25200 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations.

Date: May 9, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12517 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–604; A–588–054]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and

Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Termination in Part.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the

petitioner and two respondents, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) has conducted

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from Japan (A–

588–604), and of the finding on tapered

roller bearings, four inches or less in

outside diameter, and components

thereof, from Japan (A–588–054). The

review of the A–588–054 finding covers

four manufacturers/exporters and ten

resellers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period October 1, 1993, through

September 30, 1994, and one

manufacturer/exporter for the period

October 1, 1992, through September 30,

1993. The review of the A–588–604

order covers five manufacturers/

exporters, ten resellers/exporters, and

seventeen firms identified by the

petitioner in this case as forging

producers, and the period October 1,

1993, through September 30, 1994. The

A–588–604 review also covers one

manufacturer/exporter for the period

October 1, 1992, through September 30,

1993.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales of tapered roller bearings

(TRBs) have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

equal to the difference between the

United States price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Turoscy or Robert James, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Background

On August 18, 1976, the Treasury

Department published in the Federal

Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping

finding on TRBs from Japan, and on

October 6, 1987, the Department

published the antidumping duty order

on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On

October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51166), the

Department published the notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ for both TRB

cases. The petitioner, the Timken Co.,

and two respondents requested

administrative reviews. We initiated the

A–588–054 and A–588–604

administrative reviews for the period

October 1993 through September 1994

on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 56459).

The Department has now conducted

these reviews in accordance with

section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act). However, we

have not conducted a review of Honda

Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda) for either the

A–588–054 or the A–588–604 case. In

our preliminary results notice for the

1992–93 administrative reviews, we

published our intent to revoke the A–

588–054 finding as to Honda and

explained that our final determination

concerning Honda’s revocation would

be published in our final results notice

for the 1992–93 administrative reviews

(see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from

Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings,

Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

from Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Termination in Part, and

Intent to Revoke in Part, 60 FR 22349

(May 5, 1995)). We have not yet

completed those final results and our

final determination concerning Honda’s

revocation has not yet been made. Upon

our determination concerning Honda’s

revocation and the publication of our

final results of review for the 1992–93

administrative review period, we will

proceed accordingly for Honda in both

the A–588–054 and A–588–604 cases.

This notice also includes, along with

our 1993–94 preliminary results of

review for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo),

our 1992–93 preliminary results of

review for Koyo for both the A–588–054

finding and the A–588–604 order.

Because our scope proceeding regarding

Koyo’s rough forgings was concurrent

with our 1992–93 preliminary results

analysis, we determined that, rather

than delay our 1992–93 preliminary

results of review for all other reviewed

firms, we would conduct Koyo’s 1992–

93 reviews in both cases after making

our final scope determination

concerning Koyo’s rough forgings. On

February 2, 1995, we published in the

Federal Register our final scope

decision concerning Koyo’s rough

forgings (60 FR 6519), in which we

determined that Koyo’s rough forgings

are within the scope of the A–588–604

order. We provided Koyo additional

time to submit its sales and cost

information concerning its rough

forgings for both the 1992–93 and 1993–

94 administrative reviews and have now

conducted our review of Koyo for both

these periods in accordance with

section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the A–588–054

finding are sales or entries of TRBs, four

inches or less in outside diameter when

assembled, including inner race or cone

assemblies and outer races or cups, sold

either as a unit or separately. This

merchandise is classified under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30.

Imports covered by the A–588–604

order include TRBs and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, which are

flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger

units incorporating TRBs, and tapered

roller housings (except pillow blocks)

incorporating tapered rollers, with or

without spindles, whether or not for
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25201

automotive use. Products subject to the

A–588–054 finding are not included

within the scope of this order, except for

those manufactured by NTN Toyo

Bearing Co., Ltd. (NTN). This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under HTS item numbers 8482.99.30,

8483.20.40, 8482.20.20, 8483.20.80,

8482.91.00, 8484.30.80, 8483.90.20,

8483.90.30, and 8483.90.60. These HTS

item numbers and those for the A–588–

054 finding are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

The period for each 1993–94 review is

October 1, 1993, through September 30,

1994. These reviews cover TRB sales by

five TRB manufacturers/exporters

(Koyo, NSK Ltd. (NSK), NTN, NachiFujikoshi Corporation (Nachi), and

Maekawa Bearing Mfg. Co., Ltd.

(Maekawa)), and ten resellers/exporters

(Honda, Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.

(Fuji), Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.

(Kawasaki), Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.

(Yamaha), Sumitomo Corporation

(Sumitomo), Itochu Co., Ltd. (Itochu),

Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. (Suzuki), Nigata

Converter Co., Ltd. (Nigata), Toyosha

Co., Ltd. (Toyosha), and MC

International (MC Int’l)). These reviews

also cover U.S. sales/importations of

forgings by Koyo, NTN, and seventeen

firms identified by the petitioner as

Japanese forging producers (Daido Steel

Co., Ltd. (Daido Steel), Asakawa Screw

Co., Ltd. (Asakawa), Fuse Rashi Co.,

Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd.,

Ichiyanagi Tekko, Isshi Nut Industries

(Isshi Nut), Kawada Tekko, Kinki

Maruseo Nut Kogyo Kumiai, Kitazawa

Valve Co., Ltd. (Kitz Corp.), Nittetsu

Bolten, Shiga Bolt, Shinko Bolt, Sugiura

Seisakusho, Sumikin Seiatsu, Toyo

Valve Co., Unytite Fastener Mfg. Co.,

Ltd. (Unytite Kogyo), and Showa Seiko

Co., Ltd. (Showa)). We are terminating

our review for eleven of the seventeen

firms as described in the ‘‘Termination

in Part’’ section of this notice.

The period for the 1992–93 reviews is

October 1, 1992, through September 30,

1993. The 1992–93 reviews of both the

A–588–054 and A–588–604 cases

included in this notice cover TRB sales

by one manufacturer/exporter, Koyo.

Verification

As provided for in section 776(b) of

the Tariff Act, we verified information

provided by NTN for the 1993–94

review period and information provided

by Koyo for the 1992–93 review period.

We used standard verification

procedures in each of the verifications,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of our NTN and Koyo

verification reports.

Best Information Available (BIA)

Total BIA

For these preliminary results, in

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Tariff Act, for several firms we used

BIA, which we determined according to

the two-tier BIA methodology outlined

in Antifriction Bearings; Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Reviews

and Revocation in Part of Antidumping

Duty Order, 58 FR 39729, 39739 (July

26, 1993) (AFBs). Based on this

methodology we used BIA as follows:

1. When a company refused to

cooperate with the Department or

otherwise significantly impeded these

proceedings, we used as total BIA the

higher of (1) the highest rate found for

any firm for the same class or kind of

merchandise in the same country of

origin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or prior administrative

reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in

this review for any firm for the same

class or kind of merchandise in the

same country of origin.

2. When a company substantially

cooperated with our requests for

information and substantially

cooperated at verification, but failed to

provide requested information in a

timely manner or in the form required

or was unable to substantiate it, we used

as total BIA the higher of (1) the highest

rate ever applicable to that firm for the

same class or kind of merchandise from

either the LTFV investigation or a prior

administrative review (or if the firm had

never before been investigated or

reviewed, the ‘‘all others’’ rate from the

LTFV investigation), or (2) the highest

calculated rate in this review for the

class or kind of merchandise for any

firm from the same country of origin.

Thus, for first-tier (non-cooperative)

BIA in these reviews we have used for

the A–588–604 review the highest

calculated rate for any firm in the

history of the order (i.e., 40.37 percent,

the rate for NSK in the 1988–89 A–588–

604 review), and for the A–588–054

review we have used the highest

calculated rate for any firm in the

history of the finding (i.e., 47.63

percent, the rate for Koyo in the 1987–

88 A–588–054 review).

Listed below is a company-bycompany summary of the total BIA used

in these reviews.

A. First-Tier (Non-Cooperative) BIA

(i) Maekawa, Yamaha, Toyosha,

Nigata, and Suzuki: None of these firms

responded to our questionnaire in either

the A–588–054 or the A–588–604

review. Therefore, based on the criteria

set forth above, as first-tier BIA for each

of these firms in the A–588–604 review

we used 40.37 percent and for each of

these firms in the A–588–054 review,

we used 47.63 percent.

(ii) Nachi: In a letter responding to

our questionnaire Nachi indicated that

it declined to provide the information

requested in our questionnaire for both

the A–588–604 and A–588–054 reviews.

As a result, we used for Nachi first-tier

BIA rates of 40.37 percent in the A–588–

604 review and 47.63 percent in the A–

588–054 review.

(iii) Daido Steel, Kawanda Tekkosho,

Asakawa, Ichiyanagi Tekko, and Isshi

Nut: These five firms, which were

identified as forging producers and

which are involved only in the A–588–

604 review, did not respond to our

questionnaire. As a result, for each firm

we used a first-tier BIA rate of 40.37

percent.

(iv) While Kawasaki did respond to

our questionnaire, its response

contained only general information and

a statement indicating that it declined to

provide any of the sales-specific

information we requested in our

questionnaire. The information

Kawasaki failed to provide was

necessary for our analysis, and

Kawasaki’s failure to provide this

information impeded our ability to

conduct the review for Kawasaki. We

have therefore used a first-tier BIA rate

of 40.47 percent for Kawasaki in the A–

588–604 review, and a first-tier BIA rate

of 47.63 percent in the A–588–054

review.

Partial BIA

While conducting our 1992–93 and

1993–94 preliminary analysis for Koyo,

we discovered that in both reviews

Koyo did not report the actual furtherprocessing costs for certain of its U.S.

further-processed models. Rather, Koyo

reported further-processing costs for

these models which were based on the

further-processing costs of other U.S.

models which Koyo identified as most

similar. As a result, the actual furtherprocessing costs requested by the

Department for these U.S. models were

not reported by Koyo. Furthermore, our

review of both Koyo’s 1992–93 and

1993–94 questionnaire responses

revealed that Koyo failed to indicate in

its responses that it reported something

other than the actual further-processing

costs for certain U.S. models.
25202 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

In those cases where the overall

integrity of a respondent’s questionnaire

response warrants a calculated rate, but

the firm failed to provide certain

information, or certain information it

provided was inaccurate, it is the

Department’s practice to use partial BIA

(see, e.g., AFBs at 10907). Therefore, for

these 1992–93 and 1993–94 preliminary

results for Koyo, we have used partial

BIA for the further-processing costs

Koyo failed to accurately report for

these particular U.S. models. After

making an initial adjustment to all of

Koyo’s further-processing costs based on

information we discovered at

verification (see the Office of

Accounting’s preliminary results

calculation memorandum dated October

12, 1995), we determined the single

highest ratio between further-processing

costs and the gross unit price for all of

Koyo’s further-manufactured U.S.

models. We then applied this ratio to

the unit prices for the models in

question and used the resulting furtherprocessing cost amounts as partial BIA

for these models.

No Shipments

Two resellers, Fuji and MC Int’l, made

no shipments of A–588–604 subject

merchandise during the review period.

Furthermore, neither of these firms was

a party to the A–588–604 LTFV

investigation or any prior administrative

reviews of the A–588–604 case. Because

their shipments have never been

reviewed individually, we have not

assigned a rate to these two firms for the

A–588–604 case. If these firms begin

shipping subject merchandise at some

future date, the entries will be subject to

the cash deposit rates attributable to the

manufacturer(s) of the subject

merchandise.

Concerning those firms identified by

the petitioner as forging producers, only

one of the 17 firms, Showa, reported

that it actually produced forgings used

in the manufacture of TRBs. However,

Showa also indicated that it did not sell

these forgings to the United States, but

rather only sold such merchandise to

companies in Japan. Because this firm

had no U.S. shipments of this

merchandise during the review period

and has never been involved in an A–

588–604 review or the LTFV

investigation, we have not assigned an

individual rate to Showa for the A–588–

604 case. If Showa were to begin

shipping at some future date, the entries

will be subject to the A–588–604 LTFV

‘‘all others’’ cash deposit rate of 36.52

percent.

Termination in Part

Eleven of the seventeen firms

identified by the petitioner as forging

producers reported that they did not

produce the forgings which have been

found to be within the scope of the

order, but rather only produced nonscope merchandise such as nuts, bolts,

and valves. As a result, because these

firms do not produce or sell subject

merchandise, we are terminating the A–

588–604 review for the following eleven

firms: Fuse Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka

Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., Kinki Maruseo Nut

Kogyo Kumiai, Kitz Corp., Shiga Bolt,

Shinko Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, Toyo

Valve Co., Nittetsu Bolten, Sumikin

Seiatsu, and Unytite Kogyo.

Our termination of the A–588–604

review for these eleven firms does not

constitute a revocation of the order as to

these firms. If any of the above eleven

firms ever become manufacturers/

exporters of TRBs or forgings used in

the production of TRBs, their

merchandise will be subject to the

order.

Resellers/Shippers

Of the ten resellers covered by these

reviews, we have determined that two of

these resellers, Sumitomo and Itochu,

are mere shippers of the subject

merchandise and do not warrant their

own margin. Itochu and Sumitomo

contract with larger Japanese

companies/suppliers to ship TRBs from

the suppliers to the suppliers’ U.S.

subsidiaries. Because these suppliers

knew at the time of the transfer of

merchandise to Itochu and Sumitomo

that these TRBs were destined for the

United States, and because Itochu and

Sumitomo had no influence over the

sales prices or quantities of these

shipments, we have determined that the

suppliers’ rates, and not unique

Sumitomo or Itochu rates, should be

applied for cash deposit and

appraisement purposes. See, for

example, Antifriction Bearings (Other

than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

thereof from Germany, et al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 56 FR 31692,

31747 (July 11, 1991).

United States Price (USP)

The Department used exporter’s sales

price (ESP) for Koyo, NSK, NTN, Fuji,

and MC Int’l, and purchase price for

certain of Fuji’s and NTN’s sales, as

defined in section 772 of the Tariff Act,

to calculate USP. ESP was based on the

packed, delivered price to unrelated

purchasers in the United States. We

made adjustments, where applicable, for

foreign pre-sale inland freight, foreign

inland freight, air freight, ocean freight,

marine insurance, export inspection

fees, brokerage and handling, U.S.

inland freight, U.S. duty, commissions

to unrelated parties, U.S. credit,

discounts, rebates, sales allowances,

billing adjustments, technical service

expenses, warranties, packing expenses

incurred in the United States, and

indirect selling expenses (which include

inventory carrying costs, warehouse

transfer expenses, advertising, other

U.S.—incurred selling expenses, and

export selling expenses). For NTN and

Koyo, we also adjusted ESP for value

added in further manufacturing,

including an allocation of profit earned

on U.S. sales. In addition, based on our

verification of Koyo’s reported 1992–93

further manufacturing information, and

Koyo’s response to our 1993–94

supplemental questionnaire, we made

adjustments to Koyo’s reported 1992–93

and 1993–94 further-manufacturing

costs.

NTN’s and Fuji’s purchase price sales

were based on the sales price to the first

unrelated purchaser in the United

States. We made adjustments to

purchase price, where appropriate, for

rebates and the following movement

expenses: foreign pre-sale inland freight,

foreign inland freight, ocean freight,

marine insurance, brokerage and

handling, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight,

and export inspection fees.

In light of the decision by the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (the Federal Circuit) in FederalMogul v. United States, CAFC No. 94–

1097, we have changed our treatment of

home market consumption taxes. For

these preliminary results, where

merchandise exported to the United

States was exempt from the

consumption tax, we added to the U.S.

price the absolute amount of such taxes

charged on the comparison sales in the

home market. This is the same

methodology that we adopted following

the decision of the Federal Circuit in

Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573,

1582 (1993), and which was suggested

by the Federal Circuit in footnote 4 of

its decision. The Court of International

Trade (CIT) overturned this

methodology in Federal-Mogul v.

United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993),

and we acquiesced to the CIT’s decision.

We then followed the CIT’s preferred

methodology, which was to calculate

the tax to be added to U.S. price by

multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by

the foreign market tax rate; we made

adjustments to this amount so that the

tax adjustment would not alter a ‘‘zero’’

pre-tax dumping assessment.

The foreign exporters in the FederalMogul case, however, appealed the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25203

decision to the Federal Circuit, which

reversed the CIT and held that the

statute did not preclude Commerce from

using the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology to calculate tax-neutral

dumping assessments (i.e., assessments

that are unaffected by the existence or

amount of home market consumption

taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit

recognized that certain international

agreements of the United States, in

particular the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code, required the

calculation of tax-neutral dumping

assessments. The Federal Circuit

remanded the case to the CIT with

instructions to direct Commerce to

determine which tax methodology it

will employ.

We have determined that the ‘‘Zenith

footnote 4’’ methodology should be

used. First, as we have explained in

numerous administrative

determinations and court filings over

the past decade, and as the Federal

Circuit has now recognized, Article VI

of the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code required that

dumping assessments be tax-neutral.

This requirement continues under the

new Agreement on Implementation of

Article VI of the GATT. Second, the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) explicitly amended the

antidumping law to remove

consumption taxes from the home

market price and to eliminate the

addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that

no consumption tax is included in the

price in either market. The Statement of

Administrative Action (p. 159)

explicitly states that this change was

intended to result in tax neutrality.

While the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology is slightly different from

the URAA methodology, in that section

772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA law

required that the tax be added to U.S.

price rather than subtracted from home

market price, it does result in taxneutral duty assessments. In sum, we

have elected to treat consumption taxes

in a manner consistent with our

longstanding policy of tax-neutrality

and with the GATT.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Foreign Market Value (FMV)

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.48(a),

we determined that the home market

was viable for NTN, NSK, Koyo, and

Fuji. Therefore, we compared U.S. sales

with sales of such or similar

merchandise in the home market.

In general, the Department relies on

monthly weighted-average prices in the

calculation of FMV. For reasons of

simplification, consistent with section

777A of the Tariff Act, we used an

average of respondents’ home market

sales for each review period. To

determine whether an annual average

was representative of the transactions

under consideration, we performed the

following three-step test (see AFBs).

First, we compared the annual

weighted-average home market price for

each model with each of its 12 monthly

weighted-average prices for each review

period. We calculated the proportion of

each model’s sales whose annual

weighted-average price did not vary

more than plus or minus 10 percent

from the monthly weighted-average

prices. Second, we compared the

volume of sales of all models whose

annual weighted-average prices did not

vary more than plus or minus 10

percent from the monthly weightedaverage prices with the total volume of

sales of TRBs. If the annual weightedaverage price of at least 90 percent of

the sales of TRBs did not vary more than

plus or minus 10 percent from the

monthly weighted-average price, we

considered the annual weighted-average

price to be representative of the

transactions under consideration for

that firm. Third, we tested whether

there was any correlation between

fluctuations in price and time for each

model. Where the correlation coefficient

was less than 0.05 (where a coefficient

approaching 1.0 indicates a direct

relation between price and time), we

concluded that there was no significant

relation between price and time.

Because the annual weighted-average

prices for each model sold by Koyo,

NSK, Fuji, MC Int’l, and NTN during

each review period did not vary

meaningfully from the monthly

weighted-average prices of sales, and

because there was no correlation

between price and time, we considered

the annual weighted-average prices for

each review period to be representative

of the transactions under consideration.

Therefore, we calculated a single FMV

for each model sold by Koyo, NSK, Fuji,

and NTN on an annual weightedaverage basis.

Based on petitioner’s allegations and

the Department’s previous TRB

determinations of sales made below the

cost of production (COP), in accordance

with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we

determined that there were reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that, for

these review periods, NTN, Koyo, and

NSK made sales of subject merchandise

in the home market at prices less than

COP. As a result, we investigated

whether NTN, Koyo, or NSK sold such

or similar merchandise in the home

market at prices below COP. In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we

calculated COP for NTN, NSK, and

Koyo as the sum of reported materials,

labor, factory overhead, and general

expenses, and, where appropriate,

compared COP to home market prices

net of direct price adjustments and

discounts.

In accordance with section 773(b) of

the Tariff Act, in determining whether

to disregard home market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined

whether such sales were made in

substantial quantities over an extended

period of time, and whether such sales

were made at prices which permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in the normal course of

trade.

In accordance with our normal

practice, for each model for which less

than 10 percent, by quantity, of the

home market sales during the period of

review (POR) were made at prices below

the COP, we included all sales of that

model in the computation of FMV. For

each model for which 10 percent or

more, but less than 90 percent, of the

home market sales during the POR were

priced below the merchandise’s COP,

we excluded from the calculation of

FMV those home market sales which

were priced below the merchandise’s

COP, provided that these below-cost

sales were made over an extended

period of time. For each model for

which 90 percent or more of the home

market sales during the POR were

priced below the COP and were made

over an extended period of time, we

disregarded all sales of that model in

our calculation and, in accordance with

section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we used

the constructed value (CV) of those

models, as described below. See, e.g.,

Mechanical Transfer Presses from

Japan, Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958

(March 2, 1994).

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)

of the Tariff Act, to determine whether

sales below cost had been made over an

extended period of time, we compared

the number of months in which sales

below cost occurred for a particular

model to the number of months in

which that model was sold. If the model

was sold in fewer than three months, we

did not disregard below-cost sales

unless there were below-cost sales of

that model in each month sold. If a

model was sold in three or more

months, we did not disregard belowcost sales unless there were sales below

cost in at least three of the months in

which the model was sold. We used CV

as the basis for FMV when an

insufficient number of home market
25204 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

sales were made at prices above COP.

See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From

Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings,

Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December

8, 1993).

In the case of NTN, Koyo, and NSK,

we compared each firm’s individual

home market prices with annual COPs.

We tested each firm’s home market

prices on a model-specific basis and

found for each firm, (1) models where

more than 90 percent of the home

market sales were made at below-COP

prices and were made over an extended

period of time, (2) other models where

between 10 and 90 percent of home

market sales were made at below-COP

prices and over an extended period of

time, and (3) yet other models where

less than 10 percent of home market

sales were made at below-COP prices.

See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip from Korea, 56 FR

16306 (April 22, 1991).

Because NTN, NSK, and Koyo

provided no indication that their belowcost sales of models within the ‘‘greater

than 90 percent’’ and the ‘‘between 10

and 90 percent’’ categories were at

prices that would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time

and in the normal course of trade, we

disregarded those sales of models in the

‘‘10 to 90 percent’’ category which were

made below cost over an extended

period of time. In addition, as a result

of our COP test for home market sales

of models within the ‘‘greater than 90

percent’’ category, we based FMV on CV

for all U.S. sales for which there were

insufficient sales of the comparison

home market model at or above COP.

Finally, where we found, for certain of

NTN’s, NSK’s, and Koyo’s models,

home market sales for which less than

10 percent were made at below-COP

prices, we used all home market sales of

these models in our comparisons.

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Tariff Act, we used CV as FMV for

those U.S. sales for which there were

insufficient sales of the comparison

home market model at or above COP,

and for those U.S. sales for which there

was no sale of such or similar

merchandise in the home market. We

calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We

included the cost of materials, labor,

and factory overhead in our

calculations. Where the actual selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A) were less than the statutory

minimum of ten percent of the cost of

manufacture (COM), we calculated

SG&A as ten percent of the COM. Where

the actual profits were less than the

statutory minimum of eight percent of

the COM plus SG&A, we calculated

profit as eight percent of the sum of

COM plus SG&A. We also adjusted

NSK’s and NTN’s reported COP and CV

to reflect the actual COP of related-party

inputs.

In accordance with section 773 of the

Tariff Act, for those U.S. models for

which we were able to find a home

market or third-country such or similar

match that had sufficient above-cost

sales, we calculated FMV based on the

packed, F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered

prices to related purchasers (where an

arm’s-length relationship was

demonstrated) and unrelated purchasers

in the home market. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for postsale inland freight, credit, commissions,

and warranties. We also made

adjustments for discounts, rebates, and

differences in physical characteristics.

In addition, for comparison to ESP sales,

we adjusted FMV for indirect selling

expenses (which include advertising,

inventory carrying costs, pre-sale inland

freight, and other selling expenses) in

the home market, limiting the home

market indirect selling expense

deductions by the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred in the United

States. In situations where a U.S. sale

with no commission was compared to a

home market sale with a commission,

we limited the deduction from FMV for

home market indirect selling expenses

by the amount of U.S. indirect selling

expenses less the home market

commission amount. In those instances

where a commission was granted on the

U.S. sale only, we increased the amount

classified as U.S. indirect selling

expenses for comparison to home

market indirect selling expenses by the

amount of the U.S. commission. We

then limited the deduction from FMV

for home market indirect selling

expenses by the amount of the enhanced

U.S. indirect selling expenses. For NTN,

NSK, Koyo, and Fuji, all of which

reported consumption tax-exclusive

home market gross prices, we adjusted

FMV for the Japanese consumption tax

by adding the absolute amount of home

market tax to FMV in accordance with

our tax-neutral methodology described

above. Finally, after deducting home

market packing from FMV, we added to

FMV packing expenses incurred in

Japan for U.S. sales.

For comparison to purchase price

sales, pursuant to section 773 of the

Tariff Act, we added to FMV, where

applicable, U.S. packing, credit, and

direct advertising. We adjusted FMV for

the Japanese consumption tax as

described above, and for comparison to

both ESP and purchase price sales, NTN

requested and received a level-of-trade

adjustment to FMV based on certain

home market indirect expenses.

Because MC Int’l did not sell TRBs in

the home market during the review

period, but rather only exported TRBs to

the United States and other thirdcountry markets, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, we

determined that, for MC Int’l, the home

market was not viable. Therefore,

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.48, for MC Int’l

we based FMV on third-country sales.

In selecting the appropriate thirdcountry market to use for comparison

purposes, we first determined which

third-country markets had adequate

volumes of sales within the meaning of

19 CFR 353.49(b)(1). We determined

that the volume of sales to a thirdcountry market was adequate if the

quantity of sales of such or similar

merchandise equalled or exceeded five

percent of the quantity of sales in the

United States. We then selected the

third-country market with the largest

volume of sales, and whose organization

and development is most like that of the

United States, as the most appropriate

market for comparison, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.49(b)(2). Therefore, for

MC Int’l’s sales of TRBs to the first

unrelated customer in the United States,

we based FMV on MC Int’l’s sales to

unrelated customers in the United

Kingdom. In addition, we applied to MC

Int’l’s sales in the United Kingdom the

identical price stability test described

above, and because the annual

weighted-average prices for TRBs sold

by MC Int’l in the United Kingdom did

not vary meaningfully from the monthly

weighted-average prices of sales, and

because there was no correlation

between price and time, we considered

the annual weighted-average prices in

the United Kingdom to be representative

of the transactions under consideration.

Therefore, we calculated a single FMV

for each model sold by MC Int’l in the

United Kingdom on an annual

weighted-average basis.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP

to FMV we preliminarily determine that

the following margins exist for Koyo for

the period October 1, 1992, through

September 30, 1993:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25205

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(Percent)

For the A–588–054 Review:Koyo Seiko .................... 38.64

For the A–588–604 Review:

Koyo Seiko ............................ 46.03

In addition, we preliminarily

determine that the following margins

exist for the period October 1, 1993,

through September 30, 1994 for the

following firms:

Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter Margin

(percent)

For the A–588–054 Review:

Koyo Seiko ............................ 34.68

Nachi ..................................... 47.63

NSK ....................................... 7.61

Fuji ......................................... 6.08

Kawasaki ............................... 47.63

Yamaha ................................. 47.63

MC International .................... 2.36

Maekawa ............................... 47.63

Toyosha ................................. 47.63

Nigata Converter ................... 47.63

Suzuki .................................... 47.63

For the A–588–604 Review:

NTN ....................................... 19.73

Koyo Seiko ............................ 41.21

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. ............ 40.37

NSK Ltd. ................................ 7.15

Fuji ......................................... (1)

Kawasaki ............................... 40.37

Yamaha ................................. 40.37

MC International .................... (1)

Maekawa ............................... 40.37

Toyosha ................................. 40.37

Nigata Converter ................... 40.37

Suzuki .................................... 40.37

Showa Seiko ......................... (1)

Daido ..................................... 40.37

Ichiyanagi Tekko ................... 40.37

Kawada Tekkosho ................. 40.37

Asakawa Screw Co. .............. 40.37

Isshi Nut ................................ 40.37

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no rate from any prior segment of this proceeding.

Interested parties may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice and may

request a hearing within 10 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication or the first business day

thereafter. Case briefs and/or written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted no later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs

and rebuttals to written comments,

limited to issues raised in those

comments, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish the final results of these

administrative reviews including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written comments or at a

hearing.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

the USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act. A cash deposit of estimated

antidumping duties shall be required on

shipments of TRBs from Japan as

follows:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews. For Koyo, the cash deposit

rates will be those rates established in

the final results for the 1993–94

administrative reviews;

(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 these reviews, a prior review,

or the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigations, 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) If neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in these

or any previous reviews conducted by

the Department, the cash deposit rate for

the A–588–054 case will be 18.07

percent and 36.52 percent for the A–

588–604 case (see Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings,

Finished and Unfinished, and Parts

Thereof, From Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan, 58 FR 51058, 51061

(September 30, 1993)).

All U.S. sales by each respondent will

be subject to one deposit rate according

to the proceeding.

The cash deposit rate has been

determined on the basis of the selling

price to the first unrelated customer in

the United States. For appraisement

purposes, where information is

available, the Department will use the

entered value of the merchandise to

determine the appraisement rate.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

These administrative reviews and this

notice are in accordance with section

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

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

Dated: May 10, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12519 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–501]

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes From Thailand;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The countervailing duty order

on certain circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Thailand was

revoked effective January 1, 1995,

pursuant to section 753 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (the Act) (60 FR

40568). The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of this order to

determine the appropriate assessment

rate for entries made during the last

review period prior to the revocation of

the order (January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1994). We preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be de

minimis or zero for all companies for

the period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994 (see ‘‘Preliminary

Results of Review’’ section). If the final

results of this review remain the same

as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to liquidate, without

regard to countervailing duties,

shipments of the subject merchandise

from all companies exported on or after

January 1, 1994 and entered on or before

December 31, 1994. Because this order

has been revoked, the Department will

not issue further instructions with

respect to cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.