factory. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results no later
than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: July 13, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Demitri Kalogeropoulos or Frances
Veith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
AGENCY:
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2623 or
(202) 482–4295, respectively.
Background
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PO 00000
41207
Sfmt 4703
On June 15, 1987, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on TRBs from
the PRC.1 On June 1, 2010, the
Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on TRBs from the PRC.2 On June 30,
2010, we received the following
requests for review: (1) The Timken
Company, of Canton, Ohio
(‘‘Petitioner’’) requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of all entries of TRBs during the
POR exported by Peer Bearing Co.,
Ltd.—Changshan (‘‘CPZ/SKF’’) and by
Hailin I&E (produced by any
manufacturer other than HB Factory);
(2) CPZ/SKF and its affiliate Peer
Bearing Company (‘‘Peer/SKF’’)
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of all entries of
TRBs during the POR exported by CPZ/
SKF; and (3) Bosda International USA
LLC (‘‘Bosda’’), a U.S. importer of
subject merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of all entries of TRBs during the
POR exported by Zhejiang Sihe Machine
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sihe’’) and Xinchang
Kaiyuan Automotive Bearing Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Kaiyuan’’).
On July 28, 2010, the Department
initiated the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on TRBs
from the PRC for the period June 1,
2009, through May 31, 2010.3 On
August 31, 2010, we amended the
Initiation Notice with respect to TRBs
exported by Hailin I&E.4 In the
Amended Initiation Notice, we clarified
that this administrative review covers
TRBs exported by Hailin I&E that were
produced by any manufacturer other
than HB Factory, because the
Department previously revoked the
order with respect to TRBs exported by
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China,
52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 30383
(June 1, 2010).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 44224 (July
28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Deferral of Initiation of Administrative Review, 75
FR 53274, 53276 (August 31, 2010) (‘‘Amended
Initiation Notice’’).
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
41208
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
Hailin I&E that had been produced by
HB Factory.5
On October 12, 2010, the Department
exercised its authority to limit the
number of respondents selected for
individual examination pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The
Department selected the two largest
exporters by volume as our mandatory
respondents for this review, that is,
CPZ/SKF and Hailin I&E.6 On October
14, 2010, the Department issued its
antidumping duty questionnaire to CPZ/
SKF and Hailin I&E. Between November
15, 2010, and June 13, 2011, CPZ/SKF
and Hailin I&E responded to the
Department’s original and supplemental
questionnaires.
On February 24, 2011, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of review by the full
120 days allowed under section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to June 30,
2011.7 Between June 15, and June 21,
2011, Petitioner and Hailin I&E
submitted pre-preliminary comments.8
Given the timing and complexity of
Petitioner’s June 15, 2011 comments,
the Department intends to address them
fully in the context of the final results.
Period of Review
The POR is June 1, 2009 through May
31, 2010.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this order are
shipments of tapered roller bearings and
5 See id. at n 5 (citing Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
2000–2001 Administrative Review, Partial
Rescission of Review, and Determination to Revoke
Order, in Part, 67 FR 68990 (November 14, 2002)).
6 See the Department’s Memorandum entitled,
‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the
People’s Republic of China: Respondent Selection,’’
dated October 12, 2010.
7 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the 2009–2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order, 76 FR 10336 (February 24, 2011).
8 See Petitioner’s June 15, 2011, letter titled
‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order Covering Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China (6/1/2009–5/31/2010);
The Timken Company’s Comments on the
Department’s Preliminary Results for SKF;’’ and
Petitioner’s June 21, 2011, letter titled
‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order Covering Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China (6/1/2009–5/31/2010);
The Timken Company’s Comments on the
Department’s Preliminary Results for Tianshui
Hailin;’’ and Hailin I&E’s June 16, 2011, letter titled
‘‘Tapered Roller Bearings from the PRC.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
parts thereof, finished and unfinished,
from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge,
and hanger units incorporating tapered
roller bearings; and tapered roller
housings (except pillow blocks)
incorporating tapered rollers, with or
without spindles, whether or not for
automotive use. These products are
currently classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 8482.20.00,
8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45,
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80,
8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80,
8708.99.80.15 9 and 8708.99.80.80.10
Although the HTSUS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Successor in Interest and Intent To
Rescind, in Part, the Administrative
Review
In the 14th administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on TRBs
from the PRC (POR: June 1, 2000
through May 31, 2001), the Department
revoked the order on entries or sales of
TRBs exported by Hailin I&E that were
produced by HB Factory.11 In response
to questionnaires issued in the current
review, Hailin I&E stated that HB
Factory was no longer in existence, and
during the POR covered by the current
review, Hailin Zhongke was the
producer of all of the TRBs that Hailin
I&E exported to the United States. In
addition, in its questionnaire responses,
Hailin I&E stated that Hailin Zhongke is
the successor-in-interest to HB Factory
because: (1) In 2001 all of HB Factory’s
manufacturing assets were transferred to
Hailin Zhongke; (2) Hailin Zhongke is
located at the same physical location as
HB Factory; and (3) Hailin Zhongke has
the same management, suppliers, and
customer base as HB Factory.
In order to determine whether Hailin
I&E’s exports of subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR are
subject to the review, the Department is
conducting a successor-in-interest
analysis to determine whether Hailin
9 Effective January 1, 2007, the HTSUS
subheading 8708.99.8015 is renumbered as
8708.99.8115. See United States International Trade
Commission (‘‘USITC’’) publication entitled,
‘‘Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States Under Section 1206 of the
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,’’
USITC Publication 3898 (December 2006) found at
https://www.usitc.gov.
10 Effective January 1, 2007, the USHTS
subheading 8708.99.8080 is renumbered as
8708.99.8180; see id.
11 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of 2000–2001
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination to Revoke Order, in
Part, 67 FR 68990 (November 14, 2002).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Zhongke is the successor-in-interest to
HB Factory. In determining whether one
company is the successor to another for
purposes of applying the antidumping
duty law, the Department examines a
number of factors including, but not
limited to, changes in: (1) Management,
(2) production facilities, (3) supplier
relationships, and (4) customer base.12
Although no single or even several of
these factors will necessarily provide a
dispositive indication of succession,
generally the Department will consider
one company to be a successor to
another company if its resulting
operation is not materially dissimilar to
that of its predecessor.13 Thus, if the
‘‘totality of circumstances’’
demonstrates that, with respect to the
production and sale of the subject
merchandise, the new company
operates as the same business entity as
the former company, the Department
will treat the successor company the
same as the predecessor for
antidumping purposes.14
In Hailin I&E’s initial responses and
subsequent responses to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaires, we found evidence that
indicated that since the 14th review,
ownership of the HB Factory was
restructured on multiple occasions.
Specifically, in the 14th review, HB
Factory was a state owned enterprise,
owned 100 percent by ‘‘all the people.’’
Based on our review of Hailin I&E’s
submissions, we found that, over an
eight year period (2001–2008), the state
owned assets in HB Factory and its
successors were restructured to
ultimately form Tianshui Hailin Bearing
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hailin Bearing’’) as the
predominant owner of Hailin
Zhongke.15
Because the antidumping duty order
has been revoked in part for the
exporter/producer combination of
Hailin I&E/HB Factory, and Hailin I&E’s
12 See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
France: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances
Review, 75 FR 34688 (June 18, 2010), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
(‘‘IDM’’) at Comment 1.
13 See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon
From Norway; Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999).
14 See id. at 9980; see also Brass Sheet and Strip
from Canada: Final Result of Administrative
Review, 57 FR 20461 (May 13, 1992) at Comment
1.
15 See Hailin I&E’s section A and supplemental
section A submissions dated November 18, 2010,
and May 20, 2011, respectively; see also the
Department’s Memorandum entitled ‘‘2009–2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Tapered Roller Bearings from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Successor-InInterest Determination,’’ dated concurrently with
this notice (‘‘Preliminary Successor-In-Interest
Memorandum’’).
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
submissions indicate that HB Factory
was restructured to form Hailin
Zhongke, the Department has reviewed
the information on the record to
determine whether Hailin Zhongke is
the successor-in-interest to HB Factory.
The Department preliminarily finds,
based on the totality of the
circumstances, that Hailin Zhongke is
the successor-in-interest to HB Factory.
The record in this review indicates the
following: (1) That several senior
managers operating Hailin I&E and HB
Factory continue to perform the same
functions for Hailin I&E and Hailin
Zhongke’s; (2) that while in the 14th
review HB Factory was state-owned
(i.e., by ‘‘all the people’’), SASAC later
established Hailin Zhongke and
transferred ownership of HB Factory’s
entire business complex, inclusive of
physical plant and equipment, to Hailin
Zhongke and that production continued
virtually uninterrupted during and since
the time of the transfer; (3) that Hailin
Zhongke continued to purchase a
significant portion of its steel bar and
rod from the same supplier; (4) that
Hailin Zhongke continued to supply
essentially the same U.S. customer base
it acquired from HB Factory’s asset
transfer, through Hailin I&E as HB
Factory did during the 14th POR. Under
these circumstances, the Department
preliminarily finds that Hailin Zhongke
is operating as the same business entity
as HB Factory. As such, we
preliminarily determine that Hailin
Zhongke is the successor-in-interest to
the producer HB Factory.16 However,
for the final results, we intend to solicit
additional information to further
consider this issue, as well as
information concerning whether Hailin
Zhongke was the sole producer of the
subject merchandise sold by Hailin I&E
to the United States during the POR.
In its Amended Initiation Notice, the
Department indicated that the
administrative review covers entries of
TRBs exported by Hailin I&E that were
produced by any manufacturer other
than HB Factory. Because we have
preliminarily determined that all TRBs
exported by Hailin I&E were produced
by Hailin Zhongke, the successor-ininterest to HB Factory, we intend to
rescind the review as to Hailin I&E on
the basis of no shipments of
merchandise subject to the review
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
Non-Market Economy Country Status
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is a non-market economy
16 See Preliminary Successor-In-Interest
Memorandum.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
(‘‘NME’’) country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. In every case conducted by
the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an NME
country.17 None of the parties to this
review has contested such treatment.
Accordingly, we calculated normal
value in accordance with section 773(c)
of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV on the NME
producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate marketeconomy (‘‘ME’’) country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
FOPs, the Department shall use, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs in one or more market economy
countries that are: (1) At a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country; and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section
below.18
On November 3, 2010, the Department
identified six countries as being at a
level of economic development
comparable to the PRC for the specified
POR: India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru.19 On
17 See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008–
2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order, 75 FR 41148 (July 15, 2010), unchanged
in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008–2009
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
3086 (January 19, 2011).
18 See also the Department’s memorandum
entitled, ‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2009–2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’
dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Surrogate
Value Memorandum’’).
19 See Attachment I of the Department’s letter
dated December 7, 2010, in which we requested all
interested parties to provide comments on
surrogate-country selection and provide FOP values
from the potential surrogate countries (i.e., India,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine, and
Peru) (‘‘Surrogate Countries Letter’’). Attachment I
contains the Department’s Memorandum from
Carole Showers, Director, Office of Policy, to Erin
Begnal, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries for an Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated November 3, 2010
(‘‘Surrogate Countries Memorandum’’); see the
Department’s Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, regarding,
‘‘Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41209
December 7, 2010, the Department
invited all interested parties to submit
comments on the surrogate country
selection.20 On January 7, 2011,
Petitioner and CPZ/SKF submitted
comments regarding the Department’s
selection of a surrogate country for the
preliminary results.
With respect to the Department’s
selection of surrogate country, both
Petitioner and CPZ/SKF argue that India
is the most appropriate surrogate
country from which to derive surrogate
factor values for the PRC because India
is economically comparable to the PRC,
is a significant producer of TRBs, and
there is reliable information from India
on the record that can be used to value
respondents’ FOPs.21 Both parties also
state that the Department should rely on
India to derive surrogate factor values
for the PRC, as it did in the 2006–2007,
2007–2008, and 2008–2009
administrative reviews. Hailin I&E did
not submit comments regarding
surrogate country selection.
The Department uses per capita Gross
National Income (‘‘GNI’’) as the primary
basis for determining economic
comparability.22 Once the countries that
are economically comparable to the PRC
have been identified, the Department
selects an appropriate surrogate country
by determining whether an
economically comparable country is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise and whether data for
valuing FOPs are both available and
reliable. Therefore, the Department is
preliminarily selecting India as the
surrogate country on the basis that: (1)
It is at a similar level of economic
development to the PRC, pursuant to
773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and (3) we have reliable data from India
that we can use to value the FOPs.
Accordingly, we have calculated NV
using Indian prices when available and
appropriate to value each respondent’s
FOPs.23 In certain instances where
Indian surrogate values (‘‘SV’’) were not
deemed to be the best available data, we
have relied on Thai SVs in the
alternative. Thailand is also at a similar
level of economic development to the
PRC and is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise. In accordance
Process,’’ (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’),
available on the Department’s Web site at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
20 See Surrogate Countries Letter.
21 See Petitioner’s and CPZ/SKF’s submissions
dated January 7, 2011, regarding the appropriate
surrogate country to be used for purposes of valuing
FOPs in this administrative review.
22 See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
23 See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also
‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section, below.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
41210
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the
final results of an administrative review,
interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the FOPs
within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary
results.24
Separate Rates
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In antidumping proceedings involving
NME countries, it is the Department’s
practice to begin with a rebuttable
presumption that the export activities of
all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of merchandise
subject to review in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto government
control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity
exporting the subject merchandise
under a test arising from the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further
developed in the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide from the People’s Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). However, if the
Department determines that a company
is wholly foreign-owned or located in a
market economy, then a separate-rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
government control.
CPZ/SKF submitted information
indicating that CPZ/SKF is a wholly
foreign-owned limited liability
company. Therefore, for the purposes of
these preliminary results, the
Department finds that it is not necessary
to perform a separate-rate analysis for
CPZ/SKF. Sihe and Kaiyuan each have
24 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual information to
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for
submission of such factual information. However,
the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on
the record. The Department generally will not
accept the submission of additional, previously
absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See
Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying IDM at
Comment 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
submitted information indicating that
they are limited liability PRC companies
that have no foreign ownership.
Therefore, the Department must analyze
whether Sihe and Kaiyuan have
demonstrated the absence of both de
jure and de facto government control
over export activities, and are therefore
entitled to a separate rate.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.25
The evidence provided by Sihe and
Kaiyuan supports a preliminary finding
of de jure absence of government control
based on the following: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies;
and (3) there are formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
the companies.26
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.27
The Department has determined that
an analysis of de facto control is critical
in determining whether respondents
are, in fact, subject to a degree of
government control over export
activities which would preclude the
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Sihe’s Separate Rate Application (‘‘SRA’’),
dated October 21, 2010, and Kaiyuan’s SRA, dated
October 21, 2010.
27 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
PO 00000
25 See
26 See
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department from assigning separate
rates. For Sihe and Kaiyuan, we
determine that the evidence on the
record supports a preliminary finding of
de facto absence of government control
based on record statements and
supporting documentation showing the
following: (1) Each respondent sets its
own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) each
respondent retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions
regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) each respondent
has the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; and (4)
each respondent has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of
management.28
The evidence placed on the record of
this review by each respondent
demonstrates an absence of de jure and
de facto government control with
respect to its exports of the merchandise
under review, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are
preliminarily granting Sihe and Kaiyuan
a separate rate.
Margin for Separate Rate Companies
The Act and the Department’s
regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for
examination where the Department
limited its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally,
we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of
the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when
calculating the rate for respondents we
did not examine in an administrative
review. For the exporters subject to a
review that were determined to be
eligible for separate rate status, but were
not selected as mandatory respondents,
the Department generally weightaverages the rates calculated for the
mandatory respondents, excluding any
rates that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on adverse facts available.
As discussed above, the Department
received a timely and complete separate
rate certification from Sihe and
Kaiyuan, exporters of TRBs from the
PRC during the POR and neither Sihe
nor Kaiyuan were selected as mandatory
respondents in this review. These
companies have demonstrated their
eligibility for a separate rate, as
discussed above. Consistent with the
Department’s practice, as the separate
28 See Sihe’s SRA, dated October 21, 2010, and
Kaiyuan’s SRA dated October 21, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
rate, we have established a margin for
Sihe and Kaiyuan based on the rate we
calculated for the individually
examined respondent, CPZ/SKF.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of TRBs
to the United States by CPZ/SKF were
made at less than fair value, we
compared constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S.
Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of
this notice, below, pursuant to section
771(35) of the Act.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, CEP is the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or
exporter of such merchandise or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as
adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d)
of the Act. In accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for CPZ/
SKF’s sales because the exporter first
sold subject merchandise to its affiliated
company in the United States, Peer/
SKF, which in turn sold subject
merchandise to unaffiliated U.S.
customers. We calculated CEP based on
delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We
made deductions from the U.S. sales
price for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These included foreign inland
freight and foreign brokerage and
handling from the plant to the port of
exportation, international freight, U.S.
brokerage and handling, marine
insurance, other U.S. transportation,
U.S. customs duty, U.S. warehousing
expenses, where applicable, U.S. inland
freight from port to the warehouse, and
U.S. inland freight from the warehouse
to the customer.
We valued foreign brokerage and
handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a
standardized cargo of goods from India
where foreign brokerage and handling
fees were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi. The
price list is compiled based on a survey
case study of the procedural
requirements for trading a standard
shipment of goods by ocean transport in
India as reported in ‘‘Doing Business
2010: India’’ published by the World
Bank.29 Where foreign inland freight or
international freight were provided by
PRC service providers or paid for in
29 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
renminbi, we based those charges on
surrogate rates from India. See ‘‘Factor
Valuations’’ section below for further
discussion of these surrogate values.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, the Department deducted
credit expenses, inventory carrying
costs and indirect selling expenses from
the U.S. price, all of which relate to
commercial activity in the United
States. Finally, we deducted CEP profit,
in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)
and 772(f) of the Act.30
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual CEP
transactions in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if: (1) The
merchandise is exported from an NME
country; and (2) the information does
not permit the calculation of NV using
home market prices, third country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these
economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs
invalid under our normal
methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3)
of the Act, FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials
employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by
CPZ/SKF for materials, energy, labor
and packing.
In the instant review, CPZ/SKF
reported sales that were further
manufactured or assembled in a third
country. Consistent with TRBs 2007–
2008 and TRBs 2008–2009,31 the
Department has determined that the
finishing operations in the third country
the Department’s memorandum entitled,
‘‘2009–2010 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the
Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for
Peer Bearing Company—Changshan,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice (‘‘CPZ/SKF Program
Analysis Memorandum’’).
31 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of 2007–2008 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 844
(January 6, 2010) (‘‘TRBs 2007–2008’’), and
accompanying IDM at Comment 1; and Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of the 2008–2009 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086 (January 19,
2011) (‘‘TRBs 2008–2009’’), and accompanying IDM
at Comment 6.
PO 00000
30 See
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41211
do not constitute substantial
transformation and, hence, do not
confer a new country of origin for
antidumping purposes. As such, we
have determined NV for such sales
based on the country of origin (i.e., the
PRC), pursuant to section 773(a)(3)(A) of
the Act, because CPZ/SKF knew at the
time of the sale of merchandise to the
third country that it was destined for
export to the United States. The
Department also included the further
manufacturing and assembly costs
incurred in the third country in the NV
calculation, as well as the expense of
transporting the merchandise from the
factory in the PRC to the further
manufacturing plant in the third
country.32
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by CPZ/SKF for the POR.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to
value FOPs, but when a producer
sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market
economy currency, the Department
normally will value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input if the
quantities were meaningful and where
the prices have not been distorted by
dumping or subsidies.33 To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit
factor-consumption rates by publicly
available SVs (except as discussed
below). In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable, SVs
which are non-export average values,
most contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.34
We considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data.35 As
32 See CPZ/SKF’s Program Analysis
Memorandum.
33 See Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of
Ill Tool Works v. United States, 268 F. 3d 1376,
1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the
Department’s use of market-based prices to value
certain FOPs).
34 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
35 See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
Continued
13JYN1
41212
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to import SVs a surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory where
appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
On December 7, 2010, the Department
invited all interested parties to submit
publicly available information to value
FOPs for consideration in the
Department’s preliminary results of
review.36 On January 14, 2011,
Petitioner and CPZ/SKF each submitted
publicly available information to value
FOPs for the preliminary results and
CPZ/SKF submitted rebuttal comments
on January 24, 2011. A detailed
description of all surrogate values used
for CPZ/SKF can be found in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, except where noted below, we
used data from the Indian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’), published by Global Trade
Information Services, Inc. (‘‘GTIS’’) and
other publicly available Indian sources
to calculate SVs for CPZ/SKF’s FOPs
(i.e., direct materials, energy, and
packing materials) and certain
movement expenses. The GTA reports
import statistics, such as from India, in
the original reporting currency and thus
this data corresponds to the original
currency value reported by each
country. The record shows that data in
the Indian import statistics, as well as
those from the other Indian sources, are
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.37 In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the
Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’)
as published in the International
Monetary Fund’s International
Financial Statistics.38
4, 2002), and accompanying IDM at Comment 6;
and Final Results of First New Shipper Review and
First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and
accompanying IDM at Comment 5.
36 See Surrogate Countries Letter.
37 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
38 See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9600 (March 5, 2009),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
As explained in the legislative history
of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the
Department continues to apply its longstanding practice of disregarding SVs if
it has a reason to believe or suspect the
source data may reflect subsidized
prices.39 In this regard, the Department
has previously found that it is
appropriate to disregard such prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand because we have determined
that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export
subsidies.40 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies. Additionally, we
disregarded prices from NME
countries.41 Finally, imports that were
labeled as originating from an
‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded
from the average value, because the
Department could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME
country or a country with generally
available export subsidies.42
CPZ/SKF claimed that certain of its
reported raw material inputs were
sourced from an ME country and paid
for in ME currencies. When a
respondent sources inputs from an ME
supplier in meaningful quantities, we
use the actual price paid by respondent
for those inputs, except when prices
may have been distorted by dumping or
unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
39 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA
1988’’) at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547,
1623–24.
40 See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet
Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19,
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4–5; Expedited Sunset Review of
the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia,
70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January
15, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19–20; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand,
66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
41 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order, 76 FR 34048, unchanged in TRBs 2008–2009.
42 See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subsidies.43 Where we found ME
purchases to be of significant quantities
(i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance
with our statement of policy as outlined
in Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs,44 we used the actual
purchase prices of these inputs to value
the full input.
Accordingly, we valued certain of
CPZ/SKF’s inputs using the ME
currency prices paid where the total
volume of the input purchased from all
ME sources during the POR exceeds or
is equal to 33 percent of the total
volume of the input purchased from all
sources during the period. Where the
quantity of the reported input
purchased from ME suppliers was
below 33 percent of the total volume of
the input purchased from all sources
during the POR, and were otherwise
valid, we weight-averaged the ME
input’s purchase price with the
appropriate surrogate value for the input
according to their respective shares of
the reported total volume of
purchases.45 Where appropriate, we
added freight to the ME prices of inputs.
For a detailed description of the actual
values used for the ME inputs reported,
see CPZ/SKF Program Analysis
Memorandum.
Among the FOPs for which the
Department calculated SVs using Indian
import statistics are steel tube, cage
steel, steel scrap, anti-rust oil, and all
packing materials.
With respect to the valuation of wire
rod, Petitioner submitted data from two
HTS categories, Indian HTS
7228.50.90—Other steel bars, not cold
formed, other, and Thai HTS
7228.50.10—Other steel bars, not cold
formed, of circular cross-section. CPZ/
SKF recommended that Thai import
data be used to value its wire rod, citing
the preceding antidumping review of
TRBs in which the Department chose
Thai data because the Indian data were
determined to be aberrational and less
specific to the input.46 CPZ/SKF argues
that similar circumstances are present in
this segment of the proceeding and so
the Department should again reject the
Indian import data in favor of the Thai
import data.
For the preliminary results, we have
determined to use contemporaneous
43 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19,
1997).
44 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717–18 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs’’).
45 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718.
46 TRBs 2008–2009 and IDM at Comment 15.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
Thai import data from HTS category
7228.50.10 to calculate an SV for wire
rod because these data are more specific
to the input than the Indian import data.
Specifically, the Indian HTS category
contains rod of a type identified as
‘‘other,’’ whereas the Thai HTS category
identifies a particular type of rod that is
of ‘‘circular cross-section,’’
corresponding to the shape of CPZ/
SKF’s actual wire rod input.47
We valued truck freight expenses
using a per-unit average rate calculated
from data on the infobanc Web site:
https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this Web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities.48
We valued electricity using the
updated electricity price data for small,
medium, and large industries, as
published by the Central Electricity
Authority, an administrative body of the
Government of India, in its publication
titled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India,’’ dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to small, medium, and
large industries in India.49 Because the
rates listed in this source became
effective on a variety of different dates,
we are not adjusting the average value
for inflation. In other words, the
Department did not inflate this value to
the POR because the utility rates
represent current rates, as indicated by
the effective date listed for each of the
rates provided.50
Because CPZ/SKF had shipments of
subject merchandise to a third country
for further manufacturing during the
POR, we added the additional
international freight cost to NV, and
applied the SV for international freight
from the PRC to the third country. The
Department valued ocean freight using
publicly available data collected from
Maersk Line.51
Section 733(c) of the Act provides that
the Department will value the FOPs in
NME cases using the best available
information regarding the value of such
factors in a ME country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
administering authority. The Act
requires that when valuing FOPs, the
Department utilizes, to the extent
47 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
48 See id.
49 See id.
50 See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 32905 (June 10, 2010),
and accompanying IDM at Comment 3.
51 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more ME countries that are: (1)
At a comparable level of economic
development and (2) significant
producers of comparable
merchandise.52
Previously, the Department used
regression-based wages that captured
the worldwide relationship between per
capita GNI and hourly manufacturing
wages, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), to value the respondent’s
cost of labor. However, on May 14,
2010, the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’), in Dorbest
Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Dorbest’’),
invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a
consequence of the CAFC’s ruling in
Dorbest, the Department no longer relies
on the regression-based wage rate
methodology described in its
regulations. On February 18, 2011, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a request for public comment
on the interim methodology, and the
data sources.53
On June 21, 2011, the Department
revised its methodology for valuing the
labor input in NME antidumping
proceedings.54 In Labor Methodologies,
the Department determined that the best
methodology to value the labor input is
to use industry-specific labor rates from
the primary surrogate country.
Additionally, the Department
determined that the best data source for
industry-specific labor rates is Chapter
6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from
the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(‘‘Yearbook’’).
In these preliminary results, the
Department calculated the labor input
using the wage method described in
Labor Methodologies. To value the
respondent’s labor input, the
Department relied on data reported by
India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook. The Department further finds
the two-digit description under ISIC–
Revision 3 (‘‘29—Manufacture of
machinery and equipment’’) to be the
best available information on the record
because it is specific to the industry
being examined, and is therefore
derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise. This two-digit
category contains the sub-category for
class 2913—‘‘manufacture of bearings,
section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request for
Comment, 76 FR 9544 (Feb. 18, 2011).
54 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’).
PO 00000
41213
gears, gearing and driving elements.’’
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of
the Yearbook, the Department
calculated the labor input using labor
data reported by India to the ILO under
Sub-Classification 29 of the ISIC–
Revision 3 standard, in accordance with
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these
preliminary results, the calculated
industry-specific wage rate is $1.66.
Because this wage rate does not separate
the labor rates into different skill levels
or types of labor, the Department has
applied the same wage rate to all skill
levels and types of labor reported by
CPZ/SKF.55 A more detailed description
of the wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the
preliminary surrogate value
memorandum.56
As stated above, the Department used
India’s ILO data reported under Chapter
6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs
related to labor, including wages,
benefits, housing, training, etc. Since
the financial statements used to
calculate the surrogate financial ratios
include itemized detail of indirect labor
costs, the Department made adjustments
to the surrogate financial ratios.57
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), the
Department valued factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative
expenses and profit using nonproprietary information gathered from
producers of identical or comparable
merchandise in the surrogate country.
The Department’s practice is to
disregard financial information
containing evidence that the company
received subsidies that the Department
has previously found to be
countervailable, and where there are
other reliable data on the record for
purposes of calculating the surrogate
financial ratios.58 For these preliminary
results, we used the average of the ratios
derived from the financial statements of
three Indian producers of TRBs: ABC
Bearings Limited (for the year ending on
March 31, 2009), FAG Bearings India
Limited (for the year ending on
December 31, 2009), and NRB Bearing
(for the year ending on March 31, 2010).
We did not use financial statements
from three other Indian producers, SKF
India, Timken India, and Austin
Bearing, because they each contained
evidence of receipt of a subsidy which
the Department has found to be
52 See
53 See
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
id.
57 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
58 See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994 (May 13, 2011) and IDM at Comment 2.
56 See
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
41214
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
countervailable.59 Specifically, these
three Indian producers received benefits
under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book,
a program that the Department has
previously determined to be
countervailable.60
CPZ/SKF reported that steel scrap was
recovered as a by-product of the
production of subject merchandise and
successfully demonstrated that the scrap
has commercial value. Therefore, we
have granted a by-product offset for the
quantities of the reported by-product,
valued using Indian GTA data.61
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, we made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
We preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping
margin exists for the period June 1,
2009, through May 31, 2010:
additional copy of those comments on
diskette.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice.64 Hearing requests should
contain the following information: (1)
The party’s name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
If a request for a hearing is made, parties
will be notified of the time and date for
the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.65
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject
TRBS FROM THE PRC
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For
Weightedassessment purposes, we calculated
Exporters
average percent exporter/importer (or customer)
margin
-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.
Changshan Peer Bearing
Co., Ltd. ........................
5.61 Where appropriate, we calculated an ad
Zhejiang Sihe Machine
valorem rate for each importer (or
Co., Ltd. ........................
5.61 customer) by dividing the total dumping
Xinchang Kaiyuan Automargins for reviewed sales to that party
motive Bearing Co., Ltd.
5.61 by the total entered values associated
with those transactions. For dutyDisclosure and Public Comment
assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
The Department will disclose
resulting ad valorem rate against the
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we
five days of the date of publication of
calculated a per-unit rate for each
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
importer (or customer) by dividing the
351.224(b). Interested parties may
total dumping margins for reviewed
submit written comments no later than
sales to that party by the total sales
30 days after the date of publication of
quantity associated with those
these preliminary results of review.62
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
Rebuttals to written comments may be
calculated on this basis, we will direct
filed no later than five days after the
CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate
written comments are filed.63 Further,
against the entered quantity of the
parties submitting written comments
subject merchandise. Where an importer
and rebuttal comments are requested to
(or customer) -specific assessment rate
provide the Department with an
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct
59 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
CBP to assess that importer (or
60 See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings from
customer’s) entries of subject
India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR
merchandise without regard to
61592 (Nov. 12, 1999), unchanged in Certain Ironantidumping duties. We intend to
Metal Castings from India: Final Results of
instruct CBP to liquidate entries
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR
containing subject merchandise
31515 (May 18, 2000).
61 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
19 CFR 351.309(c).
63 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
64 See
62 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
65 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.310(c).
19 CFR 351.310(d).
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final
results of this review. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of
this review.
With regard to Hailin I&E, if we
continue to find in our final results of
review that Hailin Zhongke (1) Is the
successor-in-interest to HB Factory, and
(2) was Hailin I&E’s sole supplier of
TRBs sold to the United States during
the POR, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate Hailin I&E’s entries of subject
merchandise produced by Hailin
Zhongke without regard to antidumping
duties.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For CPZ/SKF,
Sihe, and Kaiyuan, the cash deposit rate
will be their respective rates established
in the final results of this review, except
if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash
deposit will be required; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 92.84 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
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
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results of review in
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.213.
Dated: June 30, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–17480 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Extension
of the Time Limit for the Final Results
of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2769 and (202)
482–3627, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
4, 2010, the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published in the
Federal Register a notice of initiation of
an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the People’s
Republic of China covering the period
January 1, 2009, through December 31,
2009. See Initiation of Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Wooden Bedroom Furniture From
the People’s Republic of China, 75 FR
9869 (March 4, 2010). On February 10,
2011, the Department published in the
Federal Register its preliminary results
of the administrative review. See
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to
Rescind Review in Part, 76 FR 7534
(February 10, 2011). On June 10, 2011,
the Department extended the time
period for completing the final results of
the instant administrative review. See
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of
the Time Limit for the Final Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 34043 (June 10, 2011).
The final results of the administrative
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
review are currently due no later than
July 11, 2011.
Statutory Time Limits
In antidumping duty administrative
reviews, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), requires the Department to make
a final determination in an
administrative review of an
antidumping duty order within 120
days after the date on which the
preliminary results are published.
However, if it is not practicable to
complete the review within this time
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
allows the Department to extend the 120
day period to 180 days after publication
of the preliminary results (or 300 days
if the Department has not extended the
time limit for the preliminary results).
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results
The Department has determined that
it is not practicable to complete the
review within the 120-day time period
because it requires additional time to
consider the comments it received on
May 25, 2011 concerning Zhangjiagang
Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd.
Therefore, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department
is extending the time period for
completing the final results of the
instant administrative review until
August 9, 2011.
This notice is published pursuant to
sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the
Act.
Dated: July 7, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–17624 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China;
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: July 13, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Hoefke or Fred Baker, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41215
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4947 or (202) 482–
2924, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 8, 2011, the Department of
Commerce (Department) published in
the Federal Register the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China, covering the period
February 1, 2009, to January 31, 2010.
See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, Rescission
in Part, and Intent To Rescind in Part,
76 FR 12704 (March 8, 2011)
(Preliminary Results). The current
deadline for the final results of this
review is July 6, 2011.
Extension of Time Limits for Final
Results of Review
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires
that the Department complete the final
results of an administrative review
within 120 days after the date on which
notice of the preliminary results was
published in the Federal Register.
However, if it is not practicable to
complete the review within this time
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
allows the Department to extend the
time limit for the final results to a
maximum of 180 days after the
publication date of the preliminary
results.
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the final results
of this review within the original time
frame because the Department continues
to require additional time to analyze
issues raised in recent case and rebuttal
briefs. Thus, the Department finds it is
not practicable to complete this review
within the original time limit (i.e., July
6, 2011). Accordingly, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the final results of this administrative
review by 60 days (i.e., until September
4, 2011), in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2). However, because
September 4, 2011, falls on a weekend,
and the following day is a federal
holiday, the time limit for completion of
our final results will be September 6,
2011.
This extension is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41207-41215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17480]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and
Intent To Rescind Administrative Review, in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is currently conducting the
2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished
(``TRBs''), from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the
period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. We have preliminarily
determined that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by
certain companies subject to this review. Additionally, we are
announcing that we intend to rescind the review with respect to entries
of TRBs exported by Tainshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation
(``Hailin I&E'') produced by any manufacturer other than Hailin Bearing
Factory (``HB Factory''). We have preliminarily determined that Gansu
Hailin Zhongke Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (``Hailin Zhongke'') is
successor-in-interest to HB Factory. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on
entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR'')
for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: July 13, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demitri Kalogeropoulos or Frances
Veith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-2623 or (202) 482-4295, respectively.
Background
On June 15, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC.\1\ On June 1, 2010,
the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the
PRC.\2\ On June 30, 2010, we received the following requests for
review: (1) The Timken Company, of Canton, Ohio (``Petitioner'')
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of all
entries of TRBs during the POR exported by Peer Bearing Co., Ltd.--
Changshan (``CPZ/SKF'') and by Hailin I&E (produced by any manufacturer
other than HB Factory); (2) CPZ/SKF and its affiliate Peer Bearing
Company (``Peer/SKF'') requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of all entries of TRBs during the POR exported by
CPZ/SKF; and (3) Bosda International USA LLC (``Bosda''), a U.S.
importer of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of all entries of TRBs during the POR exported
by Zhejiang Sihe Machine Co., Ltd. (``Sihe'') and Xinchang Kaiyuan
Automotive Bearing Co., Ltd. (``Kaiyuan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the
People's Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 30383 (June 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2010, the Department initiated the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC for the
period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010.\3\ On August 31, 2010, we
amended the Initiation Notice with respect to TRBs exported by Hailin
I&E.\4\ In the Amended Initiation Notice, we clarified that this
administrative review covers TRBs exported by Hailin I&E that were
produced by any manufacturer other than HB Factory, because the
Department previously revoked the order with respect to TRBs exported
by
[[Page 41208]]
Hailin I&E that had been produced by HB Factory.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
44224 (July 28, 2010) (``Initiation Notice'').
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of Administrative
Review, 75 FR 53274, 53276 (August 31, 2010) (``Amended Initiation
Notice'').
\5\ See id. at n 5 (citing Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of 2000-2001 Administrative Review, Partial
Rescission of Review, and Determination to Revoke Order, in Part, 67
FR 68990 (November 14, 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 12, 2010, the Department exercised its authority to
limit the number of respondents selected for individual examination
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''). The Department selected the two largest exporters by
volume as our mandatory respondents for this review, that is, CPZ/SKF
and Hailin I&E.\6\ On October 14, 2010, the Department issued its
antidumping duty questionnaire to CPZ/SKF and Hailin I&E. Between
November 15, 2010, and June 13, 2011, CPZ/SKF and Hailin I&E responded
to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the Department's Memorandum entitled, ``Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic
of China: Respondent Selection,'' dated October 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 24, 2011, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results
of review by the full 120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act, to June 30, 2011.\7\ Between June 15, and June 21, 2011,
Petitioner and Hailin I&E submitted pre-preliminary comments.\8\ Given
the timing and complexity of Petitioner's June 15, 2011 comments, the
Department intends to address them fully in the context of the final
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 10336 (February 24,
2011).
\8\ See Petitioner's June 15, 2011, letter titled
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Covering
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China (6/1/2009-5/31/2010); The Timken
Company's Comments on the Department's Preliminary Results for
SKF;'' and Petitioner's June 21, 2011, letter titled
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Covering
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China (6/1/2009-5/31/2010); The Timken
Company's Comments on the Department's Preliminary Results for
Tianshui Hailin;'' and Hailin I&E's June 16, 2011, letter titled
``Tapered Roller Bearings from the PRC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this order are shipments of tapered roller
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC;
flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered
roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks)
incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not
for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') item
numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40,
8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80,
8708.99.80.15 \9\ and 8708.99.80.80.\10\ Although the HTSUS item
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Effective January 1, 2007, the HTSUS subheading 8708.99.8015
is renumbered as 8708.99.8115. See United States International Trade
Commission (``USITC'') publication entitled, ``Modifications to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Under Section 1206
of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,'' USITC
Publication 3898 (December 2006) found at https://www.usitc.gov.
\10\ Effective January 1, 2007, the USHTS subheading
8708.99.8080 is renumbered as 8708.99.8180; see id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successor in Interest and Intent To Rescind, in Part, the
Administrative Review
In the 14th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
TRBs from the PRC (POR: June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001), the
Department revoked the order on entries or sales of TRBs exported by
Hailin I&E that were produced by HB Factory.\11\ In response to
questionnaires issued in the current review, Hailin I&E stated that HB
Factory was no longer in existence, and during the POR covered by the
current review, Hailin Zhongke was the producer of all of the TRBs that
Hailin I&E exported to the United States. In addition, in its
questionnaire responses, Hailin I&E stated that Hailin Zhongke is the
successor-in-interest to HB Factory because: (1) In 2001 all of HB
Factory's manufacturing assets were transferred to Hailin Zhongke; (2)
Hailin Zhongke is located at the same physical location as HB Factory;
and (3) Hailin Zhongke has the same management, suppliers, and customer
base as HB Factory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
2000-2001 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination to Revoke Order, in Part, 67 FR 68990 (November 14,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine whether Hailin I&E's exports of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR are subject to the
review, the Department is conducting a successor-in-interest analysis
to determine whether Hailin Zhongke is the successor-in-interest to HB
Factory. In determining whether one company is the successor to another
for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department
examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1) Management, (2) production facilities, (3) supplier relationships,
and (4) customer base.\12\ Although no single or even several of these
factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of
succession, generally the Department will consider one company to be a
successor to another company if its resulting operation is not
materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.\13\ Thus, if the
``totality of circumstances'' demonstrates that, with respect to the
production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company
operates as the same business entity as the former company, the
Department will treat the successor company the same as the predecessor
for antidumping purposes.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France:
Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 34688 (June 18,
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``IDM'') at
Comment 1.
\13\ See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway;
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999).
\14\ See id. at 9980; see also Brass Sheet and Strip from
Canada: Final Result of Administrative Review, 57 FR 20461 (May 13,
1992) at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Hailin I&E's initial responses and subsequent responses to the
Department's supplemental questionnaires, we found evidence that
indicated that since the 14th review, ownership of the HB Factory was
restructured on multiple occasions. Specifically, in the 14th review,
HB Factory was a state owned enterprise, owned 100 percent by ``all the
people.'' Based on our review of Hailin I&E's submissions, we found
that, over an eight year period (2001-2008), the state owned assets in
HB Factory and its successors were restructured to ultimately form
Tianshui Hailin Bearing Co., Ltd. (``Hailin Bearing'') as the
predominant owner of Hailin Zhongke.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Hailin I&E's section A and supplemental section A
submissions dated November 18, 2010, and May 20, 2011, respectively;
see also the Department's Memorandum entitled ``2009-2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered
Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Successor-In-Interest Determination,'' dated concurrently with this
notice (``Preliminary Successor-In-Interest Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the antidumping duty order has been revoked in part for the
exporter/producer combination of Hailin I&E/HB Factory, and Hailin
I&E's
[[Page 41209]]
submissions indicate that HB Factory was restructured to form Hailin
Zhongke, the Department has reviewed the information on the record to
determine whether Hailin Zhongke is the successor-in-interest to HB
Factory. The Department preliminarily finds, based on the totality of
the circumstances, that Hailin Zhongke is the successor-in-interest to
HB Factory. The record in this review indicates the following: (1) That
several senior managers operating Hailin I&E and HB Factory continue to
perform the same functions for Hailin I&E and Hailin Zhongke's; (2)
that while in the 14th review HB Factory was state-owned (i.e., by
``all the people''), SASAC later established Hailin Zhongke and
transferred ownership of HB Factory's entire business complex,
inclusive of physical plant and equipment, to Hailin Zhongke and that
production continued virtually uninterrupted during and since the time
of the transfer; (3) that Hailin Zhongke continued to purchase a
significant portion of its steel bar and rod from the same supplier;
(4) that Hailin Zhongke continued to supply essentially the same U.S.
customer base it acquired from HB Factory's asset transfer, through
Hailin I&E as HB Factory did during the 14th POR. Under these
circumstances, the Department preliminarily finds that Hailin Zhongke
is operating as the same business entity as HB Factory. As such, we
preliminarily determine that Hailin Zhongke is the successor-in-
interest to the producer HB Factory.\16\ However, for the final
results, we intend to solicit additional information to further
consider this issue, as well as information concerning whether Hailin
Zhongke was the sole producer of the subject merchandise sold by Hailin
I&E to the United States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Preliminary Successor-In-Interest Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Amended Initiation Notice, the Department indicated that the
administrative review covers entries of TRBs exported by Hailin I&E
that were produced by any manufacturer other than HB Factory. Because
we have preliminarily determined that all TRBs exported by Hailin I&E
were produced by Hailin Zhongke, the successor-in-interest to HB
Factory, we intend to rescind the review as to Hailin I&E on the basis
of no shipments of merchandise subject to the review pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3).
Non-Market Economy Country Status
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is a non-market economy (``NME'') country shall
remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. In every
case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been
treated as an NME country.\17\ None of the parties to this review has
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 41148 (July 15, 2010), unchanged in
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008-2009
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086 (January 19,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs''), valued in a
surrogate market-economy (``ME'') country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of
the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more market economy
countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable
to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ``Factor Valuations'' section below.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See also the Department's memorandum entitled,
``Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China:
Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' dated concurrently with this notice
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 3, 2010, the Department identified six countries as
being at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC for the
specified POR: India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine,
and Peru.\19\ On December 7, 2010, the Department invited all
interested parties to submit comments on the surrogate country
selection.\20\ On January 7, 2011, Petitioner and CPZ/SKF submitted
comments regarding the Department's selection of a surrogate country
for the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Attachment I of the Department's letter dated December
7, 2010, in which we requested all interested parties to provide
comments on surrogate-country selection and provide FOP values from
the potential surrogate countries (i.e., India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru) (``Surrogate Countries
Letter''). Attachment I contains the Department's Memorandum from
Carole Showers, Director, Office of Policy, to Erin Begnal, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, entitled, ``Request for a List
of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished (``TRBs'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''),'' dated November 3, 2010 (``Surrogate Countries
Memorandum''); see the Department's Policy Bulletin No. 04.1,
regarding, ``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process,'' (March 1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on
the Department's Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
\20\ See Surrogate Countries Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the Department's selection of surrogate country,
both Petitioner and CPZ/SKF argue that India is the most appropriate
surrogate country from which to derive surrogate factor values for the
PRC because India is economically comparable to the PRC, is a
significant producer of TRBs, and there is reliable information from
India on the record that can be used to value respondents' FOPs.\21\
Both parties also state that the Department should rely on India to
derive surrogate factor values for the PRC, as it did in the 2006-2007,
2007-2008, and 2008-2009 administrative reviews. Hailin I&E did not
submit comments regarding surrogate country selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Petitioner's and CPZ/SKF's submissions dated January 7,
2011, regarding the appropriate surrogate country to be used for
purposes of valuing FOPs in this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department uses per capita Gross National Income (``GNI'') as
the primary basis for determining economic comparability.\22\ Once the
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC have been
identified, the Department selects an appropriate surrogate country by
determining whether an economically comparable country is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise and whether data for valuing FOPs
are both available and reliable. Therefore, the Department is
preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country on the basis
that: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development to the PRC,
pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from India that
we can use to value the FOPs. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using
Indian prices when available and appropriate to value each respondent's
FOPs.\23\ In certain instances where Indian surrogate values (``SV'')
were not deemed to be the best available data, we have relied on Thai
SVs in the alternative. Thailand is also at a similar level of economic
development to the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise. In accordance
[[Page 41210]]
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of an
administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
\23\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also ``Factor
Valuations'' section, below.
\24\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying IDM at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, it is the
Department's practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that the
export activities of all companies within the country are subject to
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of
merchandise subject to review in an NME country this single rate unless
an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as
to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export activities. The Department analyzes each
entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991)
(``Sparklers''), as further developed in the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control.
CPZ/SKF submitted information indicating that CPZ/SKF is a wholly
foreign-owned limited liability company. Therefore, for the purposes of
these preliminary results, the Department finds that it is not
necessary to perform a separate-rate analysis for CPZ/SKF. Sihe and
Kaiyuan each have submitted information indicating that they are
limited liability PRC companies that have no foreign ownership.
Therefore, the Department must analyze whether Sihe and Kaiyuan have
demonstrated the absence of both de jure and de facto government
control over export activities, and are therefore entitled to a
separate rate.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Sihe and Kaiyuan supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of the companies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Sihe's Separate Rate Application (``SRA''), dated
October 21, 2010, and Kaiyuan's SRA, dated October 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control
is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to
a degree of government control over export activities which would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For Sihe and
Kaiyuan, we determine that the evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on
record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1) Each respondent sets its own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each
respondent retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3)
each respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements; and (4) each respondent has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Sihe's SRA, dated October 21, 2010, and Kaiyuan's SRA
dated October 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this review by each respondent
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with
respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance
with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Therefore, we are preliminarily granting Sihe and Kaiyuan a separate
rate.
Margin for Separate Rate Companies
The Act and the Department's regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act.
Generally, we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents
we did not examine in an administrative review. For the exporters
subject to a review that were determined to be eligible for separate
rate status, but were not selected as mandatory respondents, the
Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the
mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on adverse facts available.
As discussed above, the Department received a timely and complete
separate rate certification from Sihe and Kaiyuan, exporters of TRBs
from the PRC during the POR and neither Sihe nor Kaiyuan were selected
as mandatory respondents in this review. These companies have
demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above.
Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate
[[Page 41211]]
rate, we have established a margin for Sihe and Kaiyuan based on the
rate we calculated for the individually examined respondent, CPZ/SKF.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of TRBs to the United States by CPZ/SKF
were made at less than fair value, we compared constructed export price
(``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice, below, pursuant to section 771(35) of
the Act.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used
CEP for CPZ/SKF's sales because the exporter first sold subject
merchandise to its affiliated company in the United States, Peer/SKF,
which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
We calculated CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price for
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
These included foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and
handling from the plant to the port of exportation, international
freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, marine insurance, other U.S.
transportation, U.S. customs duty, U.S. warehousing expenses, where
applicable, U.S. inland freight from port to the warehouse, and U.S.
inland freight from the warehouse to the customer.
We valued foreign brokerage and handling using a price list of
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods
from India where foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by
PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi. The price list is
compiled based on a survey case study of the procedural requirements
for trading a standard shipment of goods by ocean transport in India as
reported in ``Doing Business 2010: India'' published by the World
Bank.\29\ Where foreign inland freight or international freight were
provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based
those charges on surrogate rates from India. See ``Factor Valuations''
section below for further discussion of these surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department
deducted credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling
expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial
activity in the United States. Finally, we deducted CEP profit, in
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``2009-2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the
People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary
Determination Margin Calculation for Peer Bearing Company--
Changshan,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``CPZ/SKF Program
Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual CEP transactions in accordance with
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country;
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using
home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of
raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities
consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used
FOPs reported by CPZ/SKF for materials, energy, labor and packing.
In the instant review, CPZ/SKF reported sales that were further
manufactured or assembled in a third country. Consistent with TRBs
2007-2008 and TRBs 2008-2009,\31\ the Department has determined that
the finishing operations in the third country do not constitute
substantial transformation and, hence, do not confer a new country of
origin for antidumping purposes. As such, we have determined NV for
such sales based on the country of origin (i.e., the PRC), pursuant to
section 773(a)(3)(A) of the Act, because CPZ/SKF knew at the time of
the sale of merchandise to the third country that it was destined for
export to the United States. The Department also included the further
manufacturing and assembly costs incurred in the third country in the
NV calculation, as well as the expense of transporting the merchandise
from the factory in the PRC to the further manufacturing plant in the
third country.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
2007-2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR
844 (January 6, 2010) (``TRBs 2007-2008''), and accompanying IDM at
Comment 1; and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086
(January 19, 2011) (``TRBs 2008-2009''), and accompanying IDM at
Comment 6.
\32\ See CPZ/SKF's Program Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by CPZ/SKF for the POR. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to value FOPs, but when a
producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in
market economy currency, the Department normally will value the factor
using the actual price paid for the input if the quantities were
meaningful and where the prices have not been distorted by dumping or
subsidies.\33\ To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit
factor-consumption rates by publicly available SVs (except as discussed
below). In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice
is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-export
average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific,
and tax-exclusive.\34\ We considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.\35\ As
[[Page 41212]]
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to import SVs a
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v.
United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming
the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\34\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\35\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying IDM at Comment 6; and
Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying IDM
at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 7, 2010, the Department invited all interested parties
to submit publicly available information to value FOPs for
consideration in the Department's preliminary results of review.\36\ On
January 14, 2011, Petitioner and CPZ/SKF each submitted publicly
available information to value FOPs for the preliminary results and
CPZ/SKF submitted rebuttal comments on January 24, 2011. A detailed
description of all surrogate values used for CPZ/SKF can be found in
the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Surrogate Countries Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's
practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Indian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), published by Global
Trade Information Services, Inc. (``GTIS'') and other publicly
available Indian sources to calculate SVs for CPZ/SKF's FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement
expenses. The GTA reports import statistics, such as from India, in the
original reporting currency and thus this data corresponds to the
original currency value reported by each country. The record shows that
data in the Indian import statistics, as well as those from the other
Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and
tax-exclusive.\37\ In those instances where we could not obtain
publicly available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to
value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the International
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\38\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR
36656 (July 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Department continues to apply its
long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to
believe or suspect the source data may reflect subsidized prices.\39\
In this regard, the Department has previously found that it is
appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea
and Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain
broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\40\ Based on
the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available
to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the
POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all
exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have
benefitted from these subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries.\41\ Finally, imports that were labeled as
originating from an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the
average value, because the Department could not be certain that they
were not from either an NME country or a country with generally
available export subsidies.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547,
1623-24.
\40\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257
(March 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3,
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
\41\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order, 76 FR 34048, unchanged in TRBs 2008-2009.
\42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPZ/SKF claimed that certain of its reported raw material inputs
were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. When a
respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities,
we use the actual price paid by respondent for those inputs, except
when prices may have been distorted by dumping or subsidies.\43\ Where
we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent
or more), in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in
Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,\44\ we used the
actual purchase prices of these inputs to value the full input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
\44\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we valued certain of CPZ/SKF's inputs using the ME
currency prices paid where the total volume of the input purchased from
all ME sources during the POR exceeds or is equal to 33 percent of the
total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period.
Where the quantity of the reported input purchased from ME suppliers
was below 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from
all sources during the POR, and were otherwise valid, we weight-
averaged the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate surrogate
value for the input according to their respective shares of the
reported total volume of purchases.\45\ Where appropriate, we added
freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of the
actual values used for the ME inputs reported, see CPZ/SKF Program
Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the FOPs for which the Department calculated SVs using Indian
import statistics are steel tube, cage steel, steel scrap, anti-rust
oil, and all packing materials.
With respect to the valuation of wire rod, Petitioner submitted
data from two HTS categories, Indian HTS 7228.50.90--Other steel bars,
not cold formed, other, and Thai HTS 7228.50.10--Other steel bars, not
cold formed, of circular cross-section. CPZ/SKF recommended that Thai
import data be used to value its wire rod, citing the preceding
antidumping review of TRBs in which the Department chose Thai data
because the Indian data were determined to be aberrational and less
specific to the input.\46\ CPZ/SKF argues that similar circumstances
are present in this segment of the proceeding and so the Department
should again reject the Indian import data in favor of the Thai import
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ TRBs 2008-2009 and IDM at Comment 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, we have determined to use
contemporaneous
[[Page 41213]]
Thai import data from HTS category 7228.50.10 to calculate an SV for
wire rod because these data are more specific to the input than the
Indian import data. Specifically, the Indian HTS category contains rod
of a type identified as ``other,'' whereas the Thai HTS category
identifies a particular type of rod that is of ``circular cross-
section,'' corresponding to the shape of CPZ/SKF's actual wire rod
input.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central
Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of
India, in its publication titled ``Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,'' dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small,
medium, and large industries in India.\49\ Because the rates listed in
this source became effective on a variety of different dates, we are
not adjusting the average value for inflation. In other words, the
Department did not inflate this value to the POR because the utility
rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective date
listed for each of the rates provided.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See id.
\50\ See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR
32905 (June 10, 2010), and accompanying IDM at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because CPZ/SKF had shipments of subject merchandise to a third
country for further manufacturing during the POR, we added the
additional international freight cost to NV, and applied the SV for
international freight from the PRC to the third country. The Department
valued ocean freight using publicly available data collected from
Maersk Line.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 733(c) of the Act provides that the Department will value
the FOPs in NME cases using the best available information regarding
the value of such factors in a ME country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the administering authority. The Act requires that when
valuing FOPs, the Department utilizes, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) At a
comparable level of economic development and (2) significant producers
of comparable merchandise.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita GNI and hourly
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), to value the
respondent's cost of labor. However, on May 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''), invalidated
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest,
the Department no longer relies on the regression-based wage rate
methodology described in its regulations. On February 18, 2011, the
Department published in the Federal Register a request for public
comment on the interim methodology, and the data sources.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request
for Comment, 76 FR 9544 (Feb. 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\54\ In Labor
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A:
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value
the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by
India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The Department further
finds the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (``29--
Manufacture of machinery and equipment'') to be the best available
information on the record because it is specific to the industry being
examined, and is therefore derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise. This two-digit category contains the sub-
category for class 2913--``manufacture of bearings, gears, gearing and
driving elements.'' Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook,
the Department calculated the labor input using labor data reported by
India to the ILO under Sub-Classification 29 of the ISIC-Revision 3
standard, in accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these
preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is
$1.66. Because this wage rate does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has applied
the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by
CPZ/SKF.\55\ A more detailed description of the wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the preliminary surrogate value
memorandum.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\56\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, the Department used India's ILO data reported
under Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to
labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Since the
financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios
include itemized detail of indirect labor costs, the Department made
adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), the Department valued factory
overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses and profit using
non-proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or
comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. The Department's
practice is to disregard financial information containing evidence that
the company received subsidies that the Department has previously found
to be countervailable, and where there are other reliable data on the
record for purposes of calculating the surrogate financial ratios.\58\
For these preliminary results, we used the average of the ratios
derived from the financial statements of three Indian producers of
TRBs: ABC Bearings Limited (for the year ending on March 31, 2009), FAG
Bearings India Limited (for the year ending on December 31, 2009), and
NRB Bearing (for the year ending on March 31, 2010). We did not use
financial statements from three other Indian producers, SKF India,
Timken India, and Austin Bearing, because they each contained evidence
of receipt of a subsidy which the Department has found to be
[[Page 41214]]
countervailable.\59\ Specifically, these three Indian producers
received benefits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book, a program that
the Department has previously determined to be countervailable.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994 (May 13, 2011) and IDM at Comment 2.
\59\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\60\ See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 61592 (Nov. 12, 1999), unchanged in
Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 31515 (May 18,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPZ/SKF reported that steel scrap was recovered as a by-product of
the production of subject merchandise and successfully demonstrated
that the scrap has commercial value. Therefore, we have granted a by-
product offset for the quantities of the reported by-product, valued
using Indian GTA data.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average
dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2009, through May 31,
2010:
TRBs From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporters average percent
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd....................... 5.61
Zhejiang Sihe Machine Co., Ltd........................ 5.61
Xinchang Kaiyuan Automotive Bearing Co., Ltd.......... 5.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\62\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than
five days after the written comments are filed.\63\ Further, parties
submitting written comments and rebuttal comments are requested to
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on
diskette.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\63\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice.\64\ Hearing requests should contain the
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in
the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be
notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\65\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance
with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we
calculated exporter/importer (or customer) -specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we
calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by
dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by
the total entered values associated with those transactions. For duty-
assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess
the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for
the subject merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit
rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping
margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity
associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting
per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise.
Where an importer (or customer) -specific assessment rate is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to
assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise
without regard to antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to
liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-
wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of
this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final
results of this review.
With regard to Hailin I&E, if we continue to find in our final
results of rev
