Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10959

the respondents insistence that the

merchandise are slewing rings and

therefore fall outside the scope of the

orders. Kaydon argues that if the

Department concludes that these

products are bearings, not slewing rings,

and if respondent made sales of these

products during the POR, the

Department should consider Hoesch

and Rollix’s responses as inadequate

and should seek further information

regarding the merchandise sold by these

respondents during the POR.

Hoesch and Rollix believe that

Kaydon’s request is not appropriate.

Respondents claim that a scope

determination rather than an

administrative review is the proper

context for considering scope issues.

According to the respondents any scope

questions Kaydon had with respect to

the merchandise in question should

have been raised within the context of

a scope determination request.

Therefore, respondents claim that

Hoesch and Rotek’s (a related affiliate in

the United States) filing of its own scope

determination request preclude

consideration of the same issues in

these final results. Furthermore

respondents claim that the evidence

Kaydon presented to support its

allegations fails to justify any

investigation by the Department of

unreported sales.

Department’s Position: We have

confirmed through the U.S. Customs

service that neither Hoesch nor Rollix

have entered subject merchandise into

the U.S. market during the POR.

Furthermore, there is no information on

the record to support Kaydon’s assertion

that these respondents, or related

affiliates in the United States, have

made sales of subject merchandise

during the POR. Finally, we agree with

respondents that a scope determination

rather than an administrative review is

the proper context for considering scope

issues. Therefore, we will address the

scope issues raised by Kaydon through

the process of a scope inquiry which has

been requested by both Kaydon and

Hoesch.

[FR Doc. 95–4615 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–475–801]

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

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews and revocation in part of an

antidumping duty order.

SUMMARY: On February 28, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs)

from Italy. The classes or kinds of

merchandise covered by these reviews

are ball bearings and parts thereof and

cylindrical roller bearings and parts

thereof. The reviews cover three

manufacturers/exporters. The review

period is May 1, 1992, through April 30,

1993.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes, including corrections of certain

inadvertent programming and clerical

errors, in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margins for

the reviewed firms for each class or kind

of merchandise are listed below in the

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

The Department also is revoking the

antidumping duty order on cylindrical

roller bearings from Italy with respect to

SKF.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 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,

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4733.

Charles Riggle (Meter), Jacqueline

Arrowsmith (SKF), Michael Rausher

(FAG), or Michael Rill.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 28, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of its administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty orders

on antifriction bearings (other than

tapered roller bearings) and parts

thereof (AFBs) from Italy (59 FR 9463).

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results.

At the request of certain interested

parties, we held a public hearing on

general issues pertaining to the reviews

of the orders covering AFBs from all

countries on March 28, 1994.

Revocation In Part

In accordance with § 353.25(a)(2) of

the Department’s regulations (19 CFR

353.25(a)(2)), the Department is

revoking the antidumping duty order

covering cylindrical roller bearings from

Italy with respect to SKF.

SKF has submitted, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.25(b), a request for

revocation of the order with respect to

its sales of the merchandise in question.

SKF has also demonstrated three

consecutive years of sales at not less

than foreign market value (FMV) and

has submitted the required

certifications. It has agreed in writing to

its immediate reinstatement in the

order, as long as any producer or

reseller is subject to the order, if the

Department concludes under 19 CFR

353.22(f) that the firm, subsequent to the

revocation, sold the merchandise at less

than FMV. Furthermore, it is not likely

that SKF will sell the subject

merchandise at less than FMV in the

future. Therefore, the Department is

revoking the order on cylindrical roller

bearings from Italy with respect to SKF.

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews are AFBs and constitute the

following ‘‘classes or kinds’’ of

merchandise: ball bearings and parts

thereof (BBs) and cylindrical roller

bearings and parts thereof (CRBs). For a

detailed description of the products

covered under these classes or kinds of

merchandise, including a compilation of

all pertinent scope determinations, see

the ‘‘Scope Appendix’’ to ‘‘Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, Germany, Japan, Singapore,

Sweden, Thailand, and the United

Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial

Termination of Administrative Reviews,

and Revocation in Part of Antidumping

Duty Orders,’’ which is published in

this issue of the Federal Register.
10960 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market

The Department disregarded sales

below cost for the following firms and

classes or kinds of merchandise:

Country Company Class or kind of

merchandise

Italy ......... FAG ........ BBs.

SKF ........ BBs.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made the following

changes in these final results.

• Where applicable, certain

programming and clerical errors in our

preliminary results have been corrected.

Any alleged programming or clerical

errors with which we do not agree are

discussed in the relevant sections of the

Issues Appendix.

• Pursuant to the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit in Ad Hoc Committee of

AZ–NM–TX–FL Producers of Gray

Portland Cement v. United States, 13

F.3d 398 (CAFC 1994) (Ad Hoc Comm.),

we have allowed a deduction for presale inland freight in the calculation of

foreign market value only as an indirect

selling expense under 19 CFR 353.56(b),

except where such expenses have been

shown to be directly related to sales.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the countryspecific case and rebuttal briefs by

parties to these administrative reviews

are addressed in the ‘‘Issues Appendix’’

which is appended to this notice of final

results. General issues pertaining to

these and all other reviews of the orders

covering AFBs from various countries

may be found in the ‘‘Issues Appendix’’

to ‘‘Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Japan,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty

Orders,’’ which is published in this

issue of the Federal Register.

Final Results of Reviews

We determine the following

percentage weighted-average margins to

exist for the period May 1, 1992,

through April 30, 1993:

Company BBs CRBs

FAG ................................... 2.74 (1)

Meter ................................. 6.02 (1)

SKF ................................... 3.79 0.00

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

Cash Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash deposit rate for

each exporter, we divided the total

dumping margins for each exporter by

the total net USP value for that

exporter’s sales for each relevant class

or kind during the review period under

each order.

In order to derive a single deposit rate

for each class or kind of merchandise for

each respondent (i.e., each exporter or

manufacturer included in these

reviews), we weight-averaged the

purchase price (PP) and exporter’s sales

price (ESP) deposit rates (using the USP

of PP sales and ESP sales, respectively,

as the weighting factors). To accomplish

this where we sampled ESP sales, we

first calculated the total dumping

margins for all ESP sales during the

review period by multiplying the

sample ESP margins by the ratio of total

weeks in the review period to sample

weeks. We then calculated a total net

USP value for all ESP sales during the

review period by multiplying the

sample ESP total net value by the same

ratio. We then divided the combined

total dumping margins for both PP and

ESP sales by the combined total USP

value for both PP and ESP sales to

obtain the deposit rate.

We will direct Customs to collect the

resulting percentage deposit rate against

the entered Customs value of each of the

exporter’s entries of subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice.

Entries of parts incorporated into

finished bearings before sales to an

unrelated customer in the United States

will receive the exporter’s deposit rate

for the appropriate class or kind of

merchandise.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of administrative review for all

shipments of AFBs entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies will be

the rates shown above, except that for

firms whose weighted-average margins

are less than 0.50 percent, and therefore

de minimis, the Department shall not

require a deposit of estimated

antidumping duties; (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 (LTFV)

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘All

Others’’ rate for the relevant class or

kind and country made effective by the

final results of review published on July

26, 1993 (see Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Revocation in Part of an

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729,

July 26, 1993). These rates are the ‘‘All

Others’’ rates from the relevant LTFV

investigations.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because sampling and other

simplification methods prevent entryby-entry assessments, we will calculate

wherever possible an exporter/importerspecific assessment rate for each class or

kind of antifriction bearings.

1. Purchase Price Sales

With respect to PP sales for these final

results, we divided the total dumping

margins (calculated as the difference

between FMV and USP) for each

importer by the total number of units

sold to that importer. We will direct

Customs to assess the resulting unit

dollar amount against each unit of

merchandise in each of that importer’s

entries under the relevant 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 under each order for the

review period will be almost exactly

equal to the total dumping margins.

2. Exporter’s Sales Price Sales

For ESP sales (sampled and nonsampled), we divided the total dumping

margins for the reviewed sales by the

total entered value of those reviewed

sales for each importer. 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

entries under the relevant order during

the review period. While the

Department is aware that the entered

value of sales during the period of

review (POR) is not necessarily equal to

the entered value of entries during the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10961

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

reviewed those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR.

In the case of companies which did

not report entered value of sales, we

calculated a proxy for entered value of

sales, based on the price information

available and appropriate adjustments

(e.g., insurance, freight, U.S. brokerage

and handling, U.S. profit, and any other

items, as appropriate, on a companyspecific basis).

For calculation of the ESP assessment

rate, entries for which liquidation was

suspended, but which ultimately fell

outside the scope of the orders through

operation of the ‘‘Roller Chain’’ rule, are

included in the assessment rate

denominator to avoid over-collecting.

(The ‘‘Roller Chain’’ rule excludes from

the collection of antidumping duties

bearings which were imported by a

related party and further processed, and

which comprise less than one percent of

the finished product sold to the first

unrelated customer in the United States.

See the section on Further

Manufacturing and the ‘‘Roller Chain’’

Rule in the Issues Appendix to

‘‘Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Japan,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty

Orders,’’ which is published in this

issue of the Federal Register.)

This notice also 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.

These administrative reviews and this

notice are in accordance with section

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

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

Dated: February 1, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Issues Appendix

• Abbreviations

• Comments and Response

Company Abbreviations

FAG-Italy—FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG

Bearings Corp.

Federal-Mogul—Federal-Mogul

Corporation

Meter—Meter S.p.A.

SKF—Italy—SKF Industrie; RIV–SKF

Officina de Villar Perosa; SKF

Cuscinetti Speciali; SKF Cuscinetti;

RFT

Torrington—The Torrington Company

Other Abbreviations

COP—Cost of Production

COM—Cost of Manufacturing

CV—Constructed Value

ESP—Exporter’s Sales Price

FMV—Foreign Market Value

HM—Home Market

POR—Period of Review

PP—Purchase Price

USP—United States Price

AFBs I—Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from the Federal Republic of

Germany; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR

31692 (July 11, 1991)

AFBs II—Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof From France, et al.;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 57 FR

28360 (June 24, 1992)

AFBs III—Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and

Revocation in Part of an

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR

39729 (July 26, 1993)

Comments and Responses

Comment 1: Meter noted in its

Section B questionnaire response that it

did not incur any warranty expense

during the POR, yet the Department

improperly deducted warranty

expenses.

Federal-Mogul responds that, while

Meter claimed to have incurred no

warranty expenses during this POR,

Meter’s historical U.S. warranty

experience suggests that the absence of

warranty expenses is improbable. Given

the fact that Meter claimed to have

incurred such expenses in 1988, 1989,

1990, 1991, and the first four months of

1992, as well as after the POR, FederalMogul urges the Department to resort to

extra-period warranty expenses as BIA.

Furthermore, Federal-Mogul argues that

the assignment and use of U.S. warranty

expenses as an adjustment to CV

appears to represent a reasonable

application of BIA for purposes of

quantifying a known, but unreported

selling expense directly related to

Meter’s U.S. sales.

Department’s Position: The

adjustment for warranty expenses

included in our preliminary calculation

was a clerical error. Meter reported no

warranty expenses on U.S. sales during

this POR, and there is no evidence that

such expenses were incurred during the

POR. Therefore, we have not imputed

warranty expenses and have not

deducted these expenses for the final

results.

Comment 2: Federal-Mogul notes that

Meter limited its reported direct selling

expense (DSE) for CV to its imputed

credit expense, which Meter calculated

by applying to the COM a percentage

factor based on its short-term interest

rate and the average number of days

from shipment to payment. FederalMogul claims that this methodology

understates the expense because the

percentage factor should be multiplied

by the sale price, i.e., the value on

which credit would be extended in the

HM. Federal-Mogul adds that by

understating this portion of the general

expense element of CV, it also

understates the profit element, which

Meter quantified as eight percent of

materials, labor and general expenses.

Federal-Mogul argues that the

Department should increase Meter’s

reported DSE by the ratio of Meter’s

total sales to its cost of goods sold

(COGS). The revised DSE should then

be combined with the revised G&A

expense amounts and the other

elements of Meter’s general expenses for

CV, and Meter’s statutory profit should

also be recalculated accordingly.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Federal-Mogul that Meter’s

methodology for calculating its imputed

credit expense for CV was flawed, and

that the percentage factor should be

multiplied by the sale price. In the

absence of HM sale prices, we

calculated a ratio of Meter’s total sales

to its COGS from Meter’s 1992 financial

statements, and multiplied that ratio by

Meter’s reported DSE. We used the

revised DSE to recalculate G&A

expenses and Meter’s profit.

Comment 3: Federal-Mogul argues

that in quantifying its reported G&A

expenses for CV, Meter netted out

negative expense amounts for ‘‘Net Gain

on Foreign Exchange’’ and ‘‘Customs

Reimbursement.’’ These amounts are

attributable only to purchases by foreign
10962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

customers and merchandise exported by

Meter. Since the statute requires that the

general expenses included in CV be

those ‘‘usually reflected in sales which

are made by producers in the country of

exportation,’’ no reduction in Meter’s

G&A expenses may be made for gains on

foreign exchange or for customs

reimbursement.

Meter argues that reported G&A

expenses were taken directly from its

audited financial statements and

allocated based on cost of sales. Meter

contends that it is standard Department

practice not to eliminate certain

expenses from G&A that are unrelated to

subject merchandise or a particular

market. Instead, the Department treats

G&A as general expenses of the

company as a whole.

Department’s Position: We agree in

part with Federal-Mogul. Meter’s

‘‘Foreign Exchange Gain or Loss’’ relates

to trade accounts receivable on export

sales transactions. At verification we

found that the ‘‘Customs

Reimbursement’’ related to returned

merchandise. Accordingly both of the

above items are directly related to the

company’s sales revenues, not G&A

expenses, and therefore were excluded

from the G&A calculation.

Comment 4: Federal-Mogul argues

that Meter understated its factory

overhead cost for CV as outlined in the

cost verification report. Therefore, the

Department must adjust Meter’s

submitted fixed overhead costs in order

to accurately compute CV for subject

merchandise.

Meter argues that the methodology it

used to report factory overhead

expenses was the same methodology the

Department directed Meter to use in the

second review. The Department should

not penalize Meter for using an

incorrect allocation methodology which

the Department suggested in the first

place. Therefore, resorting to BIA, as

suggested by Federal-Mogul, would be

unreasonable.

Department’s Position: It was not

Meter’s fixed overhead costs but rather

Meter’s submitted variable overhead

costs that were understated. Variable

costs were understated due to the fact

that Meter inappropriately allocated

these costs on the basis of total hours

incurred to produce all subject

merchandise rather than the hours

incurred to produce only the U.S.

merchandise. Therefore, we adjusted

Meter’s submitted variable overhead

costs in order to appropriately capture

all costs.

Comment 5: Federal-Mogul notes that

during the POR, Meter relocated its

production facilities. Federal-Mogul

contends that Meter should have

submitted separate manufacturing costs

for each facility that produced subject

merchandise during the POR. Petitioner

argues that since Meter did not submit

facility-specific manufacturing costs, the

Department should reject submitted

weighted-average grinding and assembly

labor rates and, as BIA, use the higher

of the grinding and assembly rates

experienced at each facility.

Meter argues that the Department did

not ask for separate CV data for its labor

rates in the old and new facilities.

Furthermore, Meter argues that it

complied with the Department’s

regulations in submitting weightedaverage costs to account for different

production facilities being used in the

same POR.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Meter. It is our policy that if a

respondent produces subject

merchandise at more than one facility,

the reported COM should be the

weighted-average manufacturing costs

from all facilities. The costs reported by

Meter properly reflect the costs of both

facilities.

Comment 6: Federal-Mogul contests

Meter’s claim that each of Meter’s model

numbers reported in the company’s HM

database represents a unique product.

According to Federal-Mogul, certain

models in Meter’s HM database are

reported to be in different families, but

the models are identical in all family

criteria, and therefore, these models

should be in the same family. In

addition, Federal-Mogul states that two

other HM models vary insignificantly

from reported U.S. models in one

criterion. For these reasons, FederalMogul argues, the Department should

not accept Meter’s claim that there are

no HM matches for any U.S. sales.

Meter claims that it correctly utilized

the matching methodology prescribed

by the Department and such

methodology accurately reflects Meter’s

business and production processes.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Federal-Mogul. When we reviewed

Meter’s family designations we found

two U.S. models with identical family

characteristics that had been assigned

different family designations. Likewise,

we found two HM models which should

have been given the same family

designation but were not. However, in

no instance were any HM models

identical or similar to U.S. models based

on our criteria for determining such or

similar merchandise. Therefore, these

errors did not affect these results.

We also disagree with FederalMogul’s argument that ‘‘insignificant’’

variations in family matching

characteristics, between HM and U.S.

models, should have been disregarded.

The U.S. and HM models in question

were not identical in all characteristics.

Furthermore, we consider a bearing sold

in the HM to be similar to a U.S. model

when the eight characteristics outlined

in our questionnaire are identical.

Because these eight characteristics were

not identical for these bearings, we do

not consider these bearings to be

identical or similar matches.

Comment 7: FAG-Italy contends that

the Department’s assessment rate

methodology is flawed, and states that

the Department acted contrary to law in

basing assessment rates on the Customs

entered values of those sales reviewed

by the Department for the POR, because

the sales actually reviewed by the

Department for the POR may have

involved merchandise entered before

the POR. Instead, FAG-Italy claims that

the Department should base assessment

rates on the Customs entered values of

merchandise actually entered during the

POR, as submitted by respondent. FAGItaly maintains that the Department

should determine assessment rates by

dividing total antidumping duties due

(calculated as the difference between

statutory FMV and statutory USP for the

sales reported for the POR) by the

entered values of the merchandise

actually entered during the POR (not by

the entered values of the merchandise

actually sold during the POR). FAG-Italy

argues that the Department’s current

methodology can lead to a substantial

overcollection of dumping duties.

Both Torrington and Federal-Mogul

argue that the Department’s

methodology is valid. Torrington notes

that the Department concluded that the

current methodology is reasonable and

that it constitutes an appropriate use of

the Department’s discretion to

implement sampling and averaging

techniques as provided for in section

777A of the Tariff Act. See AFBs I at

31694. Torrington states that since the

U.S. sales used to calculate the dumping

margins are only a sample of the total

U.S. sales during the POR, application

of FAG-Italy’s proposed methodology

would lead to substantial

undercollection of antidumping duties,

unless the Department adjusts that

methodology to take into account all

U.S. sales during the POR.

Torrington also states that both the

Department’s current methodology and

FAG-Italy’s proposed methodology are

deficient in that neither method ‘‘ties

entries to sales.’’ Torrington proposes

two methods for dealing with the

problem of reviewed sales that do not

match to particular entries during the

POR. First, Torrington suggests that the

Department review entries rather than

sales. Torrington points out that this
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10963

method is not ideal because it could

place the Department in the position of

reviewing entries made during the POR

that contained merchandise that was

sold after the POR. Second, Torrington

proposes that the Department require

respondents to submit adequate

information to trace each entry directly

to the sale in the United States.

Torrington observes that at present this

method would be impossible because

the administrative record in this review

does not permit tracing each sale to the

entry.

Federal-Mogul states that the

Department’s methodology is logical

because it establishes a link between the

values calculated on the basis of the

sales analyzed and the actual

assessment values over time and,

therefore, avoids the distortions that

FAG’s alternative would engender.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the FAG-Italy. As stated in AFBs

III (at 39737), section 751 of the Tariff

Act requires that the Department

calculate the amount by which the FMV

exceeds the USP and assess

antidumping duties on the basis of that

amount. However, there is nothing in

the statute that dictates how the actual

assessment rate is to be determined from

that amount.

In accordance with section 751, we

calculated the difference between FMV

and USP (the dumping margin) for all

reported U.S. sales. For PP sales we

have calculated assessment rates based

on the total of these differences for each

importer divided by the total number of

units sold to that importer. Therefore,

each importer is only liable for the

duties related to its entries. In ESP

cases, we generally cannot tie sales to

specific entries. In addition, the

calculation of specific antidumping

duties for every entry made during the

POR is impossible where dumping

margins have been based on sampling,

even if all sales could be tied to specific

entries. Hence, for ESP sales, in order to

obtain an accurate assessment of

antidumping duties on all entries during

the POR, we have expressed the

difference between FMV and USP as a

percentage of the entered value of the

examined sales for each exporter/

importer (ad valorem rates). We will

direct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties by applying

that percentage to the entered value of

each of that importer’s entries of subject

merchandise under the relevant order

during the POR.

This approach is equivalent to

dividing the aggregate dumping

margins, i.e., the difference between

statutory FMV and statutory USP for all

sales reviewed, by the aggregate USP

value of those sales and adjusting the

result by the average difference between

USP and entered value for those sales.

While we are 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 that would have

been determined if we had reviewed

those sales of merchandise actually

entered during the POR.

Comment 8: Federal-Mogul argues

that the Department should disallow

any additional credit expenses

attributed to late payments made by

SKF-Italy’s HM customers. Citing

Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States,

824 F. Supp. 223 (1993), Federal-Mogul

argues that, since COS adjustments are

only allowed for those factors which

affect price or value, additional credit

expenses incurred from a purchaser’s

unexpected failure to pay within the

agreed-upon period cannot affect the

price which was set specifically in

contemplation of payment being made

at the end of the agreed-upon credit

period. While Federal-Mogul

acknowledges that SKF-Italy submitted

an upward adjustment to FMV which

reflects interest revenue collected from

customers due to late payments, it

asserts that this does not properly offset

the late payment credit expenses since

the interest revenue was calculated

using an allocation while the additional

credit expenses are transaction specific.

SKF-Italy contends that its credit

expense calculations, which are based

on the actual payment date, are

consistent with Departmental policy.

SKF-Italy cites the Department’s

position in Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review;

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and

Tube Products from Turkey, 55 FR

42230, 42231 (1990), and Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value; Certain Tapered Journal Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof From Italy,

49 FR 2278, 2279–80 (1984), to support

its position. SKF-Italy states that interest

revenue is a separate COS which has

been verified and accepted by the

Department in each of the three prior

administrative reviews.

Department’s Position: The

Department disagrees with FederalMogul. Consistent with Departmental

policy, we adjust for credit expenses

based on sale-specific reporting of

actual shipment and payment dates. See

AFBs I at 31724. This policy recognizes

the fact that all customers do not always

pay according to the agreed terms of

payment and that respondent is aware

of this fact when setting its price.

Therefore, it would be inappropriate to

make a COS adjustment for credit based

entirely on the agreed terms of payment,

since it would not take into account all

of the circumstances surrounding a sale.

Comment 9: Torrington contends that,

in the recalculation of COP for SKFItaly, the Department inadvertently

excluded research and development

(R&D) expenses.

According to SKF-Italy, R&D expenses

were included in the recalculated

general and administrative (G&A)

expenses.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SKF-Italy that its R&D expenses were

included in the revised G&A expenses

included in the recalculation of COP.

Comment 10: Torrington argues that

the Department should reject FAGItaly’s cost data because FAG-Italy

provided costs for only completed

bearings and not for the individual

material elements as required by the

questionnaire.

FAG-Italy argues that its cost

responses were accurate and acceptable

as reported because its model-specific

COPs and CVs were correctly reported

in accordance with Departmental

precedent.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent. We have accepted FAGItaly’s cost data in this format for this

review. Also, petitioners have provided

no basis for the Department to reject

FAG-Italy’s cost responses.

Comment 11: Torrington argues that

the Department’s decision to treat SKFItaly’s early payment cash discounts as

a direct expense is inconsistent with

Departmental practice and is an error as

a matter of law. Torrington notes that

verification of SKF-Italy’s cash

discounts revealed that, for at least one

sale examined, certain discounts did not

fall within the range of discounts SKF

submitted in its original response

describing its early payment cash

discount program. Torrington contends

that the Department’s practice is to

require that discounts be part of a

respondents standard business practice

and not intended to avoid potential

antidumping duty liability. Torrington

argues that if the discounts offered in

the HM are not made pursuant to

specified terms contemplated at the

time of sale, they should be disallowed

because they could be designed to

reduce the HM price and dumping

margins found. Torrington asserts that,

based on the findings at verification, the

Department should reject SKF-Italy’s

HM cash discounts offered on the basis

of terms of payment since they cannot

be deemed reliable. At the very least,

Torrington maintains, the Department
10964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

should eliminate any discounts granted

to customers which are greater than the

range of discounts described by SKFItaly in its original response.

SKF-Italy maintains that the

Department satisfactorily verified that

customers received discounts as

specified in the payment terms set forth

in SKF-Italy’s invoices. According to

SKF-Italy, Torrington’s statements

pertain to the Department’s verification

of one of its sales traces. SKF-Italy

asserts that a complete examination of

this sale reveals that, consistent with its

reporting methodology, SKF-Italy did

not claim a cash discount for this HM

transaction. Accordingly, SKF-Italy

asserts that Torrington’s discussion of

this issue is pointless. Furthermore,

SKF-Italy contends that Torrington is

incorrect in arguing that only cash

discounts granted according to specified

terms contemplated at the date of sale

are allowed. SKF-Italy claims that by

reporting only actual cash discounts in

both the HM and the United States, it

has remained consistent with

Departmental practice as outlined in the

questionnaire.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner that discounts should be part

of a respondent’s standard business

practice and are not intended to avoid

potential antidumping duty liability.

However, our HM verification findings

do not support petitioner’s conclusions

that SKF-Italy’s reported cash discounts

were not made pursuant to the discount

program outlined in its response.

While verifying SKF-Italy’s HM sales

response, we found one sale in which

SKF-Italy had booked the difference

between the amount due and the

amount paid by the customer as a cash

discount. This occurred despite the fact

that, pursuant to SKF-Italy’s cash

discount program, the customer did not

qualify for a cash discount. However, in

accordance with its reporting

methodology for its discount program,

SKF-Italy did not claim a cash discount

on this sale in the response submitted

to the Department. Our further

examination of SKF-Italy’s cash

discounts confirmed that SKF-Italy’s

reported cash discounts were made

pursuant to the terms listed on the sales

invoice. Furthermore, we examined

SKF-Italy’s entire HM sales listing and

found no cash discounts that exceeded

the discount program outlined in the

response. Therefore, we have accepted

SKF-Italy’s cash discounts for these

final results.

Comment 12: Torrington argues that

the Department’s preliminary decision

to deny FAG-Italy an adjustment for

1993 HM rebates based on the fact that

FAG-Italy failed to report either actual

or estimated 1993 U.S. corporate rebates

is insufficient. Torrington argues that

FAG-Italy’s failure to report 1993

corporate rebates is a fundamental

deficiency which calls for the

application of a ‘‘second-tier’’ BIA to

those U.S. transactions in which FAGItaly failed to properly report a

corporate rebate. Torrington contends

that the Department’s preliminary

response may reward FAG-Italy for its

failure to report 1993 U.S. corporate

rebates if the HM rebates denied do not

apply to the same types of sales as those

found in the U.S. market or are not of

the same magnitude as the U.S.

corporate rebates which went

unreported. Torrington argues that,

according to FAG-Italy’s responses, the

discount program in the HM more

closely resembles U.S. corporate rebates

than the HM rebates denied by the

Department. Finally, Torrington asserts

that when deciding what BIA approach

to use for the final results, the

Department should also consider the

fact the FAG never clearly stated in its

responses that it had not reported

estimated 1993 corporate rebates.

FAG-Italy asserts that its rebates were

accurately reported given the nature of

the rebate programs in each market and

that the use of BIA is unwarranted. The

companies reported estimated 1993

rebates differently for the HM and U.S.

markets because clear differences exist

between their HM and U.S. rebate

programs. Therefore, the Department

erred in denying rebate adjustments in

the HM on 1993 sales in order to remain

consistent with FAG-US’ methodology

of not reporting 1993 rebates.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Torrington that disallowing an

adjustment for FAG-Italy’s estimated

1993 HM rebates is not the most

appropriate means to account for

respondent’s failure to report estimated

1993 U.S. rebates. Accordingly, as BIA

for these final results we used the

highest 1992 U.S. corporate rebate rate

to calculate corporate rebates for 1993

U.S. sales to customers that received

rebates in 1992. We also made

adjustments to FMV for estimated 1993

HM rebates as reported by respondents.

Comment 13: Torrington notes that

changes to FAG-Italy’s packing labor

and material expense factors outlined in

the analysis memo were not included in

the margin program used to calculate

the preliminary results. In addition,

Torrington contends that the exchange

rate factor was applied twice to the

adjustment for marine insurance.

FAG-Italy contends that the

preliminary computer program does

contain the appropriate adjustment

factors for its U.S. packing labor and

material expenses. Additionally, FAGItaly notes that the double application of

the exchange rate to the adjustment for

marine insurance was necessary to

correct a conversion error committed by

FAG-Italy in its computer response.

Department’s Position: We agree with

FAG-Italy. We included in the margin

program the necessary corrections to

FAG-Italy’s packing expenses. In

addition, we intentionally applied the

exchange rate to the marine insurance

adjustment twice to compensate for an

exchange rate error committed in FAGItaly’s submitted data.

Comment 14: Federal-Mogul asserts

that the Department should consider the

expenses associated with a bonded

warehouse maintained by SKF-Italy to

accommodate sales to one U.S. customer

as movement expenses and remove the

expenses directly from the U.S. price.

Federal-Mogul disagrees with the

position taken by the Department in

earlier reviews that characterized SKFItaly’s bonded warehouse expenses as

indirect selling expenses because they

were incurred prior to the date of sale.

Federal-Mogul maintains that according

to the CIT decision in Nihon Cement

Co., Ltd. v. United States, 17 CITlll,

Slip Op. 93–80 at 40 (1993), these

warehousing expenses should be

considered movement expenses because

the subject merchandise is merely

residing in the warehouse incident to

bringing them from Italy to SKF-Italy’s

U.S. customer. Citing Carbon Steel Wire

Rod from Trinidad and Tobago (48 FR

43206, 43208), and NTN Bearing

Corporation of America v. United

States, 14 CIT 623, 747 F. Supp. 726

(1990), Federal-Mogul argues that since

the pre-sale warehousing expenses are

directly related to sales to the one

customer served by the warehouse they

qualify as movement expenses and

should be removed directly from the

U.S. price.

SKF-Italy notes that the Department

rejected a similar argument in a prior

review (see AFBs II at 28398) and

contends that no valid reason has been

presented to support a different result.

SKF-Italy maintains that according to

the CIT’s definition of warehousing

expense in the Nihon Cement case cited

by Federal-Mogul (‘‘expenses associated

with putting aside merchandise in a

structure or room for use when

needed’’), the expenses associated with

SKF’s FTZ bonded warehouse constitute

warehousing expenses and not

movement expenses. SKF-Italy further

argues that the number of customers

served by a warehouse does not in any

way transform the expenses into

movement expenses.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10965

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Federal-Mogul. SKF-Italy’s

decision to position its merchandise in

an SKF warehouse in close proximity to

a customer does not necessarily indicate

that the warehousing expense is directly

related to sales. Unlike the situation in

Carbon Steel Wire Rod, where

merchandise was shipped pursuant to

specific orders, the record indicates that

SKF-Italy stores its merchandise in the

bonded warehouse in anticipation of

future sales. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Brass

Sheet and Strip from the Republic of

Korea, 51 FR 40833 (November 10,

1986). Although SKF-Italy sells to only

one customer from its bonded

warehouse, the warehousing expenses

are incurred prior to date of sale and

regardless of whether the anticipated

sales are made. As a result, the

warehousing expenses are not directly

related to individual sales, and the

warehousing costs are properly

classified as an indirect expense.

Therefore, in accordance with our

decision in AFBs II (at 28398), we have

determined that SKF-Italy’s bonded

warehousing expenses are properly

treated as indirect selling expenses (see

also Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished From Japan, 52 FR

30700 (August 17, 1990); NTN Bearing

Corp. of America, American NTN

Bearing Manufacturing Corp., and NTN

Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd. v. U.S. and

Timken Co., 747 F. Supp. 726 (CIT

1990)).

Comment 15: SKF-Italy argues that

the Department eliminated a number of

HM transactions based on the erroneous

conclusion that such transactions

reflected preferential prices to related

parties. SKF-Italy asserts that there is no

direct or indirect ownership or control

between the companies, and that the

relationship between the parties noted

by the Department at verification has no

influence on price. SKF-Italy also states

that the Department’s comparison of

average prices is insufficient to test the

arm’s-length nature of the transactions

because the Department included

companies with no common ownership

interests and companies with ownership

interests of less than 20 percent, did not

individually analyze the companies

involved, and did not consider the

relative quantities involved.

Torrington maintains that the

Department will use sales to related

parties as a basis for FMV only if it is

satisfied that the price is comparable to

the price at which the producer or

reseller sold such or similar

merchandise to unrelated parties, and

that the only valid criterion in this

determination is price. Torrington

argues that there is a regulatory

presumption that related-party sales

should be excluded in a calculation of

FMV. Federal-Mogul and Torrington

state that the burden is on the

respondent, not the Department, to

overcome this presumption by

demonstrating affirmatively that relatedparty transaction prices are comparable

to prices to unrelated parties.

Torrington also asserts that SKF-Italy

has failed to submit any data

demonstrating that its prices to related

and unrelated parties are comparable

and thus has not met its burden.

Torrington and Federal-Mogul further

point out that SKF-Italy has provided no

evidence on the record regarding any

particular related-party sales or the

price comparability of its related-party

sales.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with SKF-Italy. 19 CFR 353.45 provides

that the Department ordinarily will

include related-party sales in the

calculation of FMV only if it is satisfied

that the sales were made at arm’s-length

prices, i.e., that the prices of such sales

are comparable to the prices at which

the seller sold such or similar

merchandise to unrelated parties. For

purposes of applying this provision,

section 353.45 also refers to section

771(13) of the Tariff Act for the

definition of related parties. We

preliminarily determined that SKF-Italy

made HM sales to customers related to

them as described in section 771(13)(D)

of the Tariff Act. Accordingly, we

conducted an analysis to determine

whether these sales were made at arm’slength prices. Because we determined

that these sales were not made at arm’slength prices, we excluded them from

our calculations of FMV.

On reexamination of the evidence on

the record, however, we determined that

one of these HM customers in fact did

not meet the definition of a related party

as specified in section 771(13) of the

Tariff Act. Therefore, for these final

results we retained sales to this

customer SKF-Italy in calculating FMVs

and did not include these sales in our

arm’s-length analysis for related-party

sales.

In determining whether prices to

related parties are in fact arm’s-length

prices, we rely on a comparison of

average unrelated-party prices for each

model to average related-party prices for

the same models. When average prices

to unrelated parties are predominantly

higher than average prices to related

parties for the class or kind of

merchandise, we disregard sales to

related parties for that class or kind.

Because SKF has provided no evidence

to refute our findings that the average

prices of certain models sold to related

parties are not comparable to the

average prices of these models sold to

unrelated parties, other than reference

to statements by company personnel at

verification that these companies were

not related, we have continued to

exclude these sales for the final results.

See SKF Sverige AB Verification Report,

February 23, 1994, and Rhone Poulenc

Inc. v. United States, 899 F. 2d 1185

(Fed Cir. 1990).

Comment 16: FAG-Italy contends that

the Department improperly used zeropriced U.S. sample and prototype sales

in the calculation of USP because such

sales are not made in the ordinary

course of trade and are therefore similar

to the type of sales the statute permits

the Department to exclude in the HM.

Additionally, FAG-Italy claims the

Department is not required to review

each and every U.S. sale.

Alternatively, FAG-Italy argues that if

the Department compares the U.S. zeroprice sample sales to HM sales in which

value was received, the Department

should make a COS adjustment to

account for the different circumstances

under which the sales were made. FAGItaly argues that the Department should

adjust FMV in the amount of the

expenses directly associated with the

U.S. sample sale and suggests reducing

FMV by the amount of the COP of the

U.S. sample sale.

SKF-Italy contends that the

Department should have excluded from

its margin analysis, as outside the

ordinary course of trade, two Italian

prototype products sold into the U.S.

market. SKF-Italy claims that, based on

the commercial, sales and cost data

provided in response to the

Department’s questionnaire, SKF-Italy’s

claim for exclusion should be allowed.

Federal-Mogul and Torrington

contend that, in order to assure the

validity of the Department’s sample, the

Department must not drop these U.S.

sample and prototype sales from its

analysis. Federal-Mogul and Torrington

further maintain that the arguments

regarding the ordinary course of trade

are completely irrelevant because the

ordinary course of trade provision

applies only to the calculation of FMV,

not USP. Petitioners claim that section

751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act (19 USC

1675(a)(2)(A)) requires the Department

to calculate the amount of duty payable

on ‘‘each entry of merchandise’’ into the

United States. Torrington states that this

provision should be compared with

section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act (19

USC 1677b(a)(1)(A)), which requires
10966 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

FMV to be calculated on the basis of

sales in the ‘‘ordinary course of trade.’’

Federal-Mogul also rejects the idea of

a COS adjustment, arguing that the cost

to produce the merchandise cannot

reasonably be used to quantify any

difference between a sample sale and a

sale with a price because the cost to

produce the merchandise remains the

same whether the producer sells it at a

profit, sells it at a dumped price, or

gives it away.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with Federal-Mogul

and Torrington. As set forth in AFBs II

(at 28395), other than for sampling,

there is neither a statutory nor a

regulatory basis for excluding any U.S.

sales from review. The Department must

examine all U.S. sales within the POR.

See Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review; Color

Television Receivers From the Republic

of Korea, 56 FR 12701, 12709 (March 27,

1991).

Although we have made COS

adjustments as required by section 773

of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 353.56, we

disagree with FAG-Italy’s argument that

a further COS adjustment should be

made if the U.S. sample sales are not

excluded from the analysis. This

adjustment is not warranted under

sections 772 and 773 of the Tariff Act.

FAG-Italy’s argument that a COS

adjustment should be made when a

zero-price U.S. sale is compared either

to HM sales in which value was

received or to CV, which includes

profit, suggests that a COS adjustment

should be made because of the marked

difference in the prices of the U.S. sale

($0) and the comparable HM sale.

However, differences in prices do not

constitute a bona fide difference in the

circumstances of sale.

Furthermore, it would clearly be

contrary to the purpose of the dumping

law to make a COS adjustment in order

to compensate for price discrimination.

Moreover, we do not deduct expenses

directly related to U.S. sales from FMV

either in PP or ESP comparisons. In

making COS adjustments in PP

comparisons, U.S. selling expenses are

added to FMV, while in ESP

comparisons U.S. selling expenses are

neither added to nor deducted from

FMV; they are deducted from USP.

Finally, regarding FAG-Italy’s argument

that we should use the COP of U.S.

merchandise (SAMPCOPE) as the basis

for such an adjustment, the difmer

methodology accounts for appropriate

differences in merchandise.

Comment 17: Federal-Mogul asserts

that the Department should reject SKFItaly’s claim for an upward adjustment

to USP for duty drawback. First,

Federal-Mogul argues that the record

contains no evidence that SKF-Italy’s

claimed duty drawback relates to actual

import duties paid on the contents of

exported merchandise. Specifically,

Federal-Mogul contends that SKF-Italy

has provided no evidence to

substantiate a link between the amount

of import duties paid and the amount of

duty drawback claimed, and that the

amount of claimed duty drawback

exceeds the amount of import duties

that SKF-Italy actually paid. In this

context, Federal-Mogul further contends

that SKF-Italy’s claimed duty drawback

adjustment includes not only refunded

import duties, but also refunded

internal taxes, which are not properly

included in a duty drawback

adjustment.

Furthermore, Federal-Mogul argues

that the Department should not accept

this claim even under its authority to

adjust USP for rebated or uncollected

taxes. According to Federal-Mogul, 19

USC 1677a(d)(1)(C) permits an

adjustment to USP only for taxes

imposed directly upon the merchandise.

Federal-Mogul asserts, however, that

SKF-Italy’s claimed adjustment includes

amounts for taxes imposed both directly

and indirectly upon the exported

merchandise. Therefore, Federal-Mogul

concludes that SKF-Italy does not

qualify for any upward adjustment to

USP even if its ‘‘duty drawback’’ is

considered to be a refund of taxes by

reason of exportation.

SKF-Italy claims that the duty

drawback adjustment it submitted in

this review remains consistent with its

submissions in the previous three

administrative reviews and the LTFV

investigation. Additionally, SKF-Italy

notes that the Department verified its

duty drawback adjustment methodology

in the second review. According to SKFItaly, the Department should continue to

reject Federal-Mogul’s argument since it

lacks any persuasive reasoning which

would make the Department conclude

that its reasoning in prior reviews is not

applicable for these final results.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Federal-Mogul. As discussed in

response to the previous comment, we

apply a two-pronged test to determine

whether to grant a respondent’s claimed

adjustment to USP for duty drawback.

We applied this test in addressing the

issue of SKF-Italy’s claimed duty

drawback adjustment in AFBs II. In that

review, we verified SKF-Italy’s duty

drawback adjustment and, based on

those verification findings, accepted the

adjustment for the final results (see

AFBs II at 28420). Thus, we previously

have determined that under the Italian

duty drawback system, a sufficient link

exists between the amount of duties

paid and the amount of duty drawback

claimed. We again accepted SKF-Italy’s

reported duty drawback adjustment in

AFBs III. Because SKF-Italy used the

same method to report duty drawback in

this review as it did in the previous

reviews, and in the absence of evidence

to the contrary, we conclude that SKFItaly’s duty drawback claim for this

review satisfies both prongs of our test.

Further, Federal-Mogul’s assertion

that SKF-Italy’s duty drawback claim

includes amounts for indirect taxes is

unsubstantiated. Although FederalMogul cited the Italian duty drawback

statute in support of its assertion, it

provided no specific evidence that SKFItaly’s duty drawback claim included

any indirect taxes. Therefore, consistent

with AFBs I, AFBs II and AFBs III, we

have accepted SKF-Italy’s duty

drawback adjustment for these final

results.

Comment 18: FAG-Italy requests that

the Department exclude from the final

margin calculations U.S. sales to related

customers which they inadvertently

reported. FAG-Italy identified the sales

in question and noted that information

already on the record supports its

position that these sales are to related

U.S. customers and therefore should not

be included in the Department’s final

margin calculations.

Torrington contends that such

revisions are allowable only where the

underlying data have been verified and

the changes are small. Since the

modifications have not been verified,

Torrington opposes the modifications

requested by FAG-Italy.

Department’s Position: The customer

codes already submitted on the record

by FAG-Italy support the position that

these sales were made to related U.S.

customers. While the specific sales in

question were not examined at

verification, we did verify randomlychosen sales made by FAG-Italy and

found no discrepancies which would

undermine our confidence in the

accuracy of the reported customer

codes. We also note that FAG-Italy

properly reported all subject resales

made by related customers in the U.S.

during the POR.

We note that the CIT has upheld the

Department’s authority to permit

corrections to a respondent’s

submission where the error is obvious

from the record, and the Department can

determine that the new information is

correct. See NSK Ltd. v. United States,

798 F. Supp. 721 (CIT 1992). Adopting

Torrington’s argument would amount to

a rule that such corrections can never be

made after verification. This is clearly
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10967

inconsistent with our practice and the

holdings of the CIT.

FAG-Italy’s errors were obvious from

the record once brought to our attention.

It is in accordance with our

longstanding practice to exclude U.S.

sales to related customers in favor of

resales by such customers to unrelated

parties. Therefore, we have removed

FAG-Italy’s sales to related U.S.

customers from the margin calculations

for these final results.

Comment 19: Torrington asserts that

the Department should deny SKF-Italy’s

request to revoke the antidumping duty

order regarding CRBs. Torrington notes

that revocation is permissible only if the

requesting company is unlikely to sell

below FMV in the future. Torrington

contends the circumstances indicate

that this is doubtful, since SKF-Italy is

part of a larger multinational

organization which has preliminarily

received dumping margins for CRBs in

other countries. Furthermore,

Torrington contends that the minuscule

amount of CRBs sold in the U.S. market

by SKF-Italy during the POR is not

sufficient to show a pattern of continued

fair pricing and may even indicate a

fictitious market.

SKF responds that Torrington has

presented no legal basis on which to

deny revocation. SKF argues that since

neither the antidumping law nor the

Department’s regulations mandate a

different standard for revocation for

multinational corporations, Torrington’s

argument concerning SKF’s

multinational activity for purposes of

revocation is irrelevant.

SKF-Italy also contends that even if

SKF-Italy’s sales could be considered

minimal, there is nothing in the

Department’s regulations to indicate

that minimal sales in a given year would

preclude revocation. Moreover, SKFItaly argues that since the level of sales

at issue in this review is significantly

greater than the quantity of sales upon

which the Department made its initial

LTFV determination, and upon which

the order was based, it should be

considered an acceptable level on which

to base revocation.

Department’s Position: Under 19 CFR

353.25(a)(2)(i), the Department may

revoke an order in part if it finds sales

at not less than FMV for a period of at

least three consecutive years. The

results in this review, combined with

the results in the two prior reviews,

satisfies this requirement for SKF-Italy

in the antidumping duty proceeding for

CRBs. Additionally, the respondent has

agreed, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.25(a)(2)(iii), to the immediate

reinstatement of the order if

circumstances develop indicating that it

has resumed dumping the subject

merchandise. Furthermore, the record,

including our verification findings, in

the past three reviews does not indicate

that SKF-Italy’s U.S. market for CRBs is

fictitious. We also find that Torrington’s

argument fails to make the case that

SKF-Italy is likely to sell below FMV in

the future merely because SKF is a

multinational corporation. Torrington’s

argument merely points to a possibility

of evasion by SKF-Italy in the future,

and does not present any evidence that

SKF-Italy is likely to engage in such

behavior. If we find evidence of evasion,

we will take appropriate action. Finally,

since Torrington has made no other

arguments indicating that SKF-Italy is

likely to resume dumping, we are

satisfied that the respondent is not

likely to sell the merchandise in the

future at less than FMV, and we agree

with respondent that the requirements

for revocation have been met.

[FR Doc. 95–4616 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–804, A–428–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From Japan and Germany;

Amendment to Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

results of antidumping duty

administrative reviews.

SUMMARY: On February 3, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) issued the final results of

its administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on antifriction

bearings (other than tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) from

France, Germany, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom. The classes or kinds of

merchandise covered by these reviews

are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs),

cylindrical roller bearings and parts

thereof (CRBs), and spherical plain

bearings and parts thereof (SPBs). The

reviews covered 29 manufacturers/

exporters and the period May 1, 1992,

through April 30, 1993. Based on

corrections to the calculation of cost of

production (COP) and constructed value

(CV), we are amending the final results

with respect to Japanese ball bearings

and cylindrical roller bearings sold by

one company, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and

Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (collectively

Koyo). We are also amending our final

results to indicate that we disregarded

sales below cost with respect to sales of

AFBs from Germany by two companies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Rimlinger or Michael Rill,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

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 February 3, 1995, the Department

issued the final results of its

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on AFBs from

France, Germany, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom. The notice of these

final results is published in this issue of

the Federal Register. The classes or

kinds of merchandise covered by these

reviews were BBs, CRBs, and SPBs. The

reviews covered 29 manufacturers/

exporters and the period May 1, 1992,

through April 30, 1993.

Subsequent to the issuance of our

final results, Koyo alleged a clerical

error per its letter of February 7, 1995.

We determined there was a ministerial

error in the calculation of COP and CV

in the final results for AFBs from Japan

sold by Koyo. Specifically, in those

instances where Koyo reported finished

or semi-finished bearings purchased

from other suppliers, we included both

the total cost of manufacturing (COM)

and the acquisition cost of such bearings

in the calculation of COP and CV. This

effectively doubled the COM for these

purchased bearings since Koyo’s

acquisition cost is its COM for these

bearings. We have therefore corrected

our calculation of Koyo’s COP and CV.

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market—

Germany

With respect to AFBs from Germany,

the final results issued on February 3,

1995, and published in this issue of the

Federal Register inadvertently failed to

indicate that we disregarded certain

sales below cost in the home market.

Those omitted were sales of SPBs by

FAG and BBs by Fichtel & Sachs.

Concerning AFBs from Germany, the

Department disregarded sales below

cost for the following firms and classes

or kinds of merchandise:

Country Company Class or kind of

merchandise

Germany FAG ................. BBs, CRBs,

SPBs.

INA .................. BBs, CRBs.