Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices 18877

the extent that the Department makes an

affirmative countervailing duty

determination with respect to such

programs and with respect to the

exporters or producers subject to the

sunset review. The SAA at 889, states

that,

[S]ubsidy allegations normally should be

made in the context of [administrative]

reviews * * *, and [the Department is not

expected] to entertain frivolous allegations in

. . . [sunset] reviews. However, where there

have been no recent [administrative] reviews

or where the alleged countervailable subsidy

program came into existence after the most

recently completed [administrative] review,

[the Department] may consider new subsidy

allegations in the context of a * * * [sunset]

review.

Therefore, the Department will

consider programs newly alleged to

provide countervailable subsidies if the

Department determines that good cause

to consider such programs exists.

Furthermore, the Department normally

will consider a new subsidy allegation

in the context of a sunset review only

where information on such program was

not reasonably available to domestic

interested parties during the most

recently completed administrative

review or the alleged countervailable

subsidy program came into existence

after that administrative review. The

burden is on interested parties to

provide information or evidence that

would warrant consideration of the

subsidy program in question. In

addition, with respect to a sunset review

of a suspended investigation, where the

Department determines that good cause

exists, the Department normally will

conduct the sunset review consistent

with its practice of examining

likelihood under section 751(a) of the

Act.

[FR Doc. 98–10039 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588–

804, A–485–801, A–559–801, A–401–801, A–

549–801, A–412–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, et al.; Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final court decision

and amended final results of

administrative reviews.

SUMMARY: On December 12, 1996, the

United States Court of International

Trade affirmed the Department of

Commerce’s final remand results

affecting final assessment rates for the

third administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on antifriction

bearings (other than tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof from France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom. The classes or kinds of

merchandise covered by these reviews

are ball bearings and parts thereof,

cylindrical roller bearings and parts

thereof, and spherical plain bearings

and parts thereof. As there is now a final

and conclusive court decision in these

actions (with the exceptions of SKF

GmbH, SKF Industrie S.p.A. and SKF

Sverige AB which have filed appeals to

the Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit), we are amending our final

results of reviews and we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate

entries subject to these reviews with the

exception of those still under appeal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Thompson or Jay Biggs, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482–

1690.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are references

to the provisions in effect as of

December 31, 1994. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part

353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

On July 26, 1993, the Department

published its final results of

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on antifriction

bearings (other than tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof from France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom, covering the period

May 1, 1991 through April 30, 1992

(AFBs III) (58 FR 39729). These final

results were amended on August 9,

1993, September 30, 1993, December 15,

1993 and February 28, 1994 (see 58 FR

42288, 58 FR 51055, 58 FR 65576 and

59 FR 9469, respectively). The classes or

kinds of merchandise covered by these

reviews are ball bearings and parts

thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings

and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical

plain bearings and parts thereof (SPBs).

Subsequently, two domestic producers,

the Torrington Company and FederalMogul, and a number of other interested

parties filed lawsuits with the U.S.

Court of International Trade (CIT)

challenging the final results. These

lawsuits were litigated at the CIT and

the United States Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit (CAFC). In the

course of this litigation, the CIT and

CAFC issued a number of orders and

opinions, of which the following have

resulted in changes to the antidumping

margins calculated in AFBs III:

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the

Torrington Company v. United States,

Slip Op. 96–37, (February 13, 1996)

with respect to France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand,

and the United Kingdom;

Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, Fed.

Cir. Nos. 93–1525, 93–1534 (September

30, 1994) with respect to Japan;

NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation v.

United States, Slip Op. 94–175

(November 14, 1994) with respect to

Japan;

NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation v.

United States, Slip Op. 94–181

(November 28, 1994) with respect to

Japan;

NSK Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op.

96–125 (August 5, 1996) with respect to

Japan;

SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Slip

Op. 95–82 (May 4, 1995) with respect to

Italy;

SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Slip

Op. 96–13 (January 10, 1996) with

respect to France;

SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Slip

Op. 96–15 (January 16, 1996) with

respect to Italy;

SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Slip

Op. 96–16 (January 16, 1996) with

respect to Sweden;

FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer

KgaA., FAG Italia S.p.A, FAG (U.K.)

Limited, Barden Corporation Limited,

FAG Bearings Corporation and The

Barden Corporation v. United States,

Slip Op. 96–108 (July 10, 1996) with

respect to Italy, Germany, and the

United Kingdom;

INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA

Bearing Company, Inc. v. United States,

Slip Op. 96–26 (January 29, 1996) with

respect to Germany;

SNR Roulements v. United States,

Slip Op. 98–6 (January 23, 1998) with

respect to France;

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the

Torrington Company v. United States,

Slip Op. 96–193 (December 12, 1996)
18878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices

with respect to France, Germany, Japan,

Singapore, and Thailand;

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the

Torrington Company v. United States,

Slip Op. 97–9 (January 22, 1997) with

respect to Japan.

In the context of the above-cited

litigation, the CIT (in some cases based

on decisions by the CAFC) ordered the

Department to make methodological

changes and to recalculate the

antidumping margins for certain firms

under review. Specifically, the CIT

ordered the Department inter alia to: (1)

Change its methodology for computing

inventory carrying costs; (2) reallocate

NSK’s advertising expenses; (3) deny an

adjustment to foreign market value

(FMV) for home-market pre-sale freight

expenses where FMV was calculated

using purchase price; (4) develop a

methodology which removes post-sale

price adjustments and rebates paid on

sales of out-of-scope merchandise from

its calculations of FMV or, if no viable

method can be developed, deny such an

adjustment in its calculation of FMV; (5)

reconsider its decision to accept NTN’s

downward adjustments to United States

indirect selling expenses for interest

paid on cash deposits; (6) determine

whether NTN demonstrated that selling

expenses for aftermarket customers were

different than for distributors and OEMs

and, if not, collapse sales to aftermarket

customers and distributors to form a

single level of trade; (7) provide a

reasonable explanation as to why the

Department changed its findings in the

original investigation that NMB/

Pelmec’s ‘‘Route B’’ sales are thirdcountry sales or, if none can be given,

exclude these sales from the homemarket database; (8) determine whether

NMB/Pelmec’s related-party sales were

made at market prices and, if not,

exclude such sales from its calculation

of profit; and (9) correct various clerical

errors.

On December 12, 1996, the CIT

affirmed the Department’s final remand

results affecting final assessment rates

for all the above cases (except the

reviews involving SKF which are still

subject to further litigation). See

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the

Torrington Company v. United States,

Slip Op. 96–193 (December 12, 1996).

As there are now final and conclusive

court decisions in these actions, we are

amending our final results of review in

these matters, with the exception of

those cases which are still under appeal,

and we will subsequently instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate entries

subject to these reviews.

Amendment to Final Results

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the

Tariff Act, we are now amending the

final results of administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom, except for those cases

still under appeal, for the period May 1,

1991, through April 30, 1992. The

revised weighted-average margins are as

follows:

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

FRANCE

SKF ...................... 1.97 (1) (3)

SNR ..................... 1.13 0.81 (2)

GERMANY

FAG ..................... 11.83 17.63 (3)

Fichtel & Sachs ... (3) (2) (2)

INA ....................... 23.19 (3) (2)

NTN ..................... (3) (1) (1)

ITALY

FAG ..................... 5.36 (3) ..............

JAPAN

Koyo ..................... 8.28 3.19 (3)

Nachi .................... 7.59 (3) (2)

NPB ..................... 7.90 (2) (2)

NTN ..................... 2.94 0.73 6.41

NSK ..................... 17.85 27.09 (1)

Singapore

NMB/Pelmec ........ 8.54 .............. ..............

THAILAND

NMB/Pelmec ........ 0.17 .............. ..............

UNITED

KINGDOM

Barden Corporation ................... 7.57 (3) ..............

FAG ..................... 21.77 (3) ..............

RHP–NSK ............ 50.32 45.61 ..............

(1) No U.S. sales during the review period.

(2) No review requested.

(3) No rate change for a class or kind due to

litigation.

Accordingly, the Department will

determine and the U.S. Customs Service

will assess appropriate antidumping

duties on entries of the subject

merchandise made by firms covered by

these reviews. Individual differences

between United States price and foreign

market value may vary from the

percentages listed above. The

Department has already issued

appraisement instructions to the

Customs Service for certain companies

whose margins have not changed from

those announced in AFBs III and the

three previous amendments. For

companies covered by these amended

results, the Department will issue

appraisement instructions to the U.S.

Customs Service after publication of

these amended final results of reviews.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: April 7, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10040 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–403–801]

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon

From Norway; Notice of Rescission of

Antidumping New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping new shipper review.

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 65666) a notice

announcing the initiation of a new

shipper antidumping review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway,

covering the period April 1, 1996,

through September 30, 1997, and one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise, Nornir Group A/S. This

review has now been rescinded as a

result of the withdrawal of the request

for administrative review by the

interested party.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

II, Import Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–4195 or 482–3814,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351,

62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).