Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35713

Period

Moldova: Solid Urea, A–841–801 ........................................................................................................................................ 7/1/95–6/30/96

Romania: Solid Urea, A–485–601 ....................................................................................................................................... 7/1/95–6/30/96

Russia: Ferrovanadium, A–821–807 .................................................................................................................................... 1/4/95–6/30/96

Russia: Solid Urea, A–821–801 ........................................................................................................................................... 7/1/95–6/30/96

South Korea: Industrial Nitrocellulose, A–580–805 ............................................................................................................. 7/1/95–6/30/96

Tajikistan: Solid Urea, A–842–801 ....................................................................................................................................... 7/1/95–6/30/96

Thailand: Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A–549–807 .................................................................................................................... 7/1/95–6/30/96

Thailand: Canned Pineapple, A–549–813 ........................................................................................................................... 1/11/95–6/30/96

Thailand: Furfuryl Alcohol, A–549–812 ................................................................................................................................ 5/8/95–6/30/96

The People’s Republic of China: Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A–570–814 ............................................................................... 7/1/95–6/30/96

The People’s Republic of China: Industrial Nitrocellulose, A–570–802 .............................................................................. 7/1/95–6/30/96

The People’s Republic of China: Sebacic Acid, A–570–825 ............................................................................................... 7/1/95–6/30/96

The Ukraine: Solid Urea, A–823–801 .................................................................................................................................. 7/1/95–6/30/96

The United Kingdom: Industrial Nitrocellulose, A–412–803 ................................................................................................ 7/1/95–6/30/96

Turkmenistan: Solid Urea, A–843–801 ................................................................................................................................ 7/1/95–6/30/96

Uzbekistan: Solid Urea, A–844–801 .................................................................................................................................... 7/1/95–6/30/96

Countervailing Duty Proceeding:

European Economic Community: Sugar, C–408–046 ......................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

In accordance with sections 353.22(a)

and 355.22(a) of the regulations, an

interested party as defined by section

353.2(k) may request in writing that the

Secretary conduct an administrative

review. The Department has changed its

requirements for requesting reviews for

countervailing duty orders. Pursuant to

19 C.F.R. 355.22(a) of the Department’s

Interim Regulations (60 FR 25137 (May

11, 1995)), an interested party must

specify the individual producers or

exporters covered by the order for

which they are requesting a review.

Therefore, for both antidumping and

countervailing duty reviews, the

interested party must specify for which

individual producers or exporters

covered by an antidumping finding or

an antidumping or countervailing duty

order it is requesting a review, and the

requesting party must state why it

desires the Secretary to review those

particular producers or exporters. If the

interested party intends for the

Secretary to review sales of merchandise

by an exporter (or a producer if that

producer also exports merchandise from

other suppliers) which were produced

in more than one country of origin, and

each country of origin is subject to a

separate order, then the interested party

must state specifically, on an order-byorder basis, which exporter(s) the

request is intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room B–099,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The

Department also asks parties to serve a

copy of their requests to the Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Attention:

Pamela Woods, in room 3065 of the

main Commerce Building. Further, in

accordance with section 353.31(g) or

355.31(g) of the regulations, a copy of

each request must be served on every

party on the Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Antidumping (Countervailing) Duty

Administrative Review,’’ for requests

received by the last day of July 1996. If

the Department does not receive, by the

last day of July 1996, a request for

review of entries covered by an order or

finding listed in this notice and for the

period identified above, the Department

will instruct the Customs Service to

assess antidumping or countervailing

duties on those entries at a rate equal to

the cash deposit of (or bond for)

estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute,

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: June 28, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–17279 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588–

804, A–485–801, A–559–801, A–549–801, A–

412–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Thailand

and the United Kingdom; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, Termination

of Administrative Reviews, and Partial

Termination of Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Termination of Administrative

Reviews, and Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs)

from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Singapore and the United Kingdom. The

classes or kinds of merchandise covered

by these orders are ball bearings and

parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller

bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), and

spherical plain bearings and parts

thereof (SPBs). The reviews cover 27

manufacturers/exporters. The period of

review (the POR) is May 1, 1994,

through April 30, 1995.

Although we initiated reviews for

seven other manufacturers/exporters,

we are terminating the reviews because

the requests for these reviews were

withdrawn in a timely manner. In

addition, the Department is terminating

reviews of the orders on BBs from

Romania and Thailand. The sole request
35714 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

we received regarding Romania was

withdrawn. Regarding Thailand, on

June 21, 1996, we issued the final

results of the 1993–1994 administrative

review revoking the order on BBs from

Thailand, effective May 1, 1994.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV) by various companies

subject to these reviews. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of these administrative

reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs

to assess antidumping duties equal to

the difference between the export price

(EP) or constructed export price (CEP)

and the NV.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in these

proceedings are requested to submit

with each argument (1) a statement of

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

appropriate case analyst, for the various

respondent firms listed below, at the

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

France

Andrea Chu (Intertechnique, SNFA,

SNR), Hermes Pinilla (Franke GmbH,

Hoesch Rothe Erde, Rollix Defontaine),

Matthew Rosenbaum (SKF), or Michael

Rill.

Germany

Thomas Barlow (Torrington

Nadellager), Davina Hashmi (INA), Chip

Hayes (NTN Kugellagerfabrik), Hermes

Pinilla (Franke GmbH, Hoesch Rothe

Erde and Rollix Defontaine), Matthew

Rosenbaum (SKF), Thomas Schauer

(FAG), Michael Rill, or Richard

Rimlinger.

Italy

Kris Campbell (SKF), Michael

Rausher (FAG), Michael Rill, or Richard

Rimlinger.

Japan

J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Chip

Hayes (NTN), Michael Panfeld (NPBS),

Mark Ross (Asahi Seiko), Thomas

Schauer (NSK Ltd.), or Richard

Rimlinger.

Singapore

Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or

Richard Rimlinger.

United Kingdom

Andrea Chu (Hoffman U.K.), Hermes

Pinilla (NSK/RHP), Matthew

Rosenbaum (Rose Bearing Co., Ltd.), or

Michael Rill.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA).

Background

On May 15, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders

on BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom. Specifically, these

orders cover BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from

France, Germany, and Japan; BBs and

CRBs from Italy, Sweden and the U.K.;

and BBs from Romania, Singapore and

Thailand. On June 19, 1995, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we

initiated administrative reviews of

certain of these orders for the period

May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995 (60

FR 31952). The Department is now

conducting these administrative reviews

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Subsequent to the initiation of these

reviews, we received timely

withdrawals of review requests for

Fichtel & Sachs AG (Germany), Jidosha

Buhin Kogyo Co., Ltd. (Japan), Naiico

Spicer Co., Ltd. (Japan), Nissan Trading

Co., Ltd. (Japan), Izumoto Seiko Co.,

Ltd. (Japan), Tehnoimportexport, S.A.

(Romania), Barden Corporation (United

Kingdom), and Normalair-Garrett Ltd.

(United Kingdom). Because there were

no other requests for review of these

companies from any other interested

parties, we are terminating the reviews

with respect to these companies in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

We are terminating the review of AFBs

from Romania because

Tehnoimportexport, S.A. was the only

company for which a review of that

order was requested.

We are terminating the review of

AFBs from Thailand with respect to

NMB Thai/Pelmec Thai because

subsequent to the initiation of this

review we revoked the antidumping

duty order (see Antifriction Bearings

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof from Thailand; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Revocation

of Antidumping Duty Order, issued June

21, 1996).

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews are AFBs and constitute the

following classes or kinds of

merchandise:

1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof:

These products include all antifriction

bearings that employ balls as the rolling

element. Imports of these products are

classified under the following

categories: antifriction balls, ball

bearings with integral shafts, ball

bearings (including radial ball bearings)

and parts thereof, and housed or

mounted ball bearing units and parts

thereof.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS)

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010,

8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10,

8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,

8482.99.05, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.35,

8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40,

8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80,

8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30,

8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75,

8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960,

8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080,

8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00,

8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.

2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof: These products include

all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers

as the rolling element. Imports of these

products are classified under the

following categories: antifriction rollers,

all cylindrical roller bearings (including

split cylindrical roller bearings) and

parts thereof, and housed or mounted

cylindrical roller bearing units and parts

thereof.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following HTS

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010,

8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00,

8482.50.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,

8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530,

8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70,

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.93.5000,

8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50,

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00,

8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.

3. Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts

Thereof: These products include all

spherical plain bearings that employ a

spherically shaped sliding element.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following HTS

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35715

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.50.10,

8483.30.80, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00,

8708.93.5000, 8708.99.50, 8803.10.00,

8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and

8803.90.90.

The size or precision grade of a

bearing does not influence whether the

bearing is covered by the order. For a

further discussion of the scope of the

orders being reviewed, including recent

scope determinations, see Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, et al.; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and Revocation

in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders, 60

FR 10900 (February 28, 1995) (AFBs IV).

The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written descriptions remain

dispositive.

These reviews cover the following

firms and classes or kinds of

merchandise:

Name of firm Class or kind

France

Franke GmbH ................................................................................................................................................................................... BBs.

Hoesch Rothe-Erde AG .................................................................................................................................................................... BBs.

Intertechnique ................................................................................................................................................................................... All.

Rollix Defontaine, S.A. ...................................................................................................................................................................... BBs.

SKF France (including all relevant affiliates) .................................................................................................................................... All.

SNFA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. BBs, CRBs.

Societe Nouvelle Roulements (SNR) ............................................................................................................................................... All.

Germany

FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA (FAG Germany) ............................................................................................................. All.

Franke GmbH ................................................................................................................................................................................... BBs.

Hoesch Rothe Erde AG .................................................................................................................................................................... BBs.

INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (INA) .................................................................................................................................................. All.

NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH (NTN Germany) ......................................................................................................... All.

Rollix & Defontaine, S.A. .................................................................................................................................................................. BBs.

SKF GmbH (including all relevant affiliates) (SKF Germany) .......................................................................................................... All.

Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/Kuensenbeck) ............................................................................................................................ BBs, CRBs.

Italy

FAG Italia S.p.A. (including all relevant affiliates) (FAG Italy) ......................................................................................................... BBs, CRBs.

SKF-Industrie S.p.A. (SKF Italy) ....................................................................................................................................................... BBs.

Japan

Asahi Seiko ....................................................................................................................................................................................... BBs.

Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................................................................................... All.

Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd. (NPBS) .......................................................................................................................... All.

NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.) ............................................................................................................................................ All.

NTN Corp. (NTN Japan) ................................................................................................................................................................... All.

Singapore

NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec Ind. (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB Singapore/Pelmec) .......................................................................................... BBs.

United Kingdom

NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings (NSK/RHP) ................................................................................................................... BBs, CRBs.

Hoffman U.K. .................................................................................................................................................................................... BBs, CRBs.

Rose Bearing Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................................................... BBs, CRBs.

Timken Bearing Co. .......................................................................................................................................................................... BBs, CRBs.

Certain respondents reported no

shipments or sales subject to these

reviews. One firm, Torrington

Nadellager (Torrington/Kuensenbeck),

reported entries of merchandise subject

to the order on BBs from Germany but

no sales to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers.

Because this merchandise was

consumed by the affiliated importer and

not resold in any form, we will liquidate

these entries without regard to

antidumping duties.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by certain respondents, using standard

verification procedures, including onsite 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 the verification

reports.

Use of Facts Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, that the use of facts available as the

basis for the weighted-average dumping

margin is appropriate for SNFA,

Hoffman U.K., and Rose Bearings, all

with respect to BBs and CRBs, for

Torrington Nadellager with respect to

CRBs only, and for SKF France with

respect to SPBs only, because these

firms did not respond to our

antidumping questionnaire. We find

that these firms have withheld

‘‘information that has been requested by

the administering authority.’’

Furthermore, we determine that,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it

is appropriate to make an inference

adverse to the interests of these

companies because they failed to

cooperate by not responding to our

questionnaire. For the weighted-average

dumping margins of these firms, we

have used the highest rate from any

prior segment of the respective

proceeding as adverse facts available,

which is secondary information within

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

We also preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, that the use of the facts available as

the basis for the weighted-average

dumping margin is appropriate for

NPBS because, despite the Department’s

attempts to verify information provided
35716 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

by NPBS, the Department could not

verify the information as required under

section 782(i) of the Act. Where a party

provides information requested by the

Department but the information cannot

be verified, section 776(a)(2)(D) of the

Act requires the Department to use facts

otherwise available. Further, in

accordance with section 782(e)(2) of the

Act, the Department has declined to

consider information submitted by

NPBS because the information cannot

be verified. Moreover, we preliminarily

determine that, pursuant to section

776(b) of the Act, NPBS did not

cooperate to the best of its ability and

therefore we are required to use adverse

facts available.

We found that responses provided by

NPBS, as a whole, could not be verified.

At our attempted verification, for

example, we found the following

inaccuracies in the response provided

by NPBS which render the response

unusable for purposes of margin

calculations: unreported home market

and United States sales; inability to

demonstrate how quantity and value

totals were calculated; incorrect

reporting of the form of the subject

merchandise as entered; incorrect

designation of bearings that were further

processed in the United States; and

failure to provide in its response to the

questionnaire the final prices to its

largest home market customer. In

addition, we found errors in the

calculation of the following items:

entered customs value, all charges and

adjustments allocated by entered value,

customer category of U.S. sales, U.S.

inland freight, U.S. international freight,

U.S. short-term interest rate, export

selling expenses incurred in the home

market, indirect selling expenses for

home market sales, and home market

short-term interest income.

NPBS has not cooperated to the best

of its ability, as demonstrated by the

misreportings, inaccuracies, and

omissions we found at our attempted

verification which resulted from

inconsistencies in data within NPBS’s

control. Therefore, as facts available for

NPBS, we have used the ‘‘all others’’

rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, which is considered

secondary information within the

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value (see H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d

Cong., 2d sess. 870 (1994)).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike for other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,

1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers) (where the

Department disregarded the highest

margin as adverse best information

available because the margin was based

on another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin)).

In this case, for SKF France, SNFA,

Torrington Nadellager, Hoffman U.K.

and Rose Bearings, we have used the

highest rate from any prior segment of

the respective proceeding as adverse

facts available. This rate is the highest

available rate and no evidence exists in

the record that indicates that the

selected margin is not appropriate as

adverse facts available.

For NPBS, we examined the rates

applicable to ball bearings from Japan

throughout the course of the proceeding.

Given NPBS’s level of participation in

this segment of the proceeding, we

preliminarily determine that 45.83

percent, which is the all others rate from

the LTFV investigation, is sufficiently

adverse to encourage full cooperation in

future segments of the proceeding.

Moreover, this rate has probative value

because it includes the average of

calculated margins from the LTFV

investigation. Furthermore, there is no

reliable evidence on the record

indicating that this selected margin is

not appropriate as adverse facts

available. (See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers.)

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For the price to the United States, we

used EP or CEP as defined in sections

772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, as

appropriate. Due to the extremely large

volume of transactions that occurred

during the POR and the resulting

administrative burden involved in

calculating individual margins for all of

these transactions, we sampled CEP

sales in accordance with section 777A

of the Act. When a firm made more than

2,000 CEP sales transactions to the

United States for a particular class or

kind of merchandise, we reviewed CEP

sales that occurred during sample

weeks. We selected one week from each

two-month period in the review period,

for a total of six weeks, and analyzed

each transaction made in those six

weeks. The sample weeks included May

1–7, 1994, August 21–27, 1994, October

2–8, 1994, November 6–12, 1994,

January 22–28, 1995, and March 19–25,

1995. We reviewed all EP sales

transactions during the POR.

We calculated EP and CEP based on

the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or delivered

price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. We

made deductions, as appropriate, for

discounts and rebates. We also made

deductions for any movement expenses

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)

of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act and the SAA (at 823–824), we

calculated the CEP by deducting selling

expenses associated with economic

activities occurring in the United States,

including commissions, direct selling

expenses, expenses assumed on behalf

of the buyer and indirect selling

expenses, and repacking expenses in the

United States. Where appropriate, in

accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the

Act, we also deducted the cost of any

further manufacture or assembly, except

where the special rule provided in

section 772(e) of the Act was applied

(see below). Finally, we made an

adjustment for an amount of profit

allocated to these expenses in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act.

With respect to subject merchandise

to which value was added in the United

States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S.

customers, e.g., parts of bearings that

were imported and further processed

into finished bearings by U.S. affiliates

of foreign exporters, we determined that

the special rule for merchandise with

value added after importation under

section 772(e) of the Act applied for all

firms, except INA, that added value in

the United States.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35717

Section 772(e) of the Act provides

that, where the subject merchandise is

imported by an affiliated person and the

value added in the United States by the

affiliated person is likely to exceed

substantially the value of the subject

merchandise, we shall determine the

CEP for such merchandise using the

price of identical or other subject

merchandise if there is a sufficient

quantity of sales to provide a reasonable

basis for comparison and we determine

that the use of such sales is appropriate.

If there is not a sufficient quantity of

such sales or if we determine that using

the price of identical or other subject

merchandise is not appropriate, we may

use any other reasonable basis to

determine the CEP.

To determine whether the value

added is likely to exceed substantially

the value of the subject merchandise, we

estimated the value added based on the

difference between the averages of the

prices charged to the first unaffiliated

purchaser for the merchandise as sold in

the United States and the averages of the

prices paid for the subject merchandise

by the affiliated person. Based on this

analysis, we estimated, for all firms

except INA that added value in the

United States, that the value added was

at least 60 percent of the price charged

to the first unaffiliated customer for the

merchandise as sold in the United

States. Therefore, we determined that

the value added is likely to exceed

substantially the value of the subject

merchandise. Accordingly, for purposes

of determining dumping margins for

these sales, we have used the weightedaverage dumping margins calculated on

sales of identical or other subject

merchandise sold to unaffiliated

persons.

No other adjustments to EP or CEP

were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales and absent any information

that a particular market situation in the

exporting country does not permit a

proper comparison, we determined that

the quantity of foreign like product each

respondent sold in the exporting

country was sufficient to permit a

proper comparison with the sales of the

subject merchandise to the United

States pursuant to section 773(a) of the

Act, because each company’s quantity of

sales in its home market was greater

than five percent of its sales to the U.S.

market. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we

based NV on the prices at which the

foreign like products were first sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

Due to the extremely large number of

transactions that occurred during the

POR and the resulting administrative

burden involved in examining all of

these transactions, we sampled sales to

calculate NV in accordance with section

777A of the Act. When a firm had more

than 2,000 home market sales

transactions for a particular class or

kind of merchandise, we used sales in

sample months that corresponded to the

sample weeks we selected for U.S. sales

sampling plus one contemporaneous

month prior to the POR and one

following the POR. The sample months

included April, May, August, October,

and November of 1994, and January,

March, and May of 1995.

We used sales to affiliated customers

only where we determined such sales

were made at arm’s-length prices, i.e., at

prices comparable to prices at which the

firm sold identical merchandise to

unrelated customers.

Because the Department disregarded

sales below the cost of production (COP)

in the last completed review with

respect to SNR, FAG Germany, FAG

Italy, INA, SKF France, SKF Germany,

SKF Italy, Asahi Seiko, Koyo, NPBS,

NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/

Pelmec Ind., and NSK/RHP and the

classes or kinds of merchandise under

review (see AFBs IV; concerning Asahi

Seiko, see Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof from France, et al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Revocation

in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order,

58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993) (AFBs III)),

we had reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that sales of the foreign product

under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review may

have been made at prices below the COP

as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP

investigations of sales by SNR, FAG

Germany, FAG Italy, INA, SKF France,

SKF Germany, SKF Italy, Asahi Seiko,

Koyo, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB

Singapore/Pelmec, and NSK/RHP in the

home market.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based

on the sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product plus selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses

and all costs and expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in

condition packed ready for shipment. In

our COP analysis, we used the home

market sales and COP information

provided by each respondent in its

questionnaire responses. We did not

conduct a COP analysis for respondents

which reported no sales or no

shipments, nor did we conduct a COP

analysis for respondents for which we

relied on facts available to determine

weighted-average dumping margins.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of AFBs

were made at prices below COP within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities and whether such

prices permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COPs to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities

within an extended period of time.

Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POR were at prices less than

the COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales because they (1) were made within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities in accordance

with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the

Act, and (2) based on comparisons of

prices to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, were at prices which would not

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Based on this test, we disregarded

below-cost sales with respect to all of

the above companies and classes or

kinds of merchandise.

We compared U.S. sales with sales of

the foreign like product in the home

market. We considered all non-identical

products within a bearing family to be

equally similar. As defined in the

questionnaire, a bearing family consists

of all bearings within a class or kind of

merchandise that are the same in the

following physical characteristics: load

direction, bearing design, number of

rows of rolling elements, precision

rating, dynamic load rating, outer

diameter, inner diameter, and width.

Home market prices were based on

the packed, ex-factory or delivered

prices to affiliated or unaffiliated

purchasers in the home market. Where

applicable, we made adjustments for

differences in packing and for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act.

We also made adjustments for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for

differences in circumstances of sale
35718 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

(COS) in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 C.F.R.

353.56. For comparison to EP, we made

COS adjustments by deducting home

market direct selling expenses and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For

comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses except those

deducted from the starting price in

calculating CEP pursuant to section

772(d) of the Act. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for home

market indirect selling expenses to

offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP

calculations.

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we based NV on sales at the

same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If

NV was calculated at a different level of

trade, we made an adjustment, if

appropriate and if possible, in

accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the

Act. (See Level of Trade below.)

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we used CV as the basis for

NV when there were no usable sales of

the foreign like product in the

comparison market. We calculated CV

in accordance with section 773(e) of the

Act. We included the cost of materials

and fabrication, SG&A expenses, and

profit. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A

expenses and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by the respondent

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

To the extent possible, we calculated CV

by level of trade, using the selling

expenses and profit determined for each

level of trade in the comparison market.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19

C.F.R. 353.56 for COS differences and

level-of-trade differences. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to CEP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses except those deducted from

the starting price in calculating CEP

pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in EP and CEP

comparisons.

Where possible, we calculated CV at

the same level of trade as the EP or CEP.

If CV was calculated at a different level

of trade, we made an adjustment, if

appropriate and if possible, in

accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and

773(a)(8) of the Act. (See Level of Trade

below.)

Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the SAA

accompanying the URAA at 829–831, to

the extent practicable, the Department

will calculate NV based on sales at the

same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

When the Department is unable to find

sales of the foreign like product in the

comparison market at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale, the Department

may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a

different level of trade in the

comparison market.

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at

allegedly different levels of trade are

compared, the Department will adjust

the NV to account for the difference in

level of trade if two conditions are met.

First, there must be differences between

the actual selling activities performed

by the exporter at the level of trade of

the U.S. sale and the level of trade of the

comparison market sales used to

determine NV. Second, the differences

must affect price comparability as

evidenced by a pattern of consistent

price differences between sales at the

different levels of trade in the market in

which NV is determined.

Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

establishes that a CEP ‘‘offset’’ may be

made when two conditions exist: (1) NV

is established at a level of trade which

constitutes a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP; and (2) the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for a levelof-trade adjustment.

In implementing these principles in

these reviews, we obtained information

about the selling activities of the

producers/exporters associated with

each channel of distribution. We asked

each respondent to establish any

claimed levels of trade based on these

selling activities.

In order to determine whether

separate levels of trade actually existed

within or between the U.S. and home

markets, we reviewed the selling

activities associated with each channel

of distribution claimed by the

respondents. Pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at

827, in identifying levels of trade for EP

and home market sales we considered

the selling functions reflected in the

starting price before any adjustments.

For CEP sales, we considered only the

selling activities reflected in the price

after the deduction of expenses and

profit under section 772(d) of the Act.

Whenever sales were made by or

through an affiliated company or agent,

we considered all selling activities of

both affiliated parties, except for those

selling activities related to the expenses

deducted under section 772(d) of the

Act in CEP situations.

In reviewing the selling functions

reported by the respondents, we

considered all types of selling activities

that had been performed. In analyzing

whether separate levels of trade existed

in these reviews, we found that no

single selling function in the bearings

industry was sufficient to warrant a

separate level of trade (see Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Request for

Public Comments, 61 FR 7307, 7348

(February 27, 1996) (Proposed

Regulations)).

In determining whether separate

levels of trade existed in or between the

U.S. and home markets, the Department

considered the level-of-trade claims of

each respondent. To test the claimed

levels of trade, we analyzed the selling

activities associated with the channels

of distribution respondents reported. In

applying this test, we expect that, if

claimed levels of trade are the same, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be similar. Conversely, if a party

claims that levels of trade are different

for different groups of sales, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be dissimilar.

When we were unable to find sales of

the foreign like product in the home

market at the same level of trade as that

of the EP or CEP, we examined whether

a level-of-trade adjustment was

appropriate. In these reviews, the same

level of trade as that of the CEP did not

exist in the home market. For some EP

sales, we also did not find the same

level of trade in the home market.

Therefore, we could not determine

whether there was a pattern of

consistent price differences between the

levels of trade, in accordance with

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, based on

the respondent’s home market sales of

merchandise under review. However,

the SAA states that ‘‘if information on

the same product and company is not

available, the adjustment may also be

based on sales of other products by the

same company. In the absence of any

sales, including those in recent time

periods, to different levels of trade by

the exporter or producer under

investigation, Commerce may further

consider the selling experience of other

producers in the foreign market for the

same product or other products.’’ SAA
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35719

at 830. Accordingly, where necessary

we examined the alternative methods

for calculating a level-of-trade

adjustment. In these reviews, we did not

have information that would allow us to

apply these alternative methods. Thus,

in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(b)

of the Act, if we established NV at a

level of trade which constituted a more

advanced stage of distribution, we made

a CEP offset.

For some EP sales, the same level of

trade did exist in the home market but

we could only match the U.S. sale to

home market sales at a different level of

trade because there were no usable sales

of the foreign like product at the same

level of trade. Therefore, we determined

whether there was a pattern of

consistent price differences between

these different levels of trade in the

home market. To make this

determination, we compared the average

of the prices of sales made in the

ordinary course of trade at the two

levels of trade for models sold at both

levels. If the average prices were higher

at one of the levels of trade for a

preponderance of the models, we

considered this to demonstrate a pattern

of consistent price differences. We also

considered whether the average prices

were higher at one of the levels of trade

for a preponderance of sales, based on

the quantities of each model sold, in

making this determination.

Respondent Intertechnique reported

only one channel of distribution in the

home market and only EP sales through

one channel of distribution to the

United States. Because the selling

activities in both markets were

substantially the same, we considered

the home market sales and the EP sales

to be at the same level of trade.

Therefore, we made no level-of-trade

adjustments.

SKF Germany, SKF France, SKF Italy,

Koyo, and SNR each reported two

channels of distribution in the home

market. For each of these companies we

found that the two home market

channels differed significantly with

respect to selling activities such as

advertising and sales promotion, sales

and marketing support, inventory

maintenance and, to a lesser degree,

other selling activities. Based on these

differences, we found that the two home

market channels constituted two

different levels of trade.

These companies, except SKF France

and SKF Italy, reported only CEP sales

in the U.S. market. SKF France and SKF

Italy also had EP sales. Although the

starting price for the CEP sales was

based on sales made by the affiliated

reseller to unaffiliated customers

through two channels of distribution

which constituted two different levels of

trade, each of these companies reported

similar selling activities associated with

all sales to the affiliated reseller (i.e., at

the level of trade of the CEP). Therefore,

we considered the CEP to constitute

only one level of trade for each of these

companies. We found that there were

significant differences between the

selling activities associated with the

CEP and those associated with each of

the home market levels of trade. For

example, the level of trade of the CEP

involved little or no strategic planning,

sales forecasting, advertising or sales

promotions, engineering services,

technical assistance, or after-sale

service. Therefore, we considered the

level of trade of the CEP to be different

from either home market level of trade

and a less advanced stage of distribution

than either home market level of trade.

Consequently, we could not match to

sales at the same level of trade in the

home market nor could we determine a

level-of-trade adjustment based on each

respondent’s home market sales of

merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For these

respondents, to the extent possible, we

determined NV at the same level of

trade as the starting price for the CEP,

which was the price to the unaffiliated

customer, and made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. SKF France

made EP sales of BBs through one

channel of distribution. SKF Italy made

EP sales of BBs through two channels of

distribution. For both SKF France and

SKF Italy, the selling activities

associated with EP sales were similar to

those associated with one of the levels

of trade in the home market. Therefore,

we considered these channels to

constitute one level of trade and this

level of trade to be the same as a level

of trade in the home market. Where

possible we matched EP sales to sales at

the same level of trade in the home

market and made no level-of-trade

adjustment. Where we matched to home

market sales at a different level of trade,

in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A)

of the Act, we determined whether there

was a pattern of consistent price

differences between these different

levels of trade in the home market. For

this class or kind of merchandise, we

found that there was such a pattern for

both SKF France and SKF Italy and

therefore made an adjustment for the

differences in level of trade. We

therefore adjusted normal value by the

weighted-average difference in prices

between the two levels of trade in the

home market. We calculated the

adjustment based on home market sales

made in the ordinary course of trade

and prices net of billing adjustments,

movement expenses, discounts, rebates,

commissions, direct selling expenses

and packing expenses. For each model

sold at both levels of trade in the home

market, we calculated the difference

between the weighted-average prices at

the two levels of trade as a percentage

of the weighted-average price at the

comparison level of trade. We then

calculated a weighted average of these

model-specific percentage differences

on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated

the amount of the level-of-trade

adjustment by applying this weightedaverage percentage price difference to

the NV determined at the different level

of trade.

INA reported only one channel of

distribution in the home market.

Because the selling activities associated

with all sales were similar, we

considered this channel of distribution

to constitute one level of trade. INA

reported two channels of distribution in

the U.S. market, one represented by its

EP sales and one represented by its CEP

sales. Because the selling activities

associated with the home market level

of trade were similar to those associated

with EP sales, we made no level-of-trade

adjustments for these comparisons. For

CEP sales, INA reported similar selling

activities associated with all sales to the

affiliated reseller. Therefore, we

considered the CEP to constitute only

one level of trade. We compared the

selling activities associated with the sale

to the affiliated reseller to those

associated with the home market level

of trade and found them to be

dissimilar. For example, the level of

trade of the CEP involved little or no

strategic and economic planning,

advertising or sales promotion,

technical services, technical assistance,

inventory maintenance or after-sale

service. Therefore, we considered the

home market sales to be at a different

level of trade and at a more advanced

stage of distribution than the CEP.

Because the sole home market level of

trade was different from the level of

trade of the CEP, we could not match to

sales at the same level of trade in the

home market nor could we determine a

level-of-trade adjustment based on

INA’s home market sales of

merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. Accordingly,

for INA, we determined NV at the sole
35720 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

home market level of trade and made a

CEP offset adjustment in accordance

with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

FAG Germany reported a number of

channels of distribution in the home

market. We found that four of these

channels did not differ significantly

with respect to selling activities and

constitute one level of trade (level 1).

We found that the same is true of three

other home market channels (level 2).

Finally, we found that another home

market channel is not similar to any of

the other channels of distribution in the

home market (level 3). We found that

level 1 differed significantly from level

2 with respect to selling activities such

as post-sale services and warranties,

technical advice, advertising, strategic

and economic planning, market

research, research and development,

and engineering services. We found that

level 1 differed significantly from level

3 with respect to selling activities such

as inventory maintenance, advertising,

freight and delivery arrangement,

strategic and economic planning, market

research, personnel training, research

and development, and engineering

services. We found that level 2 differed

significantly from level 3 with respect to

selling activities such as inventory

maintenance, post-sale services and

warranties, technical advice, freight and

delivery arrangement, advertising, and

personnel training. Based on these

differences, we found that the three

home market channel groups constitute

three different levels of trade.

In the U.S. market, FAG Germany

reported CEP sales and EP sales. The

CEP sales were made by FAG Germany’s

U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated

customers through channels of

distribution and at levels of trade

similar to levels 1 and 2 in the home

market. Although we considered FAG

Germany’s sales to unaffiliated

customers to be made at two levels of

trade, FAG Germany reported similar

selling activities associated with all

sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore,

we considered the CEP to constitute

only one level of trade. We found that

there were significant differences

between the selling activities associated

with the CEP and those associated with

each of the home market levels of trade.

For example, the level of trade of the

CEP involved little or no strategic

planning, sales forecasting, advertising

or sales promotions, engineering

services, technical assistance, or aftersale service. Therefore, we considered

the level of trade of the CEP to be

different from all home market levels of

trade and at a less advanced stage of

distribution than any home market level

of trade. Consequently, we could not

match to sales at the same level of trade

in the home market nor could we

determine a level-of-trade adjustment

based on FAG Germany’s home market

sales of merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For FAG

Germany, to the extent possible, we

determined NV for CEP sales at the

same level of trade as the U.S. sale to

the unaffiliated customer and made a

CEP offset adjustment in accordance

with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

FAG Germany made EP sales of two

classes or kinds of merchandise through

channels of distribution similar to those

comprising one of the levels of trade in

the home market. Therefore, we

considered these channels to constitute

one level of trade and this level of trade

to be the same as one of the levels of

trade in the home market. Where

possible we matched EP sales to sales at

the same level of trade in the home

market and made no level-of-trade

adjustment. Where we matched to home

market sales at a different level of trade,

in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A)

of the Act, we determined whether there

was a pattern of consistent price

differences between these different

levels of trade in the home market. For

BBs, we found that there was such a

pattern and therefore made an

adjustment for the differences in level of

trade. However, for CRBs we did not

find such a pattern and therefore made

no level-of-trade adjustment. For BBs,

we adjusted normal value by the

weighted-average difference in prices

between the two levels of trade in the

home market. We calculated the

adjustment based on home market sales

made in the ordinary course of trade

and prices net of billing adjustments,

movement expenses, discounts, rebates,

commissions, direct selling expenses

and packing expenses. For each model

sold at both levels of trade in the home

market, we calculated the difference

between the weighted-average prices at

the two levels of trade as a percentage

of the weighted-average price at the

comparison level of trade. We then

calculated a weighted-average of these

model-specific percentage differences

on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated

the amount of the level-of-trade

adjustment by applying this weightedaverage percentage price difference to

the NV determined at the different level

of trade.

FAG Italy reported two channels of

distribution in the home market. We

found that the two home market

channels differed with respect to selling

activities such as after sales services/

warranties, technical advice, and

research and development. Based on

these differences, we found that the two

home market channels constituted two

different levels of trade.

In the U.S. market, FAG Italy reported

only CEP sales. The CEP sales were

made by FAG Italy’s U.S. subsidiary to

unaffiliated customers through channels

of distribution and at levels of trade

similar to the two levels of trade in the

home market. Although we considered

FAG Italy’s sales to unaffiliated

customers to be made at two levels of

trade, FAG Italy reported similar selling

activities associated with all sales to the

affiliated reseller. Therefore, we

considered the CEP to constitute only

one level of trade. We found that there

were significant differences between the

selling activities associated with the

CEP and those associated with each of

the home market levels of trade. For

example, the level of trade of the CEP

involved little or no strategic planning,

sales forecasting, advertising or sales

promotions, engineering services,

technical assistance, or after-sale

service. Therefore, we considered the

level of trade of the CEP to be different

from either home market level of trade

and at a less advanced stage of

distribution than either home market

level of trade. Consequently, we could

not match to sales at the same level of

trade in the home market, nor could we

determine a level-of-trade adjustment

based on FAG Italy’s home market sales

of merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For FAG Italy,

to the extent possible, we determined

NV at the same level of trade as the U.S.

sale to the unaffiliated customer and

made a CEP offset adjustment in

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act.

NSK reported four channels of

distribution in the home market. We

found that two of these channels did not

differ significantly from each other with

respect to selling activities and

constitute one level of trade (level 1).

We found that the same is true of the

other two home market channels (level

2). We found that the selling activities

associated with level 1 differed

significantly from activities at level 2.

For example, we found differences with

respect to personnel training,

advertising, technical support, price

negotiation, and sales calls on the enduser. Based on these differences, we

found that the two home market

channel groups constituted two

different levels of trade.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35721

In the U.S. market, NSK had CEP sales

and EP sales. NSK made CEP sales to

unaffiliated customers through five

channels of distribution, which we

considered to be two levels of trade

similar to those found in the home

market. Though NSK’s sales to

unaffiliated customers were made at two

levels of trade, NSK reported similar

selling activities associated with all

sales to the affiliated reseller. Therefore,

we considered the CEP to constitute

only one level of trade. We found that

there were significant differences

between the selling activities associated

with the CEP and those associated with

each of the home market levels of trade.

For example, the level of trade of the

CEP involved little or no strategic

planning, sales forecasting, advertising

or sales promotions, engineering

services, technical assistance, or aftersale service. Therefore, we considered

this level of trade to be different from

either home market level of trade and at

a less advanced stage of distribution

than either home market level of trade.

Consequently, we could not match to

sales at the same level of trade in the

home market nor could we determine a

level-of-trade adjustment based on

NSK’s home market sales of

merchandise under to review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For NSK, to

the extent possible, we determined NV

for CEP sales at the same level of trade

as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated

customer and made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B). NSK made EP sales of one

class or kind of merchandise to

unaffiliated customers through channels

of distribution similar to those

comprising channel 1 in the home

market. Therefore, we considered these

channels to constitute one level of trade

and that level of trade to be the same as

level 1 in the home market. Where

possible we have matched EP sales to

sales at the same level of trade in the

home market and made no level-of-trade

adjustment. Where we matched EP sales

to home market sales at a different level

of trade, in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we determined

whether there was a pattern of

consistent price differences between

these different levels of trade in the

home market. For this class or kind of

merchandise, we found that there was

such a pattern and therefore made an

adjustment for the differences in level of

trade. We adjusted normal value by the

weighted-average difference in prices

between the two levels of trade in the

home market. We calculated the

adjustment based on home market sales

made in the ordinary course of trade

and prices net of billing adjustments,

movement expenses, discounts, rebates,

commissions, direct selling expenses

and packing expenses. For each model

sold at both levels of trade in the home

market, we calculated the difference

between the weighted-average prices at

the two levels of trade as a percentage

of the weighted-average price at the

comparison level of trade. We then

calculated a weighted-average of these

model-specific percentage differences

on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated

the amount of the level-of-trade

adjustment by applying this weightedaverage percentage price difference to

the NV determined at the different level

of trade.

NTN Japan reported five channels of

distribution in the home market. We

found that the degree to which NTN

Japan performed functions such as

market research, technical services, and

sales services such as processing and

purchasing arrangements and delivery

arrangements varied among the five

channels. Based on these differences,

we found that the five home market

channels constituted three levels of

trade. We found that the selling

activities for level 1 differed

significantly from levels 2 and 3 in

terms of strategic economic planning,

market research, accounting and

business functions, engineering

services, types of packing, and types of

advertising and sales promotion. The

selling activities for level 2 varied from

those of level 3 in strategic and

economic planning, accounting and

business functions, and advertising and

sales promotion.

NTN Japan reported both EP and CEP

sales in the U.S. market made through

two channels of distribution. NTN Japan

made CEP sales through its U.S.

subsidiary to unaffiliated customers

through channels of distribution similar

to those in the home market. Though

these sales to unaffiliated customers

were made at two levels of trade, NTN

Japan reported similar selling activities

associated with all sales to the affiliated

reseller. Therefore, we considered the

CEP to constitute only one level of

trade. We found that there were

significant differences between the

selling activities associated with the

CEP and those associated with each of

the home market levels of trade. For

example, at the level of trade of the CEP

there was little or no strategic planning,

sales forecasting, advertising, or

technical assistance. Therefore, we

considered this level of trade to be

different from the three home market

levels of trade and at a less advanced

stage of distribution than the home

market levels of trade. Consequently, we

could not match to sales at the same

level of trade in the home market nor

could we determine a level-of-trade

adjustment based on the respondent’s

home market sales of merchandise

under review. Furthermore, we have no

other information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For this

respondent, to the extent possible, we

determined NV at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated

customer and made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. We considered

all of NTN Japan’s EP sales to be at one

level of trade. We determined that the

selling activities associated with EP

sales were essentially the same as those

associated with one of the home market

levels of trade, and therefore the EP

level of trade did exist in the home

market. Therefore, where possible we

matched EP sales to sales at the same

level of trade in the home market and

made no level-of-trade adjustment.

Where we matched to home market

sales at a different level of trade, in

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act, we determined whether there

was a pattern of consistent price

differences between these different

levels of trade in the home market. For

BBs and CRBs, we found that there was

such a pattern and therefore made an

adjustment for the differences in level of

trade. However, for SPBs we did not

find such a pattern and therefore made

no level-of-trade adjustment. For BBs

and CRBs, we adjusted NV by the

weighted-average difference in prices

between the two levels of trade in the

home market. We calculated the

adjustment based on home market sales

made in the ordinary course of trade

and prices net of billing adjustments,

movement expenses, discounts, rebates,

commissions, direct selling expenses

and packing expenses. For each model

sold at both levels of trade in the home

market, we calculated the difference

between the weighted-average prices at

the two levels of trade as a percentage

of the weighted-average price at the

comparison level of trade. We then

calculated a weighted average of these

model-specific percentage differences

on a class-or-kind basis. We calculated

the amount of the level-of-trade

adjustment by applying this weightedaverage percentage price difference to

the NV determined at the different level

of trade.

NTN Germany claimed one channel of

distribution but two levels of trade in
35722 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

the home market. We found that the

degree to which NTN Germany

performed functions such as after sales

services, market research, technical

services, and sales services such as

processing and purchasing

arrangements differed by claimed levels

of trade. Based on these differences, we

found that these claimed levels of trade

in fact constitute two levels of trade in

the home market.

NTN Germany reported only CEP

sales in the U.S. market. Though CEP

sales to unaffiliated customers were

made at two levels of trade, NTN

Germany reported similar selling

activities associated with all sales to the

affiliated reseller. Therefore, we

considered the CEP to constitute only

one level of trade. We found that there

were significant differences between the

selling activities associated with the

CEP and those associated with each of

the home market levels of trade. For

example, at the level of trade of the CEP

there was little or no strategic planning,

sales forecasting, advertising, or

technical assistance. Therefore, we

considered this level of trade to be

different from the home market levels of

trade and at a less advanced stage of

distribution than the home market

levels of trade. Consequently, we could

not match to sales at the same level of

trade in the home market nor could we

determine a level-of-trade adjustment

based on the respondent’s home market

sales of merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For this

respondent, to the extent possible, we

determined NV at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated

customer and made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

NMB Singapore/Pelmec reported two

channels of distribution in the home

market. We found that these two

channels differed significantly with

respect to selling activities such as aftersales services/warranties, technical

support, engineering services, market

research, sales promotion, and

advertising. Based on these differences,

we found that the two home market

channels constituted two different

levels of trade.

NMB Singapore/Pelmec reported only

CEP sales in the U.S. market. Though

sales were made to unaffiliated

customers through two channels of

distribution, the company reported

similar selling activities associated with

all sales to the affiliated reseller.

Therefore, we considered the CEP to

constitute only one level of trade. We

found that there were significant

differences between the selling activities

associated with the CEP and those

associated with each of the home market

levels of trade. For example, the level of

trade of the CEP only involved order

processing and some engineering

consultation. This level did not include

any of the other selling activities

associated with either of the home

market levels of trade such as inventory

maintenance, after-sales services/

warranties, technical support, market

research, sales promotion, advertising,

freight and delivery, packing and

accounting. Therefore, we considered

the level of trade of the CEP to be

different from either home market level

of trade and at a less advanced stage of

distribution than either home market

level of trade. Consequently, we could

not match to sales at the same level of

trade in the home market nor could we

determine a level-of-trade adjustment

based on the respondent’s home market

sales of merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For this

respondent, to the extent possible, we

determined NV at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated

customer and made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Asahi Seiko reported seven channels

of distribution in the home market and

CEP sales through four channels of

distribution in the U.S. market. In

comparing selling activities among

channels of distribution in the home

market, we found that no promotional

expenses, sales-support functions, or

inventory maintenance activities were

performed for the channel of

distribution consisting of direct sales to

Asahi’s affiliated customer while these

functions were performed with respect

to the other six channels. In addition,

the selling activities were substantially

the same among the other six channels.

Therefore, we found that the seven HM

channels constitute two different levels

of trade. However, we are not using the

level of trade consisting of direct sales

to Asahi’s affiliated customer as a basis

for NV because we could not determine

that these sales were made at arm’slength prices. Thus, for NV we could

use only one level of trade for

comparison purposes.

In the U.S. market Asahi Seiko

reported that the CEP sales it made to

unaffiliated customers were through

four channels of distribution, but the

selling activities among all sales to the

affiliated reseller were similar.

Therefore, we considered the CEP to

constitute only one level of trade. We

found significant differences between

the selling activities associated with the

CEP and those associated with the home

market level of trade. For example, the

level of trade of the CEP involved little

or no advertising and sales promotions,

engineering services, or after-sales

service. Therefore, we considered this

level of trade to be different from and

at a less advanced stage of distribution

than the home market level of trade.

Consequently, we could not match to

sales at the same level of trade in the

home market nor could we determine a

level-of-trade adjustment based on

Asahi’s home market sales of

merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For Asahi

Seiko, to the extent possible, we

determined NV at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sales to the unaffiliated

customer and made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

NSK/RHP reported five channels of

distribution in the home market. The

selling activities associated with three of

these reported channels did not differ

significantly, and therefore we

considered sales through these channels

to constitute one level of trade (level 1).

The selling activities associated with

another channel of distribution differed

from level 1 in terms of advertising,

inventory maintenance, technical

support and to a lesser degree other

selling activities. Therefore, we consider

this channel of distribution to constitute

a second level of trade (level 2). The

remaining channel of distribution

involved only sales to an affiliate.

However, we requested, and NSK/RHP

reported, the downstream sales to

unaffiliated customers which constitute

levels 1 and 2. Moreover, we could not

determine that these sales were made at

arm’s length. Therefore, we did not use

these sales to determine NV or as the

basis of any level-of-trade adjustments.

In the U.S. market, NSK/RHP reported

EP and CEP sales. Although NSK/RHP

reported that the CEP sales it made to

unaffiliated customers were made

through two channels of distribution,

the selling activities among all sales to

the affiliated reseller were similar.

Therefore, we considered the CEP to

constitute only one level of trade. We

compared the selling activities at this

level of trade with the selling activities

at each home market level of trade and

found them to be substantially

dissimilar. For example, the level of

trade of the CEP involved little or no

strategic and economic planning,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35723

advertising or sales promotion,

technical services, technical assistance,

or inventory maintenance. Therefore,

we considered the home market sales to

be at a different level of trade and at a

more advanced stage of distribution

than CEP. Because the home market

levels of trade were different from the

level of trade of the CEP, we could not

match to sales at the same level of trade

in the home market nor could we

determine a level-of-trade adjustment

based on NSK-RHP’s home market sales

of merchandise under review.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. For NSKRHP’s CEP sales, to the extent possible,

we determined NV at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated

customer and made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. NSK/RHP made

EP sales of two classes or kinds of

merchandise to unaffiliated customers

through one channel of distribution

which we considered to be a level of

trade similar to one of the levels of trade

in the home market. We were able to

match all EP sales to sales at the same

level of trade in the home market and

therefore made no level-of-trade

adjustments.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margins (in percent)

for the period May 1, 1994, through

April 30, 1995 to be as follows:

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

France

Franke GmbH .... 1 66.42 (3) (3)

Hoesch Rothe

Erde ................ (2) (3) (3)

Intertechnique .... 1.55 (2) (2)

Rollix Defontaine (2) (3) (3)

SKF .................... 21.39 (2) 42.79

SNFA .................. 66.42 18.37 (2)

SNR .................... 2.10 4.26 (2)

Germany

FAG .................... 10.22 16.90 9.51

Franke GmbH .... 1 132.25 (3) (3)

Hoesch Rothe

Erde ................ (2) (2) (2)

INA ..................... 11.66 12.33 (2)

NTN .................... 23.37 (2) (2)

Rollix &

Defontaine ...... (2) (3) (3)

SKF .................... 2.42 8.11 5.34

Torrington

Nadellager ...... (2) 76.27 (3)

Italy

FAG .................... 2.43 (2) (3)

SKF .................... 2.68 (3) (3)

Japan

Asahi Seiko ........ 1.96 (3) (3)

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

Koyo Seiko ......... 22.32 2.79 0.00 1

NPBS ................. 45.83 (2) (2)

NSK Ltd. ............. 14.24 18.27 (2)

NTN .................... 4.31 10.27 2.60

Singapore

NMB Singapore/

Pelmec Ind. .... 0.71 (3) (3)

United Kingdom

NSK/RHP ........... 9.60 11.13 (3)

Hoffman U.K. ..... 54.27 48.29 (3)

Rose Bearings ... 54.27 48.29 (3)

Timken Bearings (2) (2) (3)

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant segment of

the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales. 2 No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate from any

segment of this proceeding. 3 No review requested.

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of publication

of this notice. A general issues hearing,

if requested, and any hearings regarding

issues related solely to specific

countries, if requested, will be held in

accordance with the following schedule

and at the indicated locations in the

main Commerce Department building:

Case Date Time Room

No.

General Issues ............................................ Aug. 16, 1996 ............................................ 9:00 a.m ..................................................... 4830

Singapore .................................................... Aug. 16, 1996 ............................................ 3:00 p.m ..................................................... 4830

United Kingdom .......................................... Aug. 19, 1996 ............................................ 10:00 a.m ................................................... 1412

Japan .......................................................... Aug. 19, 1996 ............................................ 1:00 p.m ..................................................... 1412

Germany ..................................................... Aug. 20, 1996 ............................................ 10:00 a.m ................................................... 1412

France ......................................................... Aug. 20, 1996 ............................................ 1:00 p.m ..................................................... 1412

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

briefs and rebuttal briefs. Briefs from

interested parties and rebuttal briefs,

limited to the issues raised in the

respective case briefs, may be submitted

not later than the dates shown below for

general issues and the respective

country-specific cases. Parties who

submit briefs or rebuttal briefs in these

proceedings are requested to submit

with each argument (1) a statement of

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

Case Briefs Rebuttals due

General issues.Aug. 5, 1996 Aug. 12,

1996.

Singapore ..... Aug. 5, 1996 Aug. 12,

1996.

U.K. .............. Aug. 6, 1996 Aug. 13,

1996.

Case Briefs Rebuttals due

Japan ........... Aug. 6, 1996 Aug. 13,

1996.

Germany ...... Aug. 7, 1996 Aug. 14,

1996.

France .......... Aug. 7, 1996 Aug. 14,

1996.

The Department will subsequently

publish the final results of these

administrative reviews, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written briefs or hearings. The

Department will issue final results of

these reviews within 180 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because sampling and the

inability to link sales with specific

entries prevents calculation of duties on

an entry-by-entry basis, we have

calculated an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for each

class or kind of merchandise based on

the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory NV and

statutory EP or CEP, by the total

statutory EP or CEP value of the sales

compared, and adjusting the result by

the average difference between EP or

CEP and customs value for all

merchandise examined during the POR.)

In some cases, such as EP situations,

the respondent does not know the
35724 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

entered value of the merchandise. For

these situations, we have either

calculated an approximate entered value

or an average unit dollar amount of

antidumping duty based on all sales

examined during the POR. (See

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

31694 (July 11, 1991).) The Department

will issue appropriate appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service upon completion of these

reviews.

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

(1) the cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews (except that no deposit will be

required for firms with zero or de

minimis margins, i.e., margins less than

0.5 percent); (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 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 made effective by the final

results of the 1991–92 administrative

reviews of these orders (see AFBs III).

As noted in those previous final results,

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.

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

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–17277 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–583–810]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Termination in Part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

chromeplated lug nuts from Taiwan.

The review covers 19 manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States for the period

September 1, 1994, through August 31,

1995. The review indicates the existence

of margins for all firms.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties equal to the difference between

export price and the NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) and statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

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) 482–4195 or 482–3814,

respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 20, 1991, the

Department published the antidumping

duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts

from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). The

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ on September 12, 1995 (60 FR

47349). The petitioner, Consolidated

International Automotive, Inc.

(Consolidated), requested that we

conduct an administrative review for

the period September 1, 1994, through

August 31, 1995. A respondent, Chuen

Chao Enterprise Company LTD (Chuen

Chao) requested an administrative

review of its sales. We published a

notice of ‘‘Initiation of Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review’’ on October 12, 1995 (60 FR

53164), and sent questionnaires to the

following firms: Anmax Industrial Co.,

Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton International

Corporation (Buxton), Chu Fong

Metallic Electric Co. (Chu Fong),

Everspring Plastic Corp. (Everspring),

Gingen Metal Corp. (Gingen),

Goldwinate Associates, Inc.

(Goldwinate), Gourmet Equipment

Corporation (Gourmet), Hwen Hsin

Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hwen), Kwan How

Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Kwan How), Kwan

Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd (Kwan Ta),

Kuang Hong Industries, Ltd. (Kuang),

Multigrand Industries Inc. (Multigrand),

San Chien Electric Industrial Works,

Ltd. (San Chien), San Shing Hardware

Works Co., Ltd. (San Shing), Transcend

International Co. (Transcend), Trade

Union International Inc./Top Line (Top

Line), Uniauto, Inc. (Uniauto), Wing

Tang Electrical Manufacturing

Company, Inc (Wing) and Chuen Chao.

On December 11, 1995, Chuen Chao

withdrew its request for administrative

review. Since Chuen Chao was the only

party which requested a review of its

sales, we are terminating the review of

Chuen Chao and its entries will be

liquidated at the rate at which they were

entered. Gourmet responded to the

questionnaire. Buxton and Uniauto are

related parties and so responded to the

questionnaire as one respondent.

Questionnaires that were sent to Chu

Fong, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, Everspring,

Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand and

Kuang were returned as undeliverable.

These firms will receive the ‘‘all others’’