2130 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

adhered to the proposition that each

administrative review is a separate and

distinct proceeding and that, while

Department practice is helpful and

instructive in succeeding reviews, it is

not binding. Finally, FAG Germany and

FAG Italy contend that Torrington’s

request would place a burden on

respondents by making them recite the

history of each adjustment permitted or

rejected over all previous reviews. FAG

Italy and FAG Germany state that such

a burden would be overwhelming and

unnecessary.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Torrington that we should require

that all respondents conform their

submissions, their allocations, and their

methodology to our most recent prior

determinations and rulings. We also

disagree with Torrington that

respondents should identify where they

have continued to use any methodology

that we rejected in a prior review and

justify the departure from established

practice. Each administrative review is

a separate reviewable segment of the

proceeding involving different sales,

adjustments, and underlying facts. What

transpired in previous reviews is not

binding precedent in later reviews, and

parties are entitled, at the risk of the

Department’s determining otherwise, to

argue against a prior Department

determination. As a practical matter,

methodologies the Department accepts

in one review are generally used by

respondents in subsequent reviews and

methodologies the Department rejects

are not perpetuated in later reviews. The

Department, however, may reconsider

its position on an issue during the

course of the proceeding in light of facts

and arguments presented by the parties.

D. Country of Origin. Comment 1:

Torrington claims that SKF Germany

did not disclose its methodology for

determining country of origin after the

Department asked it in its supplemental

questionnaire to do so. Torrington

claims that SKF Germany asserted in its

supplemental questionnaire response

that its methodology had not changed

over the past reviews, but that it did not

indicate the product’s essential

characteristics for purposes of

determining country of origin. In

addition, Torrington contends that SKF

Germany did not indicate what

manufacturing steps convey origin, and

SKF Germany did not indicate the

methodology which it has consistently

applied. Torrington argues further that

SKF Germany does not describe how it

arrived at its origin determination.

Torrington asserts that if the company

cannot clear up these questions the

Department should conclude that it is

unable to determine whether SKF

Germany has reported all sales of

German bearings in its HM and U.S.

sales listings and apply facts available.

Torrington suggests that an appropriate

facts available solution would be to

apply the highest margin found for any

SKF company in this review.

SKF Germany contends that, as it

stated in its questionnaire and

supplemental questionnaire responses,

it considers the complexity and extent

of the manufacturing processes involved

and the origin of each bearing’s major

components when identifying country

of origin for its bearings. SKF Germany

claims that the accurate determination

of origin is important to the proper

reporting of its sales in an

administrative review and in order to

comply with European and United

States marking and other requirements.

SKF Germany contends further that in

multiple prior verifications the

Department has confirmed the accuracy

and completeness of SKF Germany’s

sales reporting. In addition, SKF

Germany claims that, in this review, the

Department also affirmed the accuracy

of its sales reporting, including a

description of the specific steps taken at

verification to confirm SKF’s origin

determinations. SKF Germany contends

that, as the Department verified, it

reported sales of all German origin

bearings.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SKF Germany. We are satisfied that SKF

Germany reported all of its Germanorigin bearings and did not report sales

of non-German origin bearings in this

review. We verified, in this review, SKF

Germany’s methodology and were able

to trace the procedure that SKF

Germany uses in determining the

country of origin for its bearings. We did

not find any discrepancies in SKF

Germany’s reporting methodology in

our examination of invoices, inventory

records, and sales registers.

Comment 2: Torrington argues that

the Department should confirm that

NSK–RHP has determined the country

of origin properly for all reported

bearings. Torrington asserts that NSK–

RHP did not answer fully a question

that the Department asked in its

supplemental questionnaire on the

country of origin of bearings NSK–RHP

sold in or to the U.S. market. Torrington

contends that NSK–RHP did not clarify

how it determines whether a bearing is

a U.K.-produced (versus a Japaneseproduced) bearing in its supplemental

response. For these reasons, Torrington

requests that Department consider

applying facts available for these final

results. Torrington also suggests that an

appropriate facts-available solution

would be to apply the highest margin

found for any NSK–related company for

this review period.

NSK–RHP argues that it only sold

RHP-brand bearings in, or to, the United

States during the POR. Further, NSK–

RHP asserts that almost all of these

bearings were produced at factories

owned and controlled by RHP Bearings,

Ltd. NSK–RHP maintains that the few

remaining RHP-brand bearings

manufactured by NSK Bearings Europe

were sold in the United States during

the sample weeks. NSK–RHP argues that

NSK-brand bearings manufactured by

NSK Bearings Europe were not sold in,

or to, the United States during the

review period. Moreover, NSK–RHP

argues that it has already reported the

degree to which affiliated companies

provided raw materials or components

either to RHP Bearings, NSK Bearings

Europe, or both, during the POR.

Therefore, NSK–RHP asserts, an

examination of this material

demonstrates that bearings

manufactured in Japan were not

reported as U.K. merchandise.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Torrington. We addressed the

question in our supplemental

questionnaire in relation to NSK–RHP’s

further-manufactured sales. NSK–RHP

reported these sales as being of U.K.

origin. There is nothing on the record

that suggests these sales are not of U.K.

origin and Torrington has not provided

any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, we have examined NSK–

RHP’s methodology for reporting its

bearings and are satisfied that NSK–RHP

properly determined the country of

origin of all reported bearings.

[FR Doc. 97–923 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–428–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from Germany: Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On January 6, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (The

Department) issued the final results of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty orders on Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices 2131

1The Department has determined that Pacific

Pipe Company had no U.S. sales during the period

of review.

Singapore, and the United Kingdom,

which has not yet been published in the

Federal Register.

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. The reviews cover 27

manufacturers/exporters. The review

period is May 1, 1994 through April 30,

1995. We are correcting a margin-rate

error with respect to ball bearings from

Germany manufactured/exported by

FAG KGS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 6, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (The Department) issued the

notice of final results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty orders

on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Singapore, and the United

Kingdom, which has not yet been

published in the Federal Register. 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. The reviews

cover 27 manufacturers/exporters. The

review period is May 1, 1994 through

April 30, 1995.

After issuance of our final results, we

realized that we did not publish the

correct margin we calculated for the

final results with respect to ball bearings

from Germany manufactured and

exported by FAG.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act of

1930 (as amended) by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (URAA). In

addition, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Amended Final Results of Review

We have determined the following

weighted-average margin to exist for the

period May 1, 1994 through April 30,

1995:

Country Company Class or kind Rate

Germany ..................................................... FAG ............................................................. Ball Bearings ............................................... 13.48%

A cash deposit of estimated

antidumping duties based on the above

margin shall be effective upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of administrative review for

all shipments entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (as amended). This deposit

requirement shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final 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 notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This administrative review and this

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: January 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–994 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–549–502]

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand:

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On November 1, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand (61 FR 56515). This

review covers Saha Thai Steel Pipe

Company, SAF Steel Pipe Export

Company, and Pacific Pipe Company.1

The period of review (POR) is March 1,

1994 through February 28, 1995.

On October 31, 1996, counsel for the

petitioning companies Allied Tube &

Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular

Division of Armco, Inc., American Tube

Company, Inc., Laclede Steel Company,

Sharon Tube Company, Wheatland

Tube Company, and Eagle Pipe

(‘‘petitioners’’) filed timely allegations,

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.28, of

ministerial and clerical errors with

regard to the final results in the 1994–

95 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand. Petitioners’’

allegations were limited to alleged

errors in calculating the dumping

margin for subject merchandise

manufactured by Saha Thai. On

November 20, 1996, Saha Thai also

submitted timely allegations of clerical

errors. Saha Thai did not comment on

the allegations submitted by petitioners.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Rice or Jean Kemp, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0162 or (202) 482–

4037, respectively.

Applicable Statute

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.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,