47452 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, we have determined as a

general matter that a fluctuation exists

when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the rolling

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

exists, we substitute the benchmark for

the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Mannesmannroehren-Werke AG .............................................................................................................................. 1/27/95–7/31/96 28.69

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs,

limited to issues raised in those briefs,

may be filed not later than 37 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including its analysis of issues raised in

the case and rebuttal briefs, not later

than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this antidumping duty

review for all shipments of small

diameter circular seamless carbon and

alloy steel standard, line and pressure

pipe, entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided by

section 751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be that established in the

final results of review; (2) for exporters

not covered in this review, but covered

in the LTFV investigation or previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

from the LTFV investigation; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a previous review, or the

original 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; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 57.72

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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.

This administrative review and notice

are published in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23856 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–054, A–588–604]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the

petitioner and one respondent, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from Japan (A–

588–604), and of the antidumping

finding on TRBs, four inches or less in

outside diameter, and components

thereof, from Japan (A–588–054). The

review of the A–588–054 finding covers

two manufacturers/exporters and two

resellers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period October 1, 1995 through

September 30, 1996. The review of the

A–588–604 order covers three

manufacturers/exporters and two

resellers/exporters, and the period

October 1, 1995 through September 30,

1996.

We preliminarily determine that sales

of TRBs have been made below the

normal value (NV). If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of administrative reviews, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties based on the

difference between United States price

and the NV. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

argument in these proceedings are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issues and (2) A

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Ranado, Stephanie Arthur, or

Valerie Owenby, AD/CVD Enforcement,

Group III, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)

482–3518, 6312, or 0145, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47453

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations are to

the Department’s regulations, 19 CFR

part 353 (1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 18, 1976, the Treasury

Department published in the Federal

Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping

finding on TRBs from Japan, and on

October 6, 1987, the Department

published the antidumping duty order

on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On

October 1, 1996, the Department

published the notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ for

both TRBs cases covering the period

October 1, 1995 through September 30,

1996 (61 FR 51529).

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22

(a)(1), on October 31, 1996, the

petitioner, the Timken Company

(Timken), requested that we conduct a

review of Fuji Heavy Industries (Fuji),

Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo), MC

International (MC), and NSK Ltd. (NSK)

in both the A–588–054 and A–588–604

cases. In addition, Timken requested

that we conduct a review of NTN

Corporation (NTN) in the A–588–604

TRBs case. On October 28, 1996, NSK

requested that we conduct a review of

its sales in both TRBs cases. On

November 15, 1996, we published in the

Federal Register a notice of initiation of

these antidumping duty administrative

reviews covering the period October 1,

1995 through September 30, 1996 (61

FR 58513).

Because it was not practicable to

complete these reviews within the

normal time frame, on March 5, 1997,

we published in the Federal Register

our notice of the extension of the time

limits for both the A–588–054 and A–

588–604 1994–95 reviews (62 FR

10025). As a result of this extension, we

extended the deadline for these

preliminary results to September 2,

1997.

Scope of the Reviews

Imports covered by the A–588–054

finding are sales or entries of TRBs, four

inches or less in outside diameter when

assembled, including inner race or cone

assemblies and outer races or cups, sold

either as a unit or separately. This

merchandise is classified under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30.

Imports covered by the A–588–604

order include TRBs and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, which are

flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger

units incorporating TRBs, and roller

housings (except pillow blocks)

incorporating tapered rollers, with or

without spindles, whether or not for

automotive use. Products subject to the

A–588–054 finding are not included

within the scope of the A–588–604

order, except those manufactured by

NTN. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under HTS item numbers

8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8482.20.20,

8483.20.80, 8482.91.00, 8483.30.80,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 8483.90.60.

The HTS item numbers listed above for

both the A–588–054 finding and the A–

588–604 order are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written descriptions remain

dispositive.

The period for each review is October

1, 1995 through September 30, 1996.

The review of the A–588–054 finding

covers TRBs sales by two

manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and

NSK) and two resellers/exporters (Fuji

and MC). The review of the A–588–604

order covers TRBs sales by three

manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NTN,

and NSK) and two resellers/exporters

(Fuji and MC).

No Shipments

Fuji and MC made no shipments of

A–588–604 merchandise during the

period of review (POR). In addition,

neither Fuji nor MC was a party to the

A–588–604 less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation and neither of these firms

has been assigned rates from any prior

segment of this proceeding. Because

Fuji’s and MC’s shipments have never

been reviewed individually, we have

not assigned a rate to either firm for the

A–588–604 case. If Fuji or MC begins

shipping merchandise subject to the A–

588–604 order at some future date, the

entries will be subject to cash deposit

rates attributable to the manufacturer(s)

of the subject merchandise.

Duty Absorption

On December 11, 1996, Timken

requested that the Department

determine, with respect to all

respondents, whether antidumping

duties had been absorbed during the

POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act

provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine during an

administrative review initiated two or

four years after the publication of the

order, whether antidumping duties have

been absorbed by a foreign producer or

exporter. The Department’s interim

regulations do not address this

provision of the Tariff Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act,

i.e., orders in effect as of January 1,

1995, § 351.213(j)(2) of the Department’s

new antidumping regulations provides

that the Department will make a dutyabsorption determination, if requested,

for any administrative review initiated

in 1996 or 1998. See 62 FR 27394 (May

19, 1997). Because the finding and order

on TRBs have been in effect since 1976

and 1987, respectively, they are

transition orders in accordance with

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act.

(See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et. al.; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 62 FR 31568 (June 10, 1997).

The preamble to the new antidumping

regulations explains that reviews

initiated in 1996 will be considered

initiated in the second year and reviews

initiated in 1998 will be considered

initiated in the fourth year (62 FR

27317, May 19, 1997). This approach

ensures that interested parties will have

the opportunity to request a dutyabsorption determination prior to the

time for sunset review of the order

under section 751(c) of the Act on

entries for which the second and fourth

years following an order have already

passed. Since these reviews were

initiated in 1996, and a request was

made for a determination, we are

making duty-absorption determinations

as part of these administrative reviews.

The statute provides for a

determination on duty absorption if the

subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an affiliated

importer. In these cases, NTN, Koyo,

NSK, and Fuji sold through importers

that are affiliated within the meaning of

section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

Furthermore, we have preliminarily

determined that each firm listed below

has margins on the noted percentage of

its U.S. sales:

Manufacturer/Exporter/Reseller

Percentage

of U.S. affiliates’ sales

with dumping margins

For the A–588–054 Case:

Koyo Seiko ........................ 13.11

Fuji ..................................... 4.45

NSK ................................... 22.76

For the A–588–604 Case:

Koyo Seiko ........................ 97.26

Fuji 1 ................................... ....................

NSK ........................................... 56.33

NTN ........................................... 64.47

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review.

In the case of Koyo, the firm did not

respond to our request for furthermanufacturing information and we

determined the dumping margins for

these further-manufactured sales on the
47454 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

basis of adverse facts available. Lacking

other information, we find duty

absorption on all such sales of furtherprocessed TRBs. (See Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, et. al.; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR 31568 (June 10, 1997).) Where

Koyo’s margins were not determined on

the basis of adverse facts available (i.e.,

for non-further-manufactured sales), we

must presume that duties will be

absorbed for those sales which were

dumped.

With respect to other respondents

with affiliated importers (NSK, NTN,

and Fuji), for which we did not apply

adverse facts available, we must

presume that the duties will be absorbed

for those sales which were dumped.

(See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et. al.; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 62 FR 31568 (June 10, 1997).)

Our duty-absorption presumptions can

be rebutted with evidence that the

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States will pay the ultimately assessed

duty. However, there is no such

evidence on the record. Under these

circumstances, we preliminarily find

that antidumping duties have been

absorbed by Koyo, NTN, NSK, and Fuji

on the percentages of U.S. sales

indicated. If interested parties wish to

submit evidence that the unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States will pay

the ultimately assessed duties, they

must do so no later than 15 days after

publication of these preliminary results.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Tariff Act, we verified information

provided by certain respondents, using

standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Use of Facts Available

In accordance with section 776(a) of

the Act, in these preliminary results we

have found it necessary to use partial

facts available in those instances where

a respondent did not provide us with

certain information necessary to

conduct our analysis. This occurred

with respect to certain model-match and

constructed value (CV) information

omitted from MC’s response and certain

sales and cost information Koyo

declined to report for its sales of U.S.

further-manufactured merchandise

subject to the A–588–604 order.

MC’s questionnaire response

contained only limited model match

information, which prevented us from

finding contemporaneous sales of the

foreign like product for comparison to a

small number of U.S. sales of subject

merchandise. As a result of MC’s failure

to provide certain information necessary

for our determination, in accordance

with section 776(a) of the Act, we have

resorted to facts available. Because MC

was not afforded the opportunity to

remedy or explain its deficiencies in

accordance with section 782(d) of the

Act, for these preliminary results, as

partial facts available, we have applied

to each unmatched U.S. sale a

percentage dumping margin equal to the

overall weighted-average percentage

margin we calculated for those U.S.

transactions reported by MC for which

we were able to calculate a margin.

However, for our final results, we will

provide MC with an opportunity to

remedy or explain its deficiencies in

accordance with section 782(d) of the

Act.

On January 28, 1997, Koyo wrote to

the Department requesting a

determination that it not be required to

submit a response to Section E of our

questionnaire regarding its U.S. furthermanufactured sales. We informed Koyo

in a letter dated February 18, 1997, that

it was not required at that time to

supply further-manufacturing data, but

that we may require such information at

a later date based on additional analysis

of the company’s response. After further

review of Koyo’s response, we

concluded that we would require more

information concerning its U.S. furthermanufactured sales, and notified Koyo

on April 10, 1997, that we required a

response to Section E of our

questionnaire by May 1, 1997. In

response to Koyo’s April 29, 1997,

request, we subsequently extended the

response deadline until June 9, 1997.

However, Koyo telephonically notified

us on June 9 and in a letter dated June

10, 1997, that it would not file a furthermanufacturing response. As a result of

Koyo’s refusal to file a furthermanufacturing response, the

Department lacks data necessary for its

analysis. Therefore, in accordance with

section 776(a) of the Act, we resorted to

the use of facts otherwise available in

the absence of the necessary furthermanufacturing data Koyo failed to

provide. The Department is authorized,

under section 776(b) of the Act, to use

an inference that is adverse to the

interest of a party if we find that the

party has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with our request for information. By

refusing our information request, Koyo

failed to act to the best of its ability in

declining to provide the data we

requested. As a result, in accordance

with section 776(b) of the Act, we

determined that it is appropriate to

make an adverse inference with respect

to Koyo, and have used the highest rate

calculated for Koyo in any prior

segment of the A–588–604 proceeding

as partial adverse facts available, which

is secondary information within the

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate secondary

information used as facts available from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides

that ‘‘corroborate means simply that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol.

1, 103d Cong., 2d sess. 870 (1994)).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as adverse facts available a

calculated dumping margin from a prior

segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin irrelevant. Where circumstances

indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available,

the Department will disregard the

margin and determine an appropriate

margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers from

Mexico; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 49567 (February 22,

1996), where we disregarded the highest

margin in the case as best information

available because the margin was based

on another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

extremely high margin).

For these preliminary results, we have

examined the history of the A–588–604

case and have determined that 36.21

percent, the rate we calculated for Koyo

in the less-than-fair-value
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47455

determination, is the highest calculated

rate for Koyo in any prior segment of the

A–588–604 order (see Amendment to

Final Determination of Sales At Less

Than Fair Value and Amendment to

Antidumping Duty Order; Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan,

52 FR 47955 (December 17, 1987)). In

addition, we have examined the

circumstances surrounding the

calculation of this rate and have

determined that there is no reliable

evidence on the records for the reviews

in which this rate was calculated which

indicates that this margin is irrelevant

or inappropriate. As a result, for these

preliminary results we have applied, as

adverse facts available, a margin of

36.21 percent to Koyo’s furthermanufactured U.S. sales.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

Because all of Koyo’s and NSK’s sales

and certain of Fuji’s and NTN’s sales of

subject merchandise were first sold to

unaffiliated purchasers after importation

into the United States, in calculating

U.S. price we used constructed export

price (CEP) for all of Koyo’s and NSK’s

sales and certain of Fuji’s and NTN’s

sales, as defined in section 772(b) of the

Act. We based CEP on the packed,

delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for discounts, billing adjustments,

freight allowances, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the

Act, we reduced this price for

movement expenses (Japanese pre-sale

inland freight, Japanese post-sale inland

freight, international air and/or ocean

freight, marine insurance, Japanese

brokerage and handling, U.S. inland

freight from the port to the warehouse,

U.S. inland freight from the warehouse

to the customer, U.S. duty, and U.S.

brokerage and handling). We also

reduced the price, where applicable, by

an amount for the following expenses

incurred in the selling of the

merchandise in the United States

pursuant to section 772(d)(1):

Commissions to unaffiliated parties,

U.S. credit, payments to third parties,

U.S. repacking expenses, and indirect

selling expenses (which included,

where applicable, inventory carrying

costs, indirect warehouse expenses,

indirect advertising expenses, indirect

technical services expenses, pre-sale

warehousing expenses, and other U.S.-

incurred indirect selling expenses).

Finally, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of

the Act, we further reduced U.S. price

by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP.

Koyo originally claimed an offsetting

adjustment to its U.S. indirect selling

expenses for interest incurred when

financing cash deposits, but during

verification retracted its claim. NTN

also claimed an offsetting adjustment to

U.S. indirect selling expenses to account

for the cost of financing cash deposits

during the POR. In past reviews we have

accepted such an adjustment, mainly to

account for the opportunity cost

associated with making a deposit (i.e.,

the cost of having money unavailable for

a period of time). However, we have

preliminarily determined to change our

practice of accepting such an

adjustment.

We are not convinced that there are

such opportunity costs associated with

paying deposits. Moreover, while it may

be true that importers sometimes incur

an expense if they borrow money in

order to pay antidumping duty cash

deposits, it is a fundamental principle

that money is fungible. If an importer

acquires a loan to cover one operating

cost, that may simply mean that it will

not be necessary to borrow money to

cover a different operating cost. We find

that the calculation of the dumping

margin should not vary depending on

whether a party has funds available to

pay cash deposits or requires additional

funds in the form of loans.

Therefore, we find that an adjustment

to indirect selling expenses where

parties have claimed financing costs is

inappropriate and we have denied such

adjustments for the preliminary results

of these reviews (see Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, et. al.; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR 31568 (June 10, 1997)).

Because certain of Fuji’s and NTN’s

sales of subject merchandise, and all of

MC’s sales of subject merchandise, were

made to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation into

the United States and the constructed

export price methodology was not

indicated by the facts of record, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, we used export price (EP) for these

sales. We calculated EP as the packed,

delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act, we reduced this price, where

applicable, by Japanese pre-sale inland

freight, Japanese post-sale inland

freight, international air and/or ocean

freight, marine insurance, Japanese

brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage

and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S.

inland freight.

Where appropriate, in accordance

with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, the

Department also deducts from CEP the

cost of any further manufacture or

assembly in the United States, except

where the special rule provided in

section 772(e) of the Act is applied.

Section 772(e) of the Act provides that,

where the subject merchandise is

imported by an affiliated person and the

value added in the United States by the

affiliated person is likely to exceed

substantially the value of the subject

merchandise, we shall determine the

CEP for such merchandise using the

price of identical or other subject

merchandise if there is a sufficient

quantity of sales to provide a reasonable

basis for comparison and we determine

that the use of such sales is appropriate.

If there is not a sufficient quantity of

such sales or if we determine that using

the price of identical or other subject

merchandise is not appropriate, we may

use any other reasonable basis to

determine CEP. See Sections 772(e)(1)

and (2) of the Act.

In judging whether the use of

identical or other subject merchandise is

appropriate, the Department must

consider several factors, including

whether it is more appropriate to use

another ‘‘reasonable basis.’’ Under some

circumstances, we may use the standard

methodology as a reasonable alternative

to the methods described in paragraphs

772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act. In deciding

whether it is more appropriate to use

the standard methodology we have

considered and weighed the burden to

the Department of applying the standard

methodology as a reasonable alternative

and the extent to which application of

the standard methodology will lead to

more accurate results. The burden of

using the standard methodology may

vary from case to case depending on

factors such as the nature of the furthermanufacturing process and the finished

products. The increased accuracy

gained by applying the standard

methodology will vary significantly

from case to case, depending upon such

factors as the amount of value added in

the United States and the proportion of

total U.S. sales that involve further

manufacturing. In cases where the

burden is high, it is more likely that the

Department will determine that

potential gains in accuracy do not

outweigh the burden of applying the

standard methodology. Thus, the

Department will likely determine that

application of the standard methodology

is not more appropriate than application

of paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2), or some

other reasonable alternative

methodology. By contrast, if the burden

is relatively low and there is reason to

believe the standard methodology is
47456 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

likely to be more accurate, the

Department is more likely to determine

that it is not appropriate to apply the

methods described in paragraphs

772(e)(1) or (2) in lieu of the standard

methodology.

Fuji’s two U.S. affiliates, Subaru of

America (SOA) and Subaru-Isuzu

Automotive (SIA), both imported TRBs

into the United States which were first

purchased by Fuji from Japanese

producers in Japan. While SOA

imported TRBs during the review period

for the sole purpose of reselling the

bearings as replacement parts for Subaru

automobiles in the United States, SIA

imported TRBs for the sole purpose of

using them in its production of Subaru

automobiles in the United States, the

final product sold by SIA to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United

States

To determine whether the value

added in the United States by SIA is

likely to exceed substantially the value

of the subject merchandise, we

estimated the value added based on the

differences between the averages of the

prices charged to the first unaffiliated

U.S. customer for the final merchandise

sold (the automobiles) and the averages

of the prices paid for the subject

merchandise (the imported TRBs) by the

affiliated party. Based on this analysis

and information on the record, we

determined that the value of the TRBs

further processed by SIA in the United

States was a minuscule amount of the

price charged by SIA to the first

unaffiliated customer for the

automobiles it sold in the United States.

Therefore, we determined that the value

added is likely to exceed substantially

the value of the subject merchandise.

Next, we examined whether sales of

non-further-manufactured merchandise

were made in sufficient quantity. They

were. Finally, we considered whether it

would be appropriate to apply

alternatives provided in paragraphs

772(e) (1) and (2) of the Act with respect

to those TRBs imported by SIA. As

indicated above, because SIA further

manufactures TRBs into finished

automobiles, the value of the imported

TRBs is a miniscule amount of the price

SIA charges for the finished automobile

and, therefore, also a miniscule amount

of the value added by SIA to the

imported TRBs. In light of this, a

calculation of the dumping margins for

TRBs imported by SIA using our

standard methodology would require

the actual calculation of the enormous

value added by SIA and the deduction

of these costs, plus an apportioned

profit, from the price charged by SIA for

a finished automobile. Not only would

such a calculation be overwhelmingly

burdensome to the Department, but the

extent and complexity of the calculation

would most likely generate inaccurate

results. The legislative history of the

URAA and the SAA make it clear that

the special rule provision is intended to

reduce just such a burden on the

Department. Given this, along with the

relatively low proportion of Fuji’s

further-manufactured U.S. merchandise

to its non-further-manufactured U.S.

merchandise, we have preliminarily

determined that it is appropriate to

apply the alternatives under paragraphs

772(e)(1) and (2) with respect to SIA’s

imports of TRBs. Therefore, in

accordance with section 772(e) of the

Act, for the purpose of determining

dumping margins for the TRBs entered

by SIA and used in the production of

automobiles, we have used the

weighted-average dumping margins we

calculated on sales of identical or other

subject merchandise sold by SOA as

replacement TRBs to unaffiliated

persons in the United States.

NTN and Koyo also imported subject

merchandise (TRBs parts) which was

further processed in the United States.

However, both companies further

manufactured the imported scope

merchandise into merchandise of the

same class or kind as merchandise

within the scope of the A–588–604

order and A–588–054 finding (finished

TRBs). Based on information provided

by both firms, we first determined

whether the value added in the United

States was likely to exceed substantially

the value of the subject merchandise.

We estimated the value added based on

the differences between the averages of

the prices charged to the first

unaffiliated U.S. customer for the final

merchandise sold (finished TRBs) and

the averages of the prices paid for the

subject merchandise (imported TRBs

parts) by the affiliated party and

determined that, for both firms, the

value added was likely to exceed

substantially the value of the imported

TRBS parts.

We then examined whether it would

be appropriate to use sales of nonfurther-manufactured merchandise as a

basis for comparison, under paragraphs

772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act, with respect

to NTN’s and Koyo’s imported TRBs

parts. In contrast to Fuji, the finished

merchandise sold by NTN and Koyo to

the first unrelated U.S. customer was of

the same class or kind as merchandise

within the scope of the TRBS order and

finding. Moreover, the Department has

experience in calculating dumping

margins for Koyo’s and NTN’s furthermanufactured TRBs numerous times in

past reviews using our standard

methodology. These facts indicate that

the use of the standard calculation with

respect to NTN or Koyo would not be

unduly burdensome to the Department.

However, based on the information

provided by NTN, we determined that

the proportion of its furthermanufactured merchandise to its total

imports of subject merchandise was

relatively low. Therefore, we have

preliminarily determined that, in NTN’s

case, any potential gains in accuracy

from examining NTN’s furthermanufactured sales are outweighed by

the burden of the applying the standard

methodology and that it would be

appropriate to apply one of the

methodologies specified in the statute

with respect to NTN’s imported TRBS

parts. Furthermore, other sales are in

sufficient quantity. Therefore, for the

purpose of determining dumping

margins for NTN’s imported TRBs

which were further manufactured in the

United States prior to resale, we have

used the weighted-average dumping

margins we calculated on NTN’s sales of

non-further-manufactured TRBs.

In contrast to NTN, information on

the record establishes that Koyo’s

imported and further-manufactured

merchandise is a relatively high

proportion of its total imports of subject

merchandise. In addition, as noted

above, the calculation of Koyo’s

imported TRBs parts using our standard

methodology would not pose an undue

burden. For these reasons we

determined that the potential gains in

accuracy did outweigh the burden of

applying the standard methodology.

Therefore, it was not appropriate to

apply the methodologies enumerated in

the statute to Koyo’s imported TRBs

parts in this review. Therefore, we

requested that Koyo respond to the

further-manufacturing section of our

questionnaire. (For further explanation

of Koyo’s further manufacturing, refer to

‘‘Facts Available’’ section.) No other

adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

A. Viability

Based on (1) our comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, (2) the absence of any

information that a particular market

situation in the exporting country does

not permit a proper comparison, and (3)

the fact that each company’s quantity of

sales in the home market was greater

than five percent of its sales to the U.S.

market, we determined that the quantity

of the foreign like product, for all

respondents except MC, sold in the

exporting country was sufficient to

permit a proper comparison with the

sales of subject merchandise to the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47457

United States, pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we based NV on the prices at which the

foreign like products were first sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

MC is an exporter of TRBs which did

not sell TRBs in the exporting country.

Rather, MC only sold TRBs in the U.S.

market and in three third-country

markets: the United Kingdom (UK),

Germany, and Canada. In order to

determine which third-country market

provided the proper basis for

comparison, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we compared the

quantity of MC’s sales in the United

States to the quantity in the UK and

Germany. Absent any information that a

particular market situation does not

permit a proper comparison, we

determined that the aggregate quantity

of MC’s sales of the foreign like product

in the UK and Germany were sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of subject merchandise in the

United States because the quantity of

MC’s sales in the U.K. and Germany was

greater than 5 percent of the aggregate

quantity of MC’s sales of subject

merchandise in the United States.

Because both the UK and German

markets were viable, we next examined

whether the merchandise sold in either

one of these two markets, in comparison

to the other market, was more similar to

the merchandise sold in the United

States. Our examination revealed that

the identical foreign like products were

sold in both markets such that neither

market, in comparison to the other, had

sales of subject merchandise more

similar to the U.S. merchandise.

Therefore, we compared the volume of

sales of the foreign like product in the

UK and German markets and found that

the UK market had a greater aggregate

volume of sales of the foreign like

product. As a result, we based NV on

the prices at which the foreign like

products were first sold for

consumption in the United Kingdom.

B. Arm’s-Length Sales

For NTN, Koyo, NSK, and Fuji we

have excluded from our analysis those

sales made to affiliated customers in the

home market which were not at arm’s

length. See Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the

Act. We determined the arm’s-length

nature of home market sales to affiliated

parties by means of our 99.5 percent

arm’s-length test in which we

calculated, for each model, the

percentage difference between the

weighted-average prices to the affiliated

customer and all unaffiliated customers

and then calculated, for each affiliated

customer, the overall weighted-average

percentage difference in prices for all

models purchased by the customer. If

the overall weighted-average price ratio

for the affiliated customer was equal to

or greater than 99.5 percent, we

determined that all sales to this

affiliated customer were at arm’s length.

Conversely, if the ratio for a customer

was less than 99.5 percent, we

determined that all sales to the affiliated

customer were not at arm’s length

because, on average, the affiliated

customer paid less than unaffiliated

customers for the same merchandise.

Therefore, we excluded all sales to the

affiliated customer from our analysis.

Where we were unable to calculate an

affiliated customer ratio because

identical merchandise was not sold to

both affiliated and unaffiliated

customers, we were unable to determine

if these sales were at arm’s length and,

therefore, excluded them from our

analysis (see Stainless Steel Wire Rod

from France: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (61 FR 8915 (March 6, 1996)).

C. Cost-of-Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the cost of production (COP) in our last

completed A–588–054 review for Koyo

and NSK, and in our last completed A–

588–604 review for NTN, Koyo, and

NSK, we have reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of the

foreign like product under consideration

for the determination of NV in this

review may have been made at prices

below the COP, as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act (see Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews; Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, From Japan and

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or

Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, from Japan, 62 FR

11840 (March 13, 1997)). Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we initiated a COP investigation of sales

by Koyo and NSK in both TRBs cases

and for NTN in the A–588–604 case.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and the cost of all expenses

incidental to placing the foreign like

product in condition packed ready for

shipment. We relied on the home

market sales and COP information

provided by Koyo, NTN, and NSK

except in those instances where the data

was not appropriately quantified or

valued (see the company-specific COP/

CV preliminary results memoranda).

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of TRBs

were made at prices below COP within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities and whether such

prices permit the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COPs to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s home market sales for a

model are at prices less than the COP,

we do not disregard any below-cost

sales of that model because we

determine that the below-cost sales were

not made within an extended period of

time in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where

20 percent or more of a respondent’s

home market sales of a given model are

at prices less than COP, we disregard

the below-cost sales because they are 1)

made within an extended period of time

in substantial quantities in accordance

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the

Act, and 2) based on comparisons of

prices to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, were at prices which would not

permit the recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act.

The results of our cost tests for Koyo,

NTN, and NSK indicated that for certain

home market models, less than 20

percent of the sales of the model were

at prices below COP. We therefore

retained all sales of the model in our

analysis and used them as the basis for

determining NV. Our cost test for these

respondents also indicated that, within

an extended period of time (one year, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of

the Act), for certain home market

models more than 20 percent of the

home market sales were sold at prices

below COP. In accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore

excluded these below-cost sales from

our analysis and used the remaining

above-cost sales as the basis for

determining NV.

D. Product Comparisons

For all respondents except MC we

compared U.S. sales with

contemporaneous sales of the foreign

like product in the home market. We

considered bearings identical on the

basis of nomenclature and determined

most similar TRBs using our sum-of-thedeviations model-match methodology

which compares TRBs according to the

following five physical criteria: inside

diameter, outside diameter, width, load

rating, and Y2 factor. For Koyo, NTN,

and NSK we used a 20 percent
47458 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

difference-in-merchandise (difmer) cost

deviation cap as the maximum

difference in cost allowable for similar

merchandise, which we calculated as

the absolute value of the difference

between the U.S. and home market

variable costs of manufacturing divided

by the U.S. total cost of manufacturing.

Because Fuji, a reseller, was unable to

provide the variable and total costs of

manufacturing for the TRBs it

purchased from Japanese producers, it

instead provided its acquisition cost for

each TRB model purchased from

Japanese producers. As a result,

consistent with our practice in past

TRBs reviews for Fuji, we used these

acquisition costs as the basis for our 20-

percent difmer cap (see, e.g., Tapered

Roller Bearings and Part Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, from Japan:

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Reviews and Termination in Part, 61 FR

25200 (May 20, 1996)). For MC, we

compared U.S. sales with

contemporaneous sales of the foreign

like product in the UK, a third-country

market. Because MC provided us with

limited model-match information, we

were unable to find matches for a small

number of U.S. sales. Therefore, for

those sales for which we were unable to

find matches due to MC’s failure to

provide necessary information, we

resorted to facts available (refer to the

‘‘Facts Available’’ section above).

E. Level of Trade

To the extent practicable, we

determine NV for sales at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or

CEP). See Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act. When there are no sales at the same

level of trade, we compare U.S. sales to

home market (or, if appropriate, thirdcountry) sales to a different level of

trade. The NV level of trade is that of

the starting-price sales in the home

market. When NV is based on CV, the

level of trade is that of the sales from

which we derive SG&A and profit. (See

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et. al.; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 62 FR 31571 (June 10, 1997).)

For both EP and CEP, the relevant

transaction for the level-of-trade

analysis is the sale (or constructed sale)

from the exporter to the importer. While

the starting price for CEP is that of a

subsequent resale to an unaffiliated

buyer, the construction of the CEP

results in a price that would have been

charged if the importer had not been

affiliated. We calculate the CEP by

removing from the first resale to an

independent U.S. customer the

expenses under section 772(d) of the

Act and the profit associated with these

expenses. These expenses represent

activities undertaken by the affiliated

importer. Because the expenses

deducted under section 772(d) of the

Act represent selling activities in the

United States, the deduction of these

expenses normally yields a different

level of trade for the CEP than for the

later resale (which we use for starting

price). Movement charges, duties, and

taxes deducted under section 772(c) of

the Act do not represent activities of the

affiliated importer, and we do not

remove them to obtain the CEP level of

trade.

To determine whether home market

sales are at a different level of trade than

U.S. sales, we examine whether the

home market sales are at different stages

in the marketing process than the U.S.

sales. The marketing process in both

markets begins with goods being sold by

the producer and extends to the sale to

the final user, regardless of whether the

final user is an individual consumer or

an industrial user. The chain of

distribution between the producer and

the final user may have many or few

links, and each respondent’s sales occur

somewhere along this chain. In the

United States the respondents’ sales are

generally to an importer, whether

independent or affiliated. We review

and compare the distribution system in

the home market and U.S. export

markets, including selling functions,

class of customer, and the extent and

level of selling expenses for each

claimed level of trade. Customer

categories such as distributor, original

equipment manufacturers (OEM) , or

wholesaler are commonly used by

respondents to describe levels of trade,

but, without substantiation, they are

insufficient to establish that a claimed

level of trade is valid. An analysis of the

chain of distribution and of the selling

functions substantiates or invalidates

the claimed levels of trade. If the

claimed levels are different, the selling

functions performed in selling to each

level should also be different.

Conversely, if levels of trade are

normally the same, the selling functions

performed should also be the same.

Different levels of trade necessarily

involve differences in selling functions,

but differences in selling functions,

even substantial ones, are not alone

sufficient to establish a difference in the

levels of trade. Different levels of trade

are characterized by purchasers at

different stages in the chain of

distribution and sellers performing

qualitatively or quantitatively different

functions in selling to them. (See

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et. al.; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 62 FR 31571 (June 10, 1997).)

When we compare U.S. sales to home

market sales at a different level of trade,

we make a level of trade adjustment if

the difference in levels of trade affects

price comparability. We determine any

effect on price comparability by

examining sales at different levels of

trade in a single market, the home

market. Any price effect must be

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differentials between home market

sales used for comparison and sales at

the equivalent level of trade of the

export transaction. To quantify the price

differences, we calculate the difference

in the average of the net prices of the

same models sold at different levels of

trade. We use the average difference in

net prices to adjust NV when NV is

based on a level of trade different from

that of the U.S. sale. If there is a pattern

of no price differences, the difference in

levels of trade does not affect price and,

therefore, no adjustment is necessary.

Section 773 of the Act provides for an

adjustment to NV when NV is based on

a level of trade different from that of the

CEP if the NV level is more remote from

the factory than the CEP and if we are

unable to determine whether the

difference in levels of trade between the

CEP and NV affects the comparability of

their prices. This later situation can

occur when there is no home market

level of trade equivalent to the U.S.

sales level or where there is an

equivalent home market level but the

data are insufficient to support a

conclusion on price effect. This

adjustment, the CEP offset, is identified

in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and is

the lower of the following:

• The indirect selling expenses on the

home market sale, or

• The indirect selling expenses

deducted from the starting price used to

calculate CEP.

The CEP offset is not automatic each

time we use CEP. The CEP offset is

made only when the level of trade of the

home market sale is more advanced

than the level of trade of the U.S. (CEP)

sale and there is not an appropriate

basis for determining whether there is

an effect on price comparability.

We determined that for respondents

Koyo and NSK, there were two home

market levels of trade and one U.S. level

of trade (i.e., the CEP level of trade). For

Fuji, we determined that one level of

trade existed in the home market and

three distinct levels of trade existed in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47459

the U.S. market (the CEP level of trade,

and two EP levels of trade). Because

there was no home market level of trade

equivalent to the U.S. level of trade for

Fuji, NSK, and Koyo, and because NV

for these firms was more remote from

the factory than the CEP, we made a

CEP offset adjustment to NV.

We determined that for MC, a single

level of trade existed in the thirdcountry market, and that a single EP

level of trade existed in the U.S. market.

Based on our comparison of the U.S. EP

level of trade to the third-country level

of trade, we have determined that the

third-country level of trade was the

same as the EP level of trade.

For NTN we found that there were

three home market levels of trade and

two (EP and CEP) levels of trade in the

U.S. Because there were no home

market levels of trade equivalent to

NTN’s CEP level of trade, and because

NV for NTN was more remote from the

factory than the CEP, we made a CEP

offset adjustment to NV. We also

determined that NTN’s EP level of trade

was equivalent to one of its levels of

trade in the home market. Because we

determined that there was a pattern of

consistent price differences, we made a

level-of-trade adjustment to NV for

NTN. For a company-specific

description of our level-of-trade

analysis, see the preliminary analysis

memoranda to John Kugelman, on file in

Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit, Room B–099 of the Main

Commerce building.

F. Home Market Price

While we disregarded below-cost

home market sales for Koyo, NTN, and

NSK, these respondents’ remaining

home market sales were sufficient to

serve as the basis for NV.

For all respondents except MC we

based home market prices on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

affiliated purchasers (where an arm’slength relationship was demonstrated)

and unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. For MC, we based NV on the

prices at which the foreign like products

were first sold for consumption in the

United Kingdom, a third-country

market. We made adjustments for

differences in packing and for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

In addition, we made adjustments for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for

differences in circumstances of sale

(COS) in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.56. For comparison to EP we made

COS adjustments by deducting home

market direct selling expenses and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For

comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments to NV by deducting home

market direct selling expenses and,

where applicable, adding U.S. direct

selling expenses, except those deducted

from the starting price in calculating

CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the

Act. We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in EP and CEP

calculations. No other adjustments were

claimed or allowed.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we based NV on CV if 1) sale

of a U.S. model matched to a home

market model for which no sales were

above cost, or 2) we were unable to find

a contemporaneous home market match

for the U.S. sale. We calculated CV

based on the cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

subject merchandise, SG&A, and profit.

In accordance with 772(e)(2)(A) of the

Act, we based SG&A expenses and

profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by the respondent in

connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

To the extent possible, we calculated CV

by level of trade, using the selling

expenses and profit determined for each

level of trade in the comparison market.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.56 for COS adjustments and levelof-trade differences. For comparisons to

EP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we

made COS adjustments by deducting

home market direct selling expenses.

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset commissions

in EP and CEP comparisons.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the following

weighted-average dumping margins

exist for the period October 1, 1995

through September 30, 1996:

Manufacturer / Exporter / ResellerMargin

(percent)

For the A–588–054 Case:

Koyo Seiko ................................ 8.78

Fuji ............................................ .34

Manufacturer / Exporter / ResellerMargin

(percent)

NSK ........................................... 1.85

MC International ....................... 1.05

For the A–588–604 Case:

Fuji ............................................ (1)

MC International ....................... (1)

Koyo Seiko ................................ 23.26

NTN ........................................... 27.80

NSK ........................................... 9.70

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review. These firms have no rate from any prior

segment of this proceeding.

Parties to these proceedings may

request disclosure within five days of

the date of publication of this notice and

may request a hearing within ten days

of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the

date of publication, or the first business

day thereafter. Case briefs and/or

written comments from interested

parties may be submitted no later than

30 days after the date of publication.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

filed no later than 37 days after the date

of publication of this notice. Parties who

submit argument in these proceedings

are requested to submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issues

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue

final results of these administrative

reviews, including the results of our

analysis of the issues in any such

written comments or at a hearing,

within 120 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We will calculate importerspecific ad valorem duty-assessment

rates for the merchandise based on the

ratio of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

made during the POR to the total

customs value of the sales used to

calculate those duties. This rate will be

assessed uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between NV and U.S. price,

by the total U.S. price value of the sales

compared and adjusting the result by

the average difference between U.S.

price and customs value for all

merchandise examined during the POR.)

While the Department is aware that the

entered value of sales during the POR is

not necessarily equal to the entered

value of entries during the POR, use of

entered value of sales as basis of the

assessment rate permits the Department
47460 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

1Avesta Sheffield Inc.; Bristol Metals; Damascus

Tube Division, Damascus-Bishop Tube Co.; Trent

Tube Division, Crucible Materials Corporation; and

United Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/CLC).

to collect a reasonable approximation of

the antidumping duties which would

have been determined if the Department

had reviewed those sales of

merchandise actually entered during the

POR. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results if these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of TRBs from Japan entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews;

(2) For previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period;

(3) If the exporter is not a firm

covered in these reviews, a prior review,

or the LTFV investigations, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in these

or any previous reviews conducted by

the Department, the cash deposit rate for

the A–588–054 case will be 18.07

percent, and 36.52 percent for the A–

588–604 case (see Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings,

Finished and Unfinished, and Parts

Thereof, from Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan, 58 FR 51061 (September

30, 1993)).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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. These

administrative reviews and this notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23852 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–810]

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

From Korea; Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

petitioners, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 9413,

March 3, 1997) the notice of initiation

of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded stainless steel pipe from Korea,

for the period December 1, 1995 through

November 30, 1996. On May 6, 1997, we

received a request for withdrawal of this

review from petitioners. Because this

request was timely submitted and

because no other interested party

requested a review, we are terminating

this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery, AD/

CVD Enforcement, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

Applicable Regulations: Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 353

(April 1, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 31, 1996, petitioners 1

requested an administrative review

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a) with

respect to the following manufacturers/

exporters: Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd.; L.G.

Metals; Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.;

Sammi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; and

SEAH Steel Corporation. On March 3,

1997, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c), we initiated an administrative

review of this order. On May 6, 1997,

we received a timely withdrawal of

request for review from petitioners.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may allow a party that

requests an administrative review to

withdraw such request not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review.

Because petitioners’ request for

termination was submitted within the

90-day time limit and there were no

requests for review from other interested

parties, we are terminating this review.

This termination of administrative

review and notice are in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Dated: September 3, 1997.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–23854 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–404]

Live Swine From Canada; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on live swine

from Canada for the period April 1,

1995 through March 31, 1996. For

information on the net subsidy for all

producers covered by this order, see the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice. If the final results remain

the same as these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as detailed in the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice. Interested parties are invited

to comment on these preliminary

results. See Public Comment section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, Office