Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37339

Final Results of Review; Partial

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order

The affirmative statement of no

interest by petitioners in glass-lined

seamless pressure pipe from Brazil

constitutes changed circumstances

sufficient to warrant partial revocation

of this order. Therefore, the Department

is partially revoking the order on small

diameter circular seamless carbon and

alloy steel standard, line and pressure

pipe from Brazil with respect to certain

glass-lined seamless pressure pipe as

described above, in accordance with

sections 751(b) and 782(h) of the Act

and 19 CFR 351.216(d)(1). This partial

revocation applies to all unliquidated

entries of the subject glass-lined

seamless pressure pipe not covered by

the final result of an administrative

review.

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to proceed with

liquidation, without regard to

antidumping duties, of all unliquidated

entries of certain glass-lined seamless

pressure pipe as described above, in

accordance with section 778 of the Act.

This changed circumstances

administrative review, partial

revocation of the antidumping duty

order and notice are in accordance with

sections 751 (b) and 782(h) of the Act

and sections 351.216, 351.221(c)(3) and

351.222(g)(1)(i) of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18339 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–601]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of 1996–1997

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

1996–1997 antidumping duty

administrative review and new shipper

review of tapered roller bearings and

parts thereof, finished and unfinished,

from the People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: In an administrative review,

we preliminarily determine that sales of

tapered roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China, were made

below normal value during the period

June 1, 1996, through May 30, 1997. In

a new shipper review, we preliminarily

determine that sales of tapered roller

bearings and parts thereof, finished and

unfinished, from the People’s Republic

of China, were not made below normal

value during the period June 1, 1996,

through May 30, 1997. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak

Smith or Cynthia Thirumalai, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–1279 and (202)

482-4087, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

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 effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

all references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR 353 (April

1997).

Background

On May 27, 1987, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 19748) the antidumping duty order

on tapered roller bearings and parts

thereof, finished and unfinished

(‘‘TRBs’’), from the People’s Republic of

China (‘‘PRC’’). The Department notified

interested parties of the opportunity to

request an administrative review of this

order on June 11, 1997 (62 FR 31786).

The petitioner, The Timken Company,

and one of the respondents, Luoyang

Bearing Factory (‘‘Luoyang’’), requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review. These requests

were received on June 30, 1997. Thus,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c),

we published a notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review on August 1, 1997 (62 FR 41339).

In addition to the administrative

review, on May 30, 1997, Zhejiang

Changshan Bearing (Group) Co., Ltd.

(‘‘ZX’’) requested that we conduct a new

shipper review. We published a notice

of initiation of this new shipper

administrative review on August 14,

1997 (62 FR 43514). This new shipper

review covers the same period as the

normal administrative review: June 1,

1996, through May 30, 1997.

On September 23, 1997, we sent a

questionnaire to the Secretary General

of the Basic Machinery Division of the

Chamber of Commerce for Import &

Export of Machinery and Electronics

Products and requested that the

questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC

companies identified in our initiation

notice and to any subsidiary companies

of the named companies that produce

and/or export the subject merchandise.

In this letter we also requested

information relevant to the issue of

whether the companies named in the

initiation request are independent from

government control. See the Separate

Rates section, below. Courtesy copies of

the questionnaire were also sent to

companies with legal representation and

to companies listed in the initiation

notice for which we were able to obtain

addresses.

We received responses to the

questionnaire from the following ten

companies: Peer Bearing Company/Chin

Jun Industrial, Ltd. (‘‘Chin Jun’’),

Wafangdian Bearing Factory

(‘‘Wafangdian’’), China National

Machinery Import & Export Corporation

(‘‘CMC’’), Liaoning MEC Group

Company (‘‘Liaoning’’), Luoyang,

Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export

Corporation (‘‘Zhejiang’’), Wanxiang

Group Corporation (‘‘Wanxiang’’),

Premier Bearing & Equipment

(‘‘Premier’’), and Xiangfan Machinery

Foreign Trade Corporation (‘‘Xiangfan’’),

as respondents in the administrative

review, and ZX, as the respondent in the

new shipper review.

The Department is conducting this

administrative review and new shipper

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of Review

Merchandise covered by this review

includes TRBs and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from the PRC;

flange, take up cartridge, and hanger

units incorporating tapered roller

bearings; and tapered roller housings

(except pillow blocks) incorporating

tapered rollers, with or without

spindles, whether or not for automotive

use. This merchandise is classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item

numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50,

8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,

8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,

8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and

8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS

item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of the

order and this review is dispositive.
37340 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

1 ‘‘PRC Government Findings on Enterprise

Autonomy,’’ in Foreign Broadcast Information

Service—China—93–133 (July 14, 1993), and 1992

Central Intelligence Agency Report to the Joint

Economic Committee, Hearings on Global Economic

and Technological Change: Former Soviet Union

and Eastern Europe and China, Pt. 2 (102 Cong., 2d

Sess.).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Wafangdian, CMC, Xiangfan, ZX and

Luoyang as well as certain

subcontractors, using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of manufacturers’

facilities, the examination of relevant

cost data and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public and business proprietary

versions of the verification reports.

Separate Rates Determination

To establish whether a company

operating in a state-controlled economy

is sufficiently independent to be

entitled to a separate rate, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity under the test established in the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as

amplified by the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon

Carbide from the People’s Republic of

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). Under this policy,

exporters in non market economies

(‘‘NMEs’’) are entitled to separate,

company-specific margins when they

can demonstrate an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to export activities.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control over export

activities includes: (1) an absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

the individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and, (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

over exports is based on four factors: (1)

whether each exporter sets its own

export prices independently of the

government and without the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3) hether

each exporter has the authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; and, (4) whether each

exporter has autonomy from the

government regarding the selection of

management (see, Silicon Carbide, 59

FR at 22587 and Sparklers, 56 FR at

20589).

In previous administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty order on TRBs

from the PRC we determined that

Wafangdian, CMC, Liaoning, Luoyang,

Zhejiang, Wanxiang, and Xiangfan

merited separate rates (see, e.g., Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From the

People’s Republic of China; Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 62 FR 61276 (November 17,

1997) (‘‘TRBs 95–96 Review’’)). We

preliminarily determine that the

evidence on the record of this review

also demonstrates an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to these companies’

exports according to the criteria

identified in Sparklers and Silicon

Carbide. Therefore, we have continued

to assign each of these companies a

separate rate.

Premier and Chin Jun are privately

owned Hong Kong trading companies.

Because we have determined that these

firms, rather than their PRC-based

suppliers, are the proper respondents

with respect to their sales of TRBs to the

United States, no separate-rates analyses

of Premier’s and Chin Jun’s suppliers

are necessary. See the United States

Sales section, below.

Finally, as discussed below, the new

shipper, ZX, also meets both the de jure

and de facto criteria. Accordingly, we

preliminarily determine to apply a

separate rate to ZX.

ZX: De Jure Analysis

Information submitted during this

review indicates that ZX is owned ‘‘by

all the people of the People’s Republic

of China.’’ In Silicon Carbide (59 FR at

22586), we found that the PRC

government had devolved control of

state-owned enterprises, i.e., enterprises

owned ‘‘by all of the people.’’ As a

result, we determined that companies

owned ‘‘by all of the people’’ were

eligible for individual rates if they met

the criteria developed in Sparklers and

Silicon Carbide.

The following laws, which have been

placed on the record in this case,

indicate a lack of de jure government

control over these companies, and

establish that the responsibility for

managing companies owned by ‘‘all of

the people’’ has been transferred from

the government to the enterprises

themselves. These laws include: ‘‘Law

of the PRC on Industrial Enterprises

Owned by the Whole People,’’ adopted

on April 13, 1988 (‘‘1988 Law’’);

‘‘Regulations for Transformation of

Operational Mechanism of State-Owned

Industrial Enterprises,’’ approved on

August 23, 1992 (‘‘1992 Regulations’’);

and the ‘‘Temporary Provisions for

Administration of Export

Commodities,’’ approved on December

21, 1992 (‘‘Export Provisions’’). The

1988 Law states that enterprises have

the right to set their own prices (see

Article 26). This principle was restated

in the 1992 Regulations (see Article IX).

Finally, the 1992 ‘‘Temporary

Provisions for Administration of Export

Commodities’’ lists those products

subject to direct government control.

TRBs do not appear on this list and

therefore are not subject to the

constraints of these provisions.

Consistent with Silicon Carbide, we

preliminarily determine that the

existence of these laws demonstrates

that ZX, a company owned by ‘‘all of the

people,’’ is not subject to de jure

government control with respect to

export activities. In light of reports

indicating that laws shifting control

from the government to the enterprises

themselves have not been implemented

uniformly 1, an analysis of de facto

control is critical in determining

whether respondents are, in fact, subject

to government control with respect to

export activities.

ZX: De Facto Analysis

According to information provided by

ZX, the company’s pricing and export

strategy decisions with respect to the

subject merchandise are not subject to

any entity’s review or approval and

there are no government policy

directives that affect these decisions. ZX

further claims that there are no

restrictions on the use of its revenues or

profits, including export earnings.

ZX further states that its general

manager is selected by the company’s

board of directors. While the results of

ZX’s management selections are

recorded with the Foreign Trade and

Economic Cooperation Commission,

there is no evidence that this

commission controls the selection

process or that it has rejected a general

manager selected through the election

process. ZX’s general manager has the

right to contractually bind the company

in making sales of TRBs.

ZX also states that its sources of funds

are its own revenues or bank loans. It

has sole control over, and access to, its

bank accounts, which are held in ZX’s

own name.

Based on our analysis of the foregoing

evidence on the record, we find neither
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37341

de jure nor de facto government control

over the export activities of ZX.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that ZX is not part of the

‘‘PRC enterprise’’ under review and is

entitled to a separate rate.

Separate-Rate Determinations for NonResponsive Companies

We have determined that those

companies for which we initiated a

review and which did not respond to

the questionnaire do not merit separate

rates. See the Use of Facts Otherwise

Available section, below.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine that, in

accordance with sections 776(a) and (b)

of the Act, the use of adverse facts

available is appropriate for all

companies which did not respond to

our requests for information.

Furthermore, we preliminarily

determine that Premier did not

demonstrate that it cooperated to the

best of its ability in providing certain

information, and we have applied

adverse facts available to calculate a

portion of Premier’s margin. Finally, we

preliminarily determine that Chin Jun,

CMC and Xiangfan cooperated to the

best of their ability in providing

information. Thus, for these companies,

although we are using facts available,

we have not relied on adverse

information to calculate antidumping

margins (for a complete discussion of

the company specific facts available

decisions see the Memorandum to

Susan Kuhbach: ‘‘Facts Available,’’

dated June 30, 1998).

1. Companies that did not respond to

the questionnaire: Where the

Department must base its determination

on facts available because a respondent

failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability to comply with a

request for information, section 776(b)

of the Act authorizes the Department to

use inferences adverse to the interests of

that respondent in choosing facts

available. Section 776(b) of the Act also

authorizes the Department to use as

adverse facts available information

derived from the petition, the final

determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Information from prior segments of the

proceeding constitutes secondary

information and section 776(c) of the

Act provides that the Department shall,

to the extent practicable, corroborate

that secondary information 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 to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total 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 inappropriate. 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, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22,

1996) (where the Department

disregarded the highest margin as

adverse facts available because the

margin was based on another company’s

uncharacteristic business expense

resulting in an unusually high margin)).

We have preliminarily assigned a

margin of 29.40 percent to those

companies for which we initiated a

review and which did not respond to

the questionnaire. This margin,

calculated for sales by Wafangdian

Bearing Factory during the 1994–95

review, represents the highest overall

margin calculated for any firm during

any segment of this proceeding. As

discussed above, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of a calculated

margin from a prior segment of the

proceeding. Further, there are no

circumstances indicating that this

margin is inappropriate as adverse facts

available. Therefore, we preliminarily

find that the 29.40 percent rate is

corroborated. As noted in the Separate

Rates Determination section above, we

have also preliminarily determined that

the non-responsive companies do not

merit separate rates. Therefore, the facts

available for these companies forms the

basis for the PRC rate, which is 29.40

percent for this review.

2. Premier: Premier, a Hong Kongbased reseller of TRBs, claims that it

attempted to get factors of production

data from its suppliers. One supplier

provided data, but the overwhelming

majority did not. A second PRC bearing

manufacturer, that was not a supplier of

Premier, but produced certain models

sold by Premier, agreed that Premier

could submit its factors of production

data. For the remaining models sold in

the United States by Premier, no factors

data was reported.

We have preliminarily determined

that Premier has not demonstrated that

it cooperated to the best of its ability to

respond to our antidumping duty

questionnaire. This preliminary finding

is based on the fact that, while Premier

has stated that it attempted to obtain

factors data from its PRC-based

suppliers, it has not provided evidence

of these attempts or corresponding

documentation of its suppliers’ refusal

to provide the requested information.

Prior to the final results of review, we

intend to seek documentation of

Premier’s claim that it attempted to

solicit from all of its PRC-based

suppliers the information requested in

the questionnaire and to make a

judgement as to whether Premier has

acted to the best of its ability.

As in prior reviews, we have also

preliminarily determined that there is

little variation in factor utilization rates

among the TRB producers from which

we have received factors of production

data (see, e.g., TRBs 95–96 Review).

Therefore, as facts available, we have

used the factors data provided by

Premier, including information from

manufacturers which did not supply

Premier during the POR, when

calculating normal value for those sales

without supplier specific factors data.

With respect to Premier’s U.S. sales for

which no factors data were reported, we

are applying, as adverse facts available,

a margin of 25.56 percent, the highest

overall margin ever applicable to

Premier. This approach is consistent

with our final results in the prior review

(see, TRBs 95–96 Review). As discussed

above, it is not necessary to question the

reliability of a calculated margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding.

Further, there are no circumstances

indicating that this margin is

inappropriate as adverse facts available.

Therefore, we preliminarily find that the

25.56 percent rate is corroborated.

3. Chin Jun: Chin Jun, another Hong

Kong-based reseller of TRBs, provided

factors data from three of its PRC-based

suppliers covering a substantial majority

of its U.S. sales during the POR. For

certain other models it sold to the

United States, Chin Jun provided factors

data from other PRC suppliers that did

not supply Chin Jun during the POR.

For the remainder of the models it sold
37342 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

in the United States Chin Jun reported

no factors data.

We preliminarily determine that Chin

Jun has demonstrated that it cooperated

to the best of its ability to respond to our

antidumping duty questionnaire. This

preliminary finding is based on the fact

that Chin Jun has stated that it

attempted to obtain from its PRC-based

suppliers factors data for the remaining

U.S. sales and has provided

documentary evidence of such attempts.

However, we intend to seek further

clarification from Chin Jun about its

actions to obtain factors data and to

make a judgement as to whether its

efforts were to the best of its ability.

As in prior reviews, we have also

preliminarily determined that there is

little variation in factor utilization rates

among the TRB producers from which

we have received factors of production

data (see, e.g., TRBs 95–96 Review).

Therefore, as facts available, we have

used the factors data provided by the

companies that supplied Chin Jun

during the POR to Chin Jun’s sales of

models for which no supplier and

model match was available. With

respect to Chin Jun’s U.S. sales for

which no factors data were reported,

because we have preliminarily

determined that Chin Jun has

cooperated to the best of its ability, we

are applying, as facts available, the

weighted-average margin calculated for

those U.S. sales for which acceptable

data were reported.

4. CMC: CMC did not report packing

factors for bearings supplied by one of

its suppliers. For these sales, we are

applying, as facts available, the packing

factors used for other CMC sales.

5. Xiangfan: At verification, we

learned that Xiangfan had calculated its

labor input using standard process time

rather than the actual hours of employee

time, and that this resulted in

substantial under reporting of the labor

factor. In addition, Xiangfan failed to

report electricity consumed at one stage

of the manufacturing process. As facts

available, we used information collected

at verification to recalculate the labor

input and to increase the amount of

electricity factor.

United States Sales

Both Chin Jun and Premier reported

that they maintain inventories of TRBs

in Hong Kong and sell TRBs worldwide.

Therefore, their PRC-based suppliers

have no knowledge when they sell to

these firms that the shipments are

destined for the United States.

Accordingly, Chin Jun and Premier are

the first parties to sell the merchandise

to the United States and we have

calculated United States price based on

their sales.

For sales made by Chin Jun, we based

the U.S. sales on CEP in accordance

with section 772(b) of the Act because

the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser

occurred after importation of the

merchandise into the United States. For

sales made by Wafangdian, Liaoning,

Luoyang, Zhejiang, Wanxiang, Premier,

Xiangfan, and ZX (the new shipper), we

based the U.S. sales on EP, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States prior to importation

into the United States and because the

CEP methodology was not indicated by

other circumstances. CMC made both EP

and CEP sales.

We calculated EP based on the FOB,

CIF, or C&F port price to unaffiliated

purchasers. From these prices we

deducted amounts, where appropriate,

for brokerage and handling, foreign

inland freight, ocean freight, and marine

insurance. We valued the deduction for

foreign inland freight using surrogate

data based on Indian freight costs. (We

selected India as the surrogate country

for the reasons explained in the Normal

Value section of this notice.) When

marine insurance and ocean freight

were provided by PRC-owned

companies, we valued the deductions

using the surrogate data of international

providers. When marine insurance and

ocean freight were provided by market

economy companies, we deducted the

actual expense values reported by the

respondents for these services.

We calculated CEP based on the

packed, ex-warehouse price from the

U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated

customers. We made deductions, where

appropriate, from the starting price for

CEP for international freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, foreign inland

freight, marine insurance, customs

duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland

freight insurance and U.S. inland

freight. In accordance with section

772(d)(1) of the Act, we made further

deductions from the starting price for

CEP for the following selling expenses

that related to economic activity in the

United States: commissions to

unaffiliated resellers; credit expenses;

indirect selling expenses, including

inventory carrying costs; and repacking

in the United States. In accordance with

section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we have

deducted from the starting price an

amount for profit.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine

normal value (‘‘NV’’) using a factors-ofproduction methodology if: (1) the

merchandise is exported from an NME,

and (2) the information does not permit

the calculation of NV under section

773(a) of the Act. The Department has

treated the PRC as an NME in all

previous antidumping cases. In

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of

the Act, any determination that a foreign

country is an NME shall remain in effect

until revoked by the administering

authority. None of the parties to this

proceeding has contested such

treatment in this review. Moreover,

parties to this proceeding have not

argued that the PRC tapered roller

bearing industry is a market-oriented

industry. Consequently, we have no

basis to determine that the information

would permit the calculation of NV

using PRC prices or costs. Therefore,

except as noted below, we calculated

NV based on factors of production in

accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).

Although Premier and Chin Jun are

Hong Kong companies, we also

calculated NV for them based on factorsof-production data. We did not use

these respondents’ third-country sales

in calculating NV because their PRCbased suppliers knew at the time of sale

that the subject merchandise was

destined for exportation. Section

773(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides that

under such conditions NV may be

determined in the country of origin of

the subject merchandise.

Accordingly, we calculated NV for

Premier and Chin Jun on the basis of

PRC production inputs and surrogate

country factor prices.

Under the factors of production

methodology, we are required to value

the NME producer’s inputs in a

comparable market economy country

that is a significant producer of

comparable merchandise. We chose

India as the most comparable surrogate

on the basis of the criteria set out in 19

CFR 353.52(b). See the Memorandum to

Susan Kuhbach from Jeff May: ‘‘Tapered

Roller Bearings (‘‘TRBs’’) from the PRC:

Non Market Economy Status and

Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated

December 5, 1997, for a further

discussion of our surrogate selection.

We chose Indonesia as a second-choice

surrogate based on the same criteria.

Also, information on the record

indicates that both India and Indonesia

are significant producers of TRBs.

We used publicly available

information from India to value the

various factors of production with the

exception of the following: hot-rolled

alloy steel bars for the production of

cups and cones, and steel scrap from the

production of cups and cones. For these
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37343

values we used publicly available

information from Indonesia because we

found the Indian data for those inputs

unreliable (see, Memorandum to Susan

Kuhbach: ‘‘Selection of a Surrogate

Country and Steel Value Sources,’’

dated June 30, 1998).

We valued the factors of production

as follows (for a complete description of

the factor values used, see the

Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach:

‘‘Factors of Production Values Used for

the Preliminary Results,’’ dated June 30,

1998):

1. Steel Inputs. For hot-rolled alloy

steel bars used in the production of cups

and cones, we used import prices from

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(‘‘HTS’’) category 7228.3000 obtained

from the Foreign Trade Statistical

Bulletin (January–October 1997),

Imports, Jakarta, Indonesia. For coldrolled steel rods used in the production

of rollers and cold-rolled steel sheet for

the production of cages, we used Indian

import data under Indian tariff

subheading 7228.50 and 7209.42

respectively. This data was obtained

from the Monthly Statistics of the

Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II—Imports

(April 1995–March 1997). As in

previous administrative reviews, we

eliminated from our calculation steel

imports from NME countries and

imports from market economy countries

that were made in small quantities. For

steel used in the production of cups,

cones, and rollers, we also excluded

imports from countries that do not

produce bearing quality steel (see, e.g.,

TRBs 95–96 Review). We made

adjustments to include freight costs

incurred using the shorter of the

reported distances from either the

closest PRC port to the TRBs factory, or

from the domestic supplier to the TRBs

factory (see, Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Collated Roofing Nails From the

People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 51410

(October 1, 1997) and Sigma

Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d

1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

With the exception of data for steel

used in the production of cages, the data

obtained for steel inputs was from a

period contemporaneous with the POR,

thus no further adjustments were

necessary. For the steel data used in the

production of cages we inflated the

weighted average per kilogram value by

the Indian wholesale price index

(‘‘WPI’’) as published by the

International Monetary Fund (‘‘IMF’’).

Several companies in this review

purchased steel from market economy

suppliers and paid for the steel with

market economy currencies. In these

instances we valued the steel input

using the actual prices reported for

imported inputs from a market economy

(see, Memorandum to Richard

Moreland: ‘‘Market Economy Inputs,’’

dated June 30, 1998). Where the TRB

producer purchased the steel from a

PRC trading company and paid for the

steel in Renminbi, we did not use the

market economy price to the trading

company and instead used surrogate

data. This is consistent with Department

policy. We note, however, that this

policy has been challenged in the CIT

and the Department is currently

addressing it on remand (see, Olympia

Industrial, Inc. v. United States, SlipOp. 98–49 (CIT 1998)). In light of this,

we will reexamine this issue prior to the

final results of this review. We invite

interested parties to comment.

We valued scrap recovered from the

production of cups and cones using

Indonesian import statistics from HTS

category 7204.2900. Scrap recovered

from the production of rollers and cages

was valued using import data from the

Indian tariff subheading 7204.29 and

7204.4100 respectively.

2. Labor. We calculated the labor

input using wage information from the

United Nations’ 1996 Yearbook of

Labour Statistics (‘‘YLS’’). We adjusted

these wages to reflect inflation through

the POR using an Indian consumer price

index (‘‘CPI’’) published by the IMF. We

used the CPI, rather than the WPI, for

calculating the inflation adjustment to

labor because the Department views the

CPI as more representative of changes in

wage rates, while the WPI is more

representative of prices for material

goods (see, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand

Tools From the People’s Republic of

China; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR

11813, 11816 (March 13, 1997) and

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 12440,

12446 (March 13, 1998); see also,

Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach:

‘‘Selection of surrogate labor wage rates

for preliminary results of review,’’ dated

June 30, 1998).

3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and

Profit. For factory overhead, we used

information obtained from the fiscal

year 1996–97 annual reports of eight

Indian bearing producers. We calculated

factory overhead and SG&A expenses

(exclusive of labor and electricity) as

percentages of direct inputs (also

exclusive of labor) and applied it to

each producer’s direct input costs. For

profit, we totaled the reported profit

before taxes for the eight Indian bearing

producers and divided it by the total

calculated cost of production (‘‘COP’’) of

goods sold. This percentage was applied

to each respondent’s total COP to derive

a company-specific profit value (see,

Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach:

‘‘Selection of overhead, SG&A and profit

surrogate values for preliminary results

of review,’’ dated June 30, 1998).

4. Packing. For export packing, we

used surrogate values for each packing

material using values obtained from the

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade

of India, Vol. II—Imports by Commodity

(April 1996 through May 1997).

5. Electricity. For electricity costs, we

used a simple average of 1995 regional

electricity prices in India for large

industries as reported in India’s Energy

Sector, September, 1996, published by

the Centre for Monitoring Indian

Economy Pvt. Ltd. We adjusted the

value to reflect inflation through the

POR using the WPI (see, also the

Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit

section, above).

6. Inland Freight. We valued truck

freight using a rate derived from the

April 20, 1994 issue of The Times of

India. We adjusted the rate to reflect

inflation through the POR using the

WPI. We valued rail freight using rates

published by the Indian Railway

Conference Association in 1995. We

calculated an average rate per kilometer

and adjusted the rate to reflect inflation

through the POR using the WPI.

7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a

value for ocean freight based on 1996

rate quotes from Maersk Inc. Because

the information obtained was from a

period contemporaneous with the POR,

no further adjustments were necessary.

8. Marine Insurance. We calculated a

value for marine insurance based on the

CIF value of the TRBs shipped. We

obtained the rate used through queries

made directly to an international marine

insurance provider.

Partial Termination of Review

The petitioner requested reviews for

Far East Enterprising Company,

Scanwell Consolidators, Ltd., Triumph

Express Service Int’l Limited, Zhong

Shan Transportation Co., Ltd., China

Travel Service Limited, and Kenwa

Shipping Co., Ltd. On October 6, 7, 17,

23, 30, and November 11, 1997,

respectively, they reported no

shipments of subject merchandise to the

United States during the POR. We

independently confirmed with U.S.

Customs that there were no shipments

from these companies. Therefore, we

have terminated the review with respect

to these companies (see, Calcium

Hypochlorite From Japan: Termination

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 18086 (April 14, 1997)).
37344 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist for the

period June 1, 1996, through May 30,

1997:

Manufacturer/exporter

Margin

(percent)

Wafangdian ..................................... 0.00

Luoyang .......................................... 1.82

CMC ................................................ 0.02

Xiangfan .......................................... 14.93

Zhejiang .......................................... 2.27

Wanxiang ........................................ 0.00

Liaoning .......................................... 0.68

Premier ........................................... 3.99

Chin Jun .......................................... 0.21

ZX (the new shipper) ...................... 0.00

PRC Rate ........................................ 29.40

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also request a hearing

within thirty days of publication. If

requested, a hearing will be held 37

days after publication. Interested parties

may submit case briefs within thirty

days of publication. Rebuttal briefs,

which must be limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than five days after the case briefs. The

Department will issue a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

briefs, within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. With respect to EP sales for

these preliminary results, we divided

the total dumping margins (calculated

as the difference between NV and EP)

for each importer/customer by the total

number of units sold to that importer/

customer. If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative and new shipper review,

we will direct Customs to assess the

resulting per-unit dollar amount against

each unit of merchandise in each of that

importer’s/customer’s entries under the

order during the review period.

Although this will result in assessing

different percentage margins for

individual entries, the total

antidumping duties collected for each

importer/customer under the order for

the review period will be almost exactly

equal to the total dumping margins.

For CEP sales, we divided the total

dumping margins for the reviewed sales

by the total entered value of those

reviewed sales for each importer/

customer. If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will direct

Customs to assess the resulting

percentage margin against the entered

Customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s/

customer’s entries during the review

period. 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 the basis

of the assessment rate permits the

Department to collect a reasonable

approximation of the antidumping

duties which would have been

determined if the Department had

review those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR.

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the PRC

companies named above the cash

deposit rates will be the rates for these

firms established in the final results of

this review, except that for exporters

with de minimis rates, i.e., less than

0.50 percent, no deposit will be

required; (2) for all remaining PRC

exporters, all of which were found not

to be entitled to separate rates, the cash

deposit will be 29.40 percent; and (3) for

non-PRC exporters Premier and Chin

Jun the cash deposit rates will be the

rates established in the final results of

this review; (4) for non-PRC exporters of

subject merchandise from the PRC,

other than Premier and Chin Jun, the

cash deposit rate will be the rate

applicable to the PRC supplier of that

exporter. These deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice also 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 thisrequirement

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 in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18301 Filed 7–9–98; 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 and Recission in Part.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

respondents, 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 one

reseller/exporter of subject merchandise

to the United States during the period

October 1, 1996 through September 30,

1997. The review of the A–588–604

order covers two manufacturers/

exporters and one reseller/exporter, and

the period October 1, 1996 through

September 30, 1997.

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

(USP) and the normal value. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties which

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: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Ranado or Stephanie Arthur,