62808 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

with measurable reliability, statistics on

the subjects specified above.

This survey was cleared by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act, Public Law 96–511, as

amended, and was cleared under OMB

Control No. 0607–0013. We will provide

copies of the form upon written request

to the Director, Bureau of the Census,

Washington, DC 20233.

Based upon the foregoing, I have

directed that an annual survey be

conducted for the purpose of collecting

these data.

Dated: November 21, 1995.

Bryant Benton,

Acting Deputy Director, Bureau of the Census.

[FR Doc. 95–29866 Filed 12–06–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

International Trade Administration

[A–427–030]

Large Power Transformers from

France; Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of the

antidumping duty administrative

review; large power transformers from

France.

SUMMARY: On May 2, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping finding on large power

transformers (LPTs) from France. The

review covers one manufacturer/

exporter and the period June 1, 1993

through May 31, 1994.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Little, Elisabeth Urfer, or

Maureen Flannery, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Treasury Department published

in the Federal Register an antidumping

finding on LPTs from France on June 14,

1972 (37 FR 11772). On June 7, 1994, we

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 29411) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping finding on LPTs from

France covering the period June 1, 1993

through May 31, 1994.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a),

Jeumont Schneider Transformateurs

(JST) requested that we conduct an

administrative review of its sales. We

published a notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

on July 15, 1994 (59 FR 36160).

On May 2, 1995, the Department

published the preliminary results in the

Federal Register (60 FR 21499). The

Department has now conducted the

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of LPTs; that is, all types of

transformers rated 10,000 kVA (kilovoltamperes) or above, by whatever name

designated, used in the generation,

transmission, distribution, and

utilization of electric power. The term

‘‘transformers’’ includes, but is not

limited to, shunt reactors,

autotransformers, rectifier transformers,

and power rectifier transformers. Not

included are combination units,

commonly known as rectiformers, if the

entire integrated assembly is imported

in the same shipment and entered on

the same entry and the assembly has

been ordered and invoiced as a unit,

without a separate price for the

transformer portion of the assembly.

This merchandise is currently

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

8504.22.00, 8504.23.00, 8504.34.33,

8504.40.00, and 8504.50.00. The HTS

item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of transformers, JST, and the

period June 1, 1993, through May 31,

1994.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from JST and

petitioner, ABB Power T&D Co. Inc. We

received rebuttal briefs from JST and

petitioner.

Comment 1: Petitioner argues that the

dumping margin should be calculated in

U.S. dollars, and that the Department’s

regulations require conversion of foreign

currency into U.S. dollars based on the

exchange rate prevailing on the date of

sale. Petitioner cites 19 CFR 353.60(a)

(1994), which states that the Department

is to convert ‘‘a foreign currency into the

equivalent amount of United States

currency at the rates in effect on the

dates described in * * * 353.50.’’

Petitioner also cites 19 CFR 353.50,

arguing that this section indicates the

time for calculating constructed value,

and thus determining the currency

conversion rate, is the date of sale.

Petitioner argues that the Department,

in calculating constructed value and

making adjustments to U.S. price and

foreign market value, improperly

converted several costs JST incurred in

U.S. dollars into French francs.

Petitioner argues that the instructions in

the Department’s questionnaire clearly

state that JST was to report its expenses

in the currency in which those expenses

were incurred. Petitioner further argues

that the U.S. Department of Commerce,

International Trade Administration,

Antidumping Manual instructs the

Department to convert any expenses not

incurred in U.S. dollars into their

dollar-denominated equivalent.

Petitioner states that the Department’s

regulations prescribe the rate to be used

to accomplish this conversion under 19

CFR 353.60(a).

JST argues that neither the

antidumping statute nor the

Department’s regulations require that

dumping analysis be dollardenominated. JST argues that section

772 of the Tariff Act defines U.S. price,

but does not state that U.S. price is to

be a dollar-denominated price, and thus

no statutory provision compels, or

addresses, the question of whether the

Department must convert prices or costs

stated in foreign currency into U.S.

dollars. JST further argues that 19 CFR

353.60(a) similarly prescribes a method

for converting foreign currency into

dollars, but does not require dollardenominated calculations.

JST argues that a calculation of U.S.

price in a foreign currency is unusual,

but not unlawful, and that, given the

facts of this case, a French francdenominated analysis is the best way of

determining the degree to which either

of JST’s U.S. sales was sold at less than

foreign market value. JST argues that the

methodology is consistent with the

basic rule that governs the Department’s

antidumping analysis, i.e., that a foreign
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62809

producer’s U.S. price and foreign market

value are to be determined using data in

the books and records of that producer,

kept in the normal course of trade, as

long as such data do not distort the

producer’s actual prices or costs.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with both parties, in part. There is no

requirement, in either the statute or the

regulations, that the dumping margin be

calculated in U.S. dollars. Nevertheless,

when certain elements of the dumping

calculation were paid in U.S. dollars,

and other elements in a foreign currency

or currencies, it is the Department’s

longstanding practice to convert foreign

currency amounts into U.S. dollars

before calculating dumping margins, in

accordance with the rates established in

19 CFR 353.60(a). In this case, prices

were set, and paid, in U.S. dollars.

Therefore, for these final results, we

have used the U.S. dollar price paid by

the U.S. customer as the basis of U.S.

price, and converted expenses incurred

in French francs to U.S. dollars on the

date of the U.S. sale. We have used the

date of sale, i.e., the date on which the

terms of the sale were set, as the date

on which we have converted all foreign

currency transactions.

Comment 2: Petitioner claims that the

use of JST’s exchange rate guarantees in

calculating a dumping margin is not in

accordance with law. Petitioner argues

that the Court of International Trade has

held that gains from exchange contracts

cannot be used to increase U.S. price,

and at best a respondent may treat those

gains or expenses solely as indirect

selling expenses on its U.S. sales.

Petitioner cites Thyssen Stahl AG v.

United States, Slip Op. 95–78 (Ct. Int’l

Trade April 27, 1995) (Thyssen), where

the court reversed the Department’s

determination to treat gains from an

exchange rate contract as a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment.

Petitioner states that the court noted

that the antidumping statute did not

provide for such an adjustment and the

Department’s implementing regulations

‘‘did not contemplate currency

hedging,’’ and that the court rejected the

respondent’s theory that the

antidumping law is designed to

compare a respondent’s overall return or

profit between its U.S. and foreign

market sales. Petitioner notes that,

instead, the court in Thyssen held that

exchange rate gains and losses could be

considered indirect selling expenses.

Petitioner notes that the Thyssen

court relied heavily on Torrington Co. v.

United States, 832 F.Supp. 379, 391–92

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1993) (Torrington), in

which the court reversed the

Department’s adjustment to U.S. price to

take into account a currency guarantee.

JST states that the petitioner has

misread the Torrington and Thyssen

decisions. JST argues that the court’s

finding in Torrington was clearly

limited to the conclusion that the

respondent’s currency hedging expenses

were not directly related to the specific

sales under review. JST argues that the

court similarly found that Thyssen had

failed to demonstrate the requisite direct

relationship to the U.S. sales under

consideration. JST concludes that

neither the Torrington nor the Thyssen

decision limits the Department’s ability

to treat any difference between JST’s

transaction-specific exchange rate

guarantees and the exchange rate on the

date of sale as a direct selling credit for

which an adjustment to foreign market

value must be made.

JST argues that the production and

sale of LPTs varies from most other

merchandise that is subject to

antidumping orders. JST explains that

producers bid to supply transformers

more than a year before the transformers

will be delivered. Because the bid is a

firm commitment to supply a high-cost

transformer at a specific price, JST states

that it always arranges for a projectspecific exchange rate guarantee before

it bids on a contract to supply an LPT

to a U.S. customer. JST states that the

transaction-specific exchange rate

guarantees that it secured on its reviewperiod sales to the United States are

different from general currency hedges.

JST argues that the exchange rate

guarantees at issue transform JST’s

review-period sales to the United States

into French franc-denominated sales

against which the company could

control the French franc costs that it

incurred during the design, production,

test and delivery cycle. JST states that

the Department verified that JST

maintains detailed transaction-specific

French franc-denominated accounts for

both the revenues and costs associated

with each of its LPT sales. JST argues

that a standard dumping calculation

based on dollar-denominated U.S. sales

would grossly distort the Department’s

antidumping analysis if the currency

conversion were at a rate that differed

significantly from the guaranteed rate of

exchange that JST secured for each of its

U.S. sales, because it would understate

the amount actually expected and

received by JST. JST cites to the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act,

Statement of Administrative Action at

172, to argue that it is current

Department practice, where a company

demonstrates that a sale of foreign

currency on forward markets is directly

linked to a particular export sale, to use

the rate of exchange in the forward

currency sale agreement.

JST argues that, if the Department

decides to treat its exports as dollardenominated sales and decides to

convert the French franc-denominated

constructed value to dollars at the

Federal Reserve exchange rate in effect

on the date of sale, the Department must

make an adjustment to foreign market

value for direct selling credit. JST argues

that the result of the credit adjustment

is the same as treating the transaction as

a foreign currency sale at the guaranteed

exchange rate.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with both parties, in part. The court’s

decisions in Thyssen and Torrington do

not disallow the use of a circumstanceof-sale adjustment in this case. The

court in both Thyssen and Torrington

stated that the respondents could not

link the sales in question to specific

exchange rate guarantee contracts. The

facts of this case differ because there is

a specific guarantee for each sale to the

United States. JST has placed on the

record evidence that there was an

exchange rate guarantee directly

associated with each of its sales to the

United States. (See JST’s questionnaire

response at tabs A–2 and B–2.) At

verification, we examined the price in

the contract in U.S. dollars, the price the

customer paid in U.S. dollars, and the

amount JST received from its bank in

French francs. (See verification exhibit

Sales-4.) While the price to be paid in

U.S. dollars by the customer remained

constant, JST used an exchange rate

guarantee to secure a certain exchange

rate for each of its sales. Because the

price paid by the customer was set and

paid in U.S. dollars, for these final

results we have used the price paid in

U.S. dollars for purposes of calculating

U.S. price. Because of the gain JST

earned on these U.S. sales due to

exchange rate guarantees, which were

directly linked to specific sales of LPTs,

we have made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment to foreign market value to

account for that gain.

Comment 3: Petitioner argues that the

Department understated JST’s profit on

its home market sales. Petitioner argues

that JST improperly excluded data from

a certain type of transformer from its

home market sales and the Department

based its home market profit calculation

on the data that excluded transformers

of this type. Petitioner states that the

transformers in question are within the

scope of the finding and JST has

provided no scope-related information

to explain why this type of transformer

should be excluded.

JST stated that the home market and

the U.S. sales of LPTs, other than the
62810 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

type in question, were sold and

manufactured, and the revenue

associated with them was booked, on a

comparable time frame, normally a year

or more after the ‘‘sale’’ was made. JST

states the sales of the transformer type

in question were not only sold, but were

manufactured and delivered five years

before the review period. JST argues that

the profit realized on these sales has

nothing to do with market conditions at

any time during the period in which the

LPTs under review were sold,

manufactured or delivered.

Department’s Position: We agree with

JST. The profit the Department

calculates for constructed value should

be based on the profit the respondent

experiences on comparable sales

reasonably contemporaneous to the

sales of subject merchandise under

review. The transformers excluded from

the profit calculation were sold

significantly before the sales to the

United States. Although the profit was

realized during the period of review, the

market conditions and expected return

on those sales are not relevant to the

market conditions during the time the

LPT sales under review were made,

because so much time had elapsed since

the sale of the home market LPTs in

question. Therefore, we are continuing

to exclude the data on the transformers

in question in our profit calculation.

Comment 4: Petitioner argues that JST

understated the actual amount of its prebid expenses for purposes of calculating

cost of manufacture. Petitioner points

out that JST calculated its pre-bid

expenses by taking its total annual prebid expenses and allocating those

expenses on a per-unit basis across all

its sales for that year. Petitioner

questions whether the denominator is

accurate, given that at verification the

Department found that JST had

misreported the number of LPTs sold

during the period of review. Petitioner

also questions whether the pre-bid

expenses for each of the units are

identical across markets and asserts

that, because JST’s sales in its home

market are far more regular than its

export sales, it is possible that JST could

have no pre-bid expenses for its home

market sales. Petitioner contends that

the best method for allocating these prebid expenses is on the basis of design

hours. Petitioner argues that, because

the export units are custom-designed,

they would require more design hours,

and thus likely more costs, to develop

a bid.

JST contends that it properly

reported, and the Department properly

calculated, pre-bid expense. JST

contends that at verification the

Department reviewed the quantity of

transformers that it produced during

each year involved in the review period

(i.e., 1992, 1993, and 1994), and that

these data were provided in JST’s ‘‘final

test’’ log for each calendar year, which

reconciled with JST’s annual financial

statements. JST further contends that

even though there were problems with

the sales volume and value data, there

is no reason to question the validity of

the final test data which were verified

and used to allocate pre-bid expenses.

JST asserts that petitioner

misunderstands the pre-bid expenses

that it incurs. JST states that it incurs in

the aggregate more pre-bid expenses on

business that it loses than on business

that it wins, and that each transformer

that is sold must absorb an allocated

portion of total pre-bid expenses,

including those on failed bids.

Regarding petitioner’s assertion that prebid expenses should be allocated based

on design costs incurred after the bid

has been won, JST argues that petitioner

ignores the ‘‘bid-but-not-won’’ problem,

and assumes a correlation between

design costs or transformer size and prebid expenses where none exists.

Department’s Position: We disagree in

part with both petitioner and JST. As

petitioner noted, at verification we

encountered considerable difficulties in

verifying JST’s sales volume and value.

However, as stated in the verification

report, JST allocated its pre-bid

expenses based on the number of units

tested during the year, a figure we did

verify, finding no discrepancies. The

sales volume and value data differ from

the testing report data. The sales volume

and value data cover only subject

merchandise sold during the period of

review, while the testing reports cover

all transformers which were completed

during the years during which the

subject merchandise was produced.

We agree with petitioner that pre-bid

expenses might not be identical across

markets. However, there is insufficient

data on the record to determine whether

more pre-bid expenses are incurred on

home market or export sales. We

disagree with petitioner that allocating

by design hours would most accurately

capture pre-bid expense, because there

is not a clear correlation between design

hours and pre-bid expense. As we found

at verification, pre-bid expenses include

other expenses associated with bids (see

Verification Report at p. 15), and,

therefore, are not necessarily incurred

relative to design hours. Furthermore, as

JST pointed out, a substantial portion of

its pre-bid expenses are incurred for

failed bids, and must be allocated to

other LPTS. Because there is no

correlation between pre-bid expenses

and sales, we have determined that the

most reasonable way to allocate pre-bid

expenses is on the cost of sales, since it

avoids distortions which could be

created by allocating pre-bid expenses

on number of units or design hours.

Comment 5: JST argues that, in

calculating the profit ratio on home

market sales, the Department

understated the cost of manufacture

incurred by JST on its home market

sales because it did not include pre-bid

expenses associated with these sales. As

a result, JST claims, the Department

overstated the profit ratio on its home

market sales, which in turn led to an

overstatement of profit for constructed

value. JST states that, in its normal

accounting, it treats pre-bid expenses as

an indirect selling expense. However, in

submitting costs for the LPTs sold in the

United States, JST treated pre-bid

expenses as a cost of manufacture in

accordance with Department practice.

JST argues there must be a consistency

between the way cost of manufacture is

calculated for U.S. sales and for home

market sales, and that pre-bid expenses

should therefore be included in the

home market cost of manufacture. JST

argues that the Department should

allocate pre-bid expenses on a per unit

basis.

Petitioner states that JST has failed to

submit sufficient information to make

the adjustment to cost of manufacture

for home market pre-bid expenses for

purposes of the profit calculation.

Petitioner argues that the suggested

adjustment to pre-bid expenses implies

that pre-bid expenses for home market

and export sales are the same. Petitioner

states that pre-bid expenses also include

‘‘exchange rate guaranty premiums,’’

which would be incurred only on export

sales. Petitioner claims that, because JST

did not provide export-related pre-bid

expenses separately from home marketrelated pre-bid expenses, an accurate

calculation of home market pre-bid

expenses cannot be made.

Department’s Position: JST’s comment

indicates a misunderstanding of the

Department’s calculation of profit. The

Department calculates profit for

constructed value by multiplying the

cost of production (cost of manufacture

plus selling, general, and administrative

expenses (SG&A)) of the U.S. sale by a

ratio of home market profit to the cost

of production of home market sales. The

home market SG&A includes indirect

selling expenses, which is where JST

normally includes pre-bid expenses.

However, for the preliminary results we

inadvertently did not include an

amount for pre-bid expense in either

cost of manufacture or SG&A expenses

for purposes of our profit calculation.

We do agree that, in order not to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62811

overstate profit, we must include an

amount for pre-bid expense in home

market cost of production. As noted in

our response to Comment 4, above, JST

did not provide sufficient information to

differentiate between home marketrelated and export-related pre-bid

expenses. Therefore, we have allocated

pre-bid expense to home market cost of

manufacture based on cost of sales.

Comment 6: Petitioner contends that

the Department made an error in

calculating JST’s credit expense.

Petitioner states that the Department

based JST’s credit expense on the time

between the invoice date and payment

date and that this is inconsistent with

Department practice of using the time

period between shipment date and

payment date.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioner, and have recalculated the

credit expense for the LPT sales to the

United States to reflect the time period

between shipment and payment.

Comment 7: Petitioner asserts that the

use of JST’s economic report to derive

the cost of materials for Sale 1

understates cost of materials for this

unit since this report may not reconcile

exactly to the cost accounting system.

Petitioner argues the Department should

derive a cost of materials figure using

the total cost of materials from the cost

accounting system.

JST argues that it keeps economic

reports for each transformer, while the

cost accounting system is specific to

individual orders, which may include

costs for more than one transformer. JST

argues that, when the accounting

records for an order do not provide the

detailed costs for each transformer

covered by the order, the detail is

available from the economic reports. JST

argues that the economic report does in

fact reconcile to the cost accounting

system ‘‘to within very few French

francs.’’ JST argues the information it

supplied to the Department yields a

fully reconciled materials cost. JST

states that the differences in materials

cost between the economic report and

the cost accounting system were

explained during verification.

Department’s Position: We agree with

JST. During the verification, we

examined the economic report and its

relationship to the cost accounting

system. We determined that using the

economic report was the most

reasonable method of deriving the cost

of materials for this sale because the

economic report is transformer-specific,

and the differences between costs

reflected in the economic report and the

actual material costs for the specific

transformer were minimal. (For further

details, see proprietary memorandum to

the file dated June 30, 1995.)

Comment 8: JST argues that the

Department did not correct an error

regarding JST’s calculation of home

market cost of sales, which was

discovered at verification. As a result,

JST asserts that the actual

manufacturing cost incurred on home

market sales is understated, thereby

causing the calculation of profit to be

overstated. JST argues that the

verification report mistakenly notes that

the error did not affect JST’s cost of

home market sales.

Petitioner contends that JST’s claim

for an adjustment to home market cost

of sales for this additional expense

should be rejected. Petitioner argues

that there is no information about this

expense on the record. Petitioner argues

that, without such information, the

Department cannot legally determine

that the expense relates to home market

sales. Petitioner also argues that this

information was untimely submitted.

Department’s Position: We agree with

JST. At verification we asked JST to

show us how it had arrived at the

figures used in its profit calculation. In

response to our request, JST prepared a

worksheet showing how the figures in

its questionnaire responses traced to the

cost system. JST stated that, after it

made adjustments for depreciation and

labor, and excluded a certain type of

transformer, it arrived at a figure

different from what it had reported in

the questionnaire response. It showed

the amount of this difference on the

profit worksheet, labeling it as an

‘‘Other Adjustment.’’ Therefore, while

we noted in the verification report that

the ‘‘Other Adjustment’’ amount

‘‘should have been an expense,’’ it is

more accurate to characterize the

amount as a correction of an error in the

response. Correction of such errors can

be the result of verification and is not

untimely information as the petitioner

asserts.

As explained in the verification

report, we verified the total home

market costs and adjustments to those

costs, as presented on the home market

profit worksheet at verification. (See

verification exhibit cost-18.) We were

satisfied as to the accuracy of the

corrected cost of sales calculation, as

shown on the home market profit

worksheet. Therefore, we have accepted

respondent’s correction of its original

calculation of cost of sales.

Comment 9: Petitioner argues that JST

has not demonstrated that its relatedparty purchases have been made at

arm’s length, and as a result the

Department should rely on best

information otherwise available (BIA) to

derive the cost of materials for JST’s

related-party materials purchases.

Petitioner notes that at verification the

Department reviewed JST’s related-party

purchases of two parts for one of its

sales. Petitioner argues that, for the first

of these parts, the Department compared

related-party prices with price

quotations from other companies, but

JST did not demonstrate that the parts

shown on these quotations met

specifications similar to those of the

part purchased from the related party.

Petitioner also points out that the

second part had been purchased from a

party also related to JST. Petitioner

states that the Department should use,

as BIA, the ratio of all of JST’s purchases

from related parties to total purchases,

multiplied by the total cost of materials,

with an added amount for profit. For

profit, petitioner suggests the

Department use the percentage

petitioner calculated for JST’s home

market profit.

JST contends that its purchases of

components from related parties were

made at arm’s length. With regard to the

first part, JST argues that petitioner has

produced no information to cast any

doubt that this part was not purchased

at arm’s length, and that petitioner’s

claim that this part may be different

from those purchased from unrelated

suppliers is only speculation. With

regard to the second part, JST contends

that the purchase is insignificant. JST

argues that the evidence that is available

supports an ‘‘arm’s-length’’ conclusion,

and there is no reason to believe that the

price paid was not an arm’s-length

price.

Department’s Position: We agree with

JST. At verification we examined two

parts purchased by JST from related

parties. With regard to the first part we

examined detailed price quotations from

JST’s suppliers, which clearly showed

that the part had been purchased at

arm’s length. We agree with petitioner

that the comparison parts were not

identical; however, we found that the

parts from related and unrelated

suppliers were comparable for purposes

of the arm’s length test. With regard to

the second part, because custom work

was done on the part in question,

thereby making a benchmark

unavailable, we could not determine

whether the part was sold at arm’s

length. However, we found this part to

be of insignificant value. Therefore,

because JST demonstrated that either

the sale of the part was made at arm’s

length, or the value was insignificant,

we find that the purchase prices for both

of these parts are suitable for use in our

calculation of the foreign market value.

(See Antifiction Bearings (Other Than
62812 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, et al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, Partial

Termination of Administrative Reviews,

and Revocation in Part of Antidumping

Duty Orders, 60 FR 10925, February 28,

1995.)

Comment 10: Petitioner states that the

Department should reject JST’s home

market direct warranty expense claim

and treat warranty as an indirect selling

expense. Petitioner cites the verification

report, which states that JST calculated

its reported home market warranty

expense claim based on its warranty

experience for both subject and nonsubject merchandise. Petitioner argues

that, because warranty expenses can

vary significantly by product, JST’s

warranty expense allocation

methodology may result in the

overstatement of the company’s actual

home market LPT warranty expense.

JST argues that, at verification, the

Department was given detailed warranty

expense information by year and by

transformer type. JST states that it did

report actual warranty expenses

incurred on the subject merchandise

and distinguished warranty expenses

incurred on LPTs sold in the home

market from warranty expenses sold on

exports.

Department’s Position: JST reported

warranty expense on home market sales

which included both subject and nonsubject merchandise. At verification, we

were able to separate warranty expense

into three categories: subject

merchandise, non-subject merchandise,

and export sales. We agree with

petitioner that we should calculate

warranties based only on subject

merchandise. We disagree with

petitioner that warranty expense should

be considered an indirect selling

expense because, as we found at

verification, warranty expenses are

associated with specific sales. We have

thus recalculated warranty expense on

home market subject merchandise and

have continued to treat it as a direct

selling expense adjustment to foreign

market value.

Comment 11: Petitioner argues that

JST improperly allocated shared

production expenses for 1993 by

allocating a portion of these expenses to

off-site production labor hours.

JST stated that, because its off-site

production was LPT-related, it properly

allocated shared production expenses.

Department’s Position: We agree with

JST. Shared production expenses for

1993 were properly allocated to all its

production because (1) the off-site

production performed by JST was LPTrelated, and (2) of the nature of the

shared production expenses. (See

proprietary memorandum to the file

dated June 30, 1995.)

Comment 12: Petitioner argues that

the Department improperly included

insurance in SG&A, rather than treating

it as a movement charge on JST’s U.S.

sales.

JST states that the insurance

associated with freight was included in

JST’s movement charges, and that the

general insurance covering plant and

inventory was included in the SG&A

charge that JST reported in its

questionnaire response. JST asserts that

the Department properly included both

sets of insurance costs in its preliminary

dumping calculation.

Department’s Position: We agree with

JST. At verification, in our examination

of JST’s internal cost sheets, which

listed all of JST’s expenses, we found

that insurance had not been specifically

listed. In our examination of freight

documents, we found that the freight

companies that JST used for shipping

transformers to the United States

included, in their charges, amounts for

insurance. Therefore, JST properly

reported freight insurance as a

movement expense. In our examination

of insurance reported as SG&A, we

found that JST had been charged an

amount for all its sales in the year we

used to calculate SG&A. Based on the

above information, we conclude that

JST has properly reported insurance as

a movement expense or an SG&A

expense, depending on the nature of the

insurance.

Comment 13: Petitioner states that the

Department correctly determined that

only two entries were covered by this

administrative review. Petitioner notes

that during the period of review two JST

units entered into the United States;

however, JST requested the Department

review a third unit which JST sold

during the period of review. Petitioner

argues that, while the Department has

based certain administrative reviews on

sales rather than entries, it has not

mixed entry- and sale-based analyses in

the same review, nor has it varied its

methodology from review to review.

Petitioner also notes that, at verification,

the Department found that several

important components of the margin

calculation for this third sale could not

be quantified because they had not yet

been incurred. Petitioner contends that

for its final results the Department

should reaffirm its decision to exclude

this unit from this review.

Department’s Position: We agree that

this sale should not be included in this

administrative review. At verification

we examined this sale in detail;

however, we could not verify receipt of

payment for the transformer, or payment

of movement expenses and

commissions. In addition, we found that

material cost could change due to

adjustments that had not yet been made

to materials removed from stock.

Further, our general practice, in

purchase price situations, is to review

sales corresponding to shipments or

entries made during the period of

review. We have, therefore, not

included this sale in our analysis.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review Margin

(percent)

Jeumont Schneider Transformateurs .............................................................................................................. 06/01/93–05/31/94 1.50

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and foreign market value may

vary from the percentage stated above.

The Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of LPTs from

France entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided by

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

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate listed above;

(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 this

review, a prior review or the original

less-than-fair-value investigation, but
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62813

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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 24 percent, the rate established in the

first notice of final results of

administrative review published by the

Department (47 FR 10268, March 10,

1982). These deposit requirements 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 subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and 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: November 30, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–29887 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–475–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From Italy; 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 from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof from

Italy. The classes or kinds of

merchandise covered by these orders are

ball bearings and cylindrical roller

bearings. The reviews cover 3

manufacturers/exporters. The period of

review (the POR) is May 1, 1993,

through April 30, 1994.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below foreign

market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of the administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the FMV. We invite

interested parties to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

appropriate case analyst, for the various

respondent firms listed below, at the

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

Davina Hashmi (Meter), Michael

Rausher (FAG), Thomas Schauer (SKF),

Michael Rill, or Richard Rimlinger.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Background

On May 15, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders

on ball bearings (BBs) and cylindrical

roller bearings (CRBs) and parts thereof

from Italy. On June 22, 1994, and July

15, 1994, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c) (1994), we initiated

administrative reviews of those orders

for the period May 1, 1993, through

April 30, 1994 (59 FR 32180 and 59 FR

36160). The Department is now

conducting these administrative reviews

in accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews are antifriction bearings (other

than tapered roller bearings) and parts

thereof (AFBs), and constitute the

following classes or kinds of

merchandise:

1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof:

These products include all antifriction

bearings that employ balls as the rolling

element. Imports of these products are

classified under the following

categories: antifriction balls, ball

bearings with integral shafts, ball

bearings (including radial ball bearings)

and parts thereof, and housed or

mounted ball bearing units and parts

thereof.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS)

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010,

8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10,

8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,

8482.99.05, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.35,

8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40,

8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80,

8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30,

8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75,

8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960,

8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080,

8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00,

8803.90.30, 8803.90.90.

2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof: These products include

all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers

as the rolling element. Imports of these

products are classified under the

following categories: antifriction rollers,

all cylindrical roller bearings (including

split cylindrical roller bearings) and

parts thereof, and housed or mounted

cylindrical roller bearing units and parts

thereof.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following HTS

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010,

8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00,

8482.50.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,

8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530,

8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70,

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.93.5000,

8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50,

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00,

8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90.

The size or precision grade of a

bearing does not influence whether the

bearing is covered by the order. For a

further discussion of the scope of the

orders being reviewed, including recent

scope determinations, see Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Italy;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Revocation

in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order,

60 FR 10959 (February 28, 1995). The

HTS item numbers are provided for