[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66711-66717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28570]


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

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 two respondents, 
the

[[Page 66712]]

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 of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period October 1, 1998, 
through September 30, 1999. The review of the A-588-604 order covers 
three manufacturers/exporters and the period October 1, 1998, through 
September 30, 1999.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of TRBs have been made below 
the normal value (NV) for all respondents. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, 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: November 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott (NTN or NSK), Patricia 
Tran (Koyo Seiko), or Robert James, 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) 482-2657, (202) 482-2704, or 
(202) 482-0649, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act) are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act. In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1, 2000).

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 (the 
A-588-054 case), and on October 6, 1987 the Department published the 
antidumping duty order on TRBs from Japan (the A-588-604 case) (52 FR 
37352). On October 20, 1999, the Department published the notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' for both TRB cases 
covering the period October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999 (64 FR 
56485).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 (b)(1), the petitioner, the 
Timken Company (Timken), requested that we conduct a review of Koyo 
Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo) and NSK Ltd. (NSK) in both the A-588-054 and A-
588-604 cases. Timken also requested that we conduct a review of NTN 
Corporation (NTN) in the A-588-604 TRB case. In addition, NTN requested 
that the Department conduct a review in the A-588-604 case and NSK 
requested that the Department conduct a review in both the A-588-604 
and A-588-054 cases. On December 3, 1999, we published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of these antidumping duty 
administrative reviews covering the period October 1, 1998 through 
September 30, 1999 (64 FR 67846).
    Because it was not practicable to complete these reviews within the 
normal time frame, on May 26, 2000, 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 reviews (65 FR 34148). This extension established 
the deadline for these preliminary results of October 31, 2000.

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 8482.99.15.
    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 this order, except those 
manufactured by NTN. This merchandise is currently classifiable under 
HTS item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 
8483.90.80. 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 description remains dispositive.
    The period for each 1998-99 review is October 1, 1998, through 
September 30, 1999. The review of the A-588-054 finding covers TRB 
sales by two manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and NSK). The review of the 
A-588-604 order covers TRBs sales by three manufacturers/exporters 
(Koyo, NTN, and NSK).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified 
information provided by NTN and Koyo, using standard verification 
procedures, 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, on file in Room B-099 in the main 
Commerce building.

Use of Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act, in these 
preliminary results we find 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 sales and cost information Koyo failed to report for 
its sales of U.S. further-manufactured merchandise subject to the A-
588-604 order.
    On February 11, 2000, Koyo requested that it not be required to 
submit a response to Section E of our questionnaire regarding its U.S. 
further-manufactured sales. We informed Koyo on April 11, 2000 that it 
was required to supply further-manufacturing data by responding to 
section E of the Department's questionnaire by May 2, 2000. Koyo did 
not provide section E data, as requested by our questionnaire. 
Therefore, as in 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; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in 
Part, 65 FR 11767 (March 6, 2000) (1997-98 TRB Final), we have 
preliminarily determined that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) and 
776(b) of the Tariff Act, it is appropriate to make an inference 
adverse to the interests of Koyo because it failed to cooperate by not 
responding to the Department's request for information.
    Section 776(a)(2)(b) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department 
will,

[[Page 66713]]

subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching a determination if a respondent fails to provide necessary 
information ``by the deadlines for submission of the information or in 
the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782'' [of the Tariff Act]. Despite requests for information 
related to further processing in both our original and supplemental 
questionnaires, Koyo neglected to submit this information in the form 
and manner requested by the Department. Section 782(c)(1) of the Tariff 
Act does not apply in this instance since Koyo did not provide a full 
explanation of why it was not able to submit the further processing 
information requested in section E, nor did it suggest an alternative 
form in which it could submit section E data. Moreover, pursuant to 
section 782(d), Koyo was specifically informed that it was required to 
submit section E, yet it failed to do so and failed to provide any 
explanation of this deficiency. Finally, under section 782(e) the 
Department concludes that Koyo's information, absent section E, is too 
incomplete to serve as a reliable basis for this determination, and 
that Koyo has not acted to the best of its ability (see discussion 
below). Because we did not receive the further processing data we 
requested either in the form and manner outlined in section E or in an 
acceptable alternative format by our established deadline, we determine 
that the use of facts available is appropriate in this case for Koyo.
    The Department is authorized, under section 776(b) of the Tariff 
Act, to use an inference that is adverse to the interest of a party if 
the Department finds that the party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's 
request for information. We examined whether Koyo had acted to the best 
of its ability in responding to our requests for information. We took 
into consideration the fact that, as an experienced respondent in 
reviews of the TRB orders as well as the separate order covering 
antifriction bearings, it can reasonably be expected to know which 
types of information we request in each review. Because Koyo has 
submitted to the Department in previous TRB reviews complete further-
manufacturing responses, we have determined that it failed to act to 
the best of its ability in providing the data we requested and that 
adverse inferences are warranted. See 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 the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 61 FR 25200 (May 20, 
1996). As a result, we have used the highest rate determined for Koyo 
from any prior segment of the A-588-604 proceedings as partial adverse 
facts available, which is secondary information within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Tariff Act. See 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1)(iii).
    Section 776(c) of the Tariff 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. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994); 19 CFR 351.308(d)).
    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 calculated 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 41.04 percent, the rate we 
calculated for Koyo in the 1993-94 A-588-604 review, is the highest 
rate for this firm in any prior segment of the A-588-604 order. See 
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; Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Termination in Part, 63 FR 20585 (April 27, 
1998). In the absence of information on the administrative record that 
application of this 41.04 percent rate would be inappropriate, that the 
margin is not relevant, or that leads us to re-examine this rate as 
adverse facts available in the instant review, we find the margin 
reliable and relevant. As a result, for these preliminary results we 
have applied as adverse facts available, a margin of 41.04 percent to 
Koyo's further-manufactured U.S. sales.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Because all of Koyo's and NSK's sales and certain of NTN's sales of 
subject merchandise were first sold to unaffiliated purchasers after 
importation into the United States, in calculating U.S. price for these 
sales we used constructed export price (CEP) as defined in section 
772(b) of the Tariff 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 Tariff 
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, post-sale 
warehousing, pre-sale warehousing, 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) of the Tariff Act: 
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 
advertising expenses, and indirect technical services expenses). 
Finally, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act, we further 
reduced U.S. price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP.
    In the instant review NTN claimed an offsetting adjustment to its 
U.S. indirect

[[Page 66714]]

selling expenses to account for ``the interest expense incurred 
financing antidumping duty deposits.'' See NTN's April 28, 2000 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response at C-6 and C-7. Because we have 
long maintained, and continue to maintain, that antidumping duties, and 
cash deposits of antidumping duties, are not expenses that we should 
remove from U.S. indirect selling expenses, we have continued to deny 
such an adjustment. See, e.g., 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; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 63 FR 63860, 63865 (November 17, 1998) (1996-97 TRB Final).
    Because certain of NTN's sales of subject merchandise were made to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into 
the United States and the CEP methodology was not indicated by the 
facts of record, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff 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 Tariff 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 
Tariff 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 Tariff Act is 
applicable. Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act provides that, where the 
subject merchandise is imported by a person affiliated with the 
exporter or producer and the value added in the United States by the 
affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the 
subject merchandise, and 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, we shall determine the CEP for such 
merchandise using the price of identical or other subject merchandise 
sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person. If there is 
not a sufficient quantity of such sales to provide a reasonable basis 
for comparison, 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 Tariff 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 sections 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act. In deciding 
whether it is more appropriate to use the standard methodology, we have 
considered and weighed the burden on the Department in 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 on the Department of using the standard 
methodology may vary from case to case depending on factors such as the 
nature of the further-manufacturing 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 on the Department 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 
likely will determine that application of the standard methodology is 
not more appropriate than application of the methods described in 
paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2), or some other reasonable alternate 
methodology. By contrast, if the burden is relatively low and there is 
reason to believe the standard methodology is 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) of the Tariff Act in lieu of the standard methodology. See 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, 62 FR 47452, 47455 (September 9, 1997) 
(1995-96 TRB Prelim).
    NTN imported subject merchandise (TRB parts) which was further 
processed in the United States. NTN 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. Based on 
information provided by NTN in its January 10, 2000 and January 14, 
2000 letters to the Department, 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 by the affiliated party for 
the subject merchandise (imported TRB parts), and determined that the 
value added was likely to exceed substantially the value of the 
imported TRB parts.
    We then examined whether it would be appropriate to use sales of 
identical or other subject merchandise to unaffiliated persons as a 
basis for comparison, as stated under paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2) of 
the Tariff Act. Based on the information provided by NTN in Exhibit A-1 
of its February 11, 2000 questionnaire response and its January 10, 
2000 and January 14, 2000 letters, we determined that sales of 
identical or other subject merchandise to unaffiliated persons were in 
sufficient quantity for the purpose of determining dumping margins for 
NTN's imported TRBs which were further manufactured in the United 
States prior to resale. Furthermore, the proportion of NTN's further-
manufactured merchandise to its total imports of subject merchandise 
was relatively low. In NTN's case, any potential gains in accuracy 
obtained by examining NTN's further-manufactured sales are outweighed 
by the burden of the applying the standard methodology. Accordingly, it 
would be appropriate to apply one of the methodologies specified in the 
statute with respect to NTN's imported TRB parts. Therefore, we have 
used the weighted-average dumping margins we calculated on NTN's sales 
of identical or similar subject merchandise to unaffiliated persons in 
the United States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c).
    With respect to Koyo, while we determined that the value added to 
the United States was likely to exceed the value of the imported 
products, we have determined that the use of either of the two proxies 
specified in the statute is not appropriate. See Facts Available 
section for further information.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

[[Page 66715]]

Normal Value

A. Viability

    Based on (1) 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 and (2) the absence of any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product for all 
respondents sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a 
proper comparison with the sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, we based NV 
on the prices at which the foreign like products were first sold for 
consumption in Japan.

B. Arm's-Length Sales

    For all respondents we have excluded from our analysis those sales 
made to affiliated customers in the home market which were not at arm's 
length. 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 
customer paid less than unaffiliated customers for the same 
merchandise. Therefore, we excluded all sales to the 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 
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 30185 (June 3, 1998)).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales made at prices 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 for these companies may have been made at prices below the 
COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act (see 
1997-98 TRB Final). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 
Tariff Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by NTN for the A-
588-604 case and by Koyo and NSK for both TRB cases.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff 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 company-specific preliminary results analysis 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, or rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff 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 
Tariff 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 Tariff Act.
    The results of our cost test 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 
these home market models 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 Tariff 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 Tariff 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 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-the-deviations model-match methodology 
which compares TRBs according to the following five physical criteria: 
inside diameter, outside diameter, width, load rating, and Y2 factor. 
We used a 20 percent 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 total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. 
product.

E. Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined NV for sales at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there were no 
sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to home market 
sales at a different level of trade. The NV level of trade is that of 
the starting-price sales in the home market. When NV is based on 
constructed value (CV), the level of trade is that of the sales from 
which we derived SG&A and profit.
    To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a 
different level of trade and the differences affected price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction,

[[Page 66716]]

we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Tariff Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 
62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We determined that for respondents Koyo and NSK, there were two 
home market levels of trade and one U.S. level of trade (CEP). Because 
there was no home market level of trade equivalent to the U.S. level(s) 
of trade for Koyo and NSK, and because NV for these firms represented a 
price more remote from the factory than CEP, we made a CEP offset 
adjustment to NV. 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 represented a price more 
remote from the factory than CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment to NV 
in our CEP comparisons. We also determined that NTN's EP level of trade 
was equivalent to one of NTN's home market levels of trade. Because we 
determined that there was a pattern of consistent price differences due 
to differences in levels of trade, we made a level of trade adjustment 
to NV for NTN in our EP comparisons where the U.S. EP sale matched to a 
home market sale at a different level of trade. For more detailed 
company-specific descriptions of our level-of-trade analyses for these 
preliminary results, see the preliminary results analysis memoranda to 
Robert James, on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, 
Room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

F. Home Market Price

    We based home market prices on the packed, ex-factory or delivered 
prices to affiliated purchasers (where an arm's-length relationship was 
demonstrated) and unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff 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 Tariff Act, and for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 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. 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 Tariff Act, we based NV 
on CV if 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 Tariff 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 weighted-average 
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 COS and level of trade adjustments to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 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, 1998, through September 30, 1999, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                  Manufacturer/  Exporter                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the A-588-054 Case:
    Koyo Seiko.............................................        14.86
    NSK....................................................        16.60
For the A-588-604 Case:
    Koyo Seiko.............................................        17.94
    NTN....................................................        12.96
    NSK....................................................         7.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication. See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 
CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or 
written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and 
comments, may be filed no later than 35 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 issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting 
written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy 
of the public version of any such comments on diskette. 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 publication of these preliminary 
results.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific ad 
valorem 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. 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 of 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 Tariff Act:
    (1) The cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the 
rates shown above except that, for firms whose weighted-average margins 
are less than 0.5 percent and therefore de minimis, the Department 
shall not require a deposit of estimated antidumping duties;

[[Page 66717]]

    (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 will be 18.07 percent for the A-588-054 case, 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 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 this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: October 30, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-28570 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P