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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[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

[[Page 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, Nachi-Fujikoshi

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-by-company 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

further-processing 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 further-

processing 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.

[[Page 25202]]

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 further-processing 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 non-scope 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 Federal-Mogul 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 Federal-Mogul case, however, appealed

the

[[Page 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 tax-neutral 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

weighted-average prices with the total volume of sales of TRBs. If the

annual weighted-average 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

weighted-average 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 below-cost 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

[[Page 25204]]

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 below-

cost 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 post-sale 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 third-country 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 third-country 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 third-country

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:

[[Page 25205]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin

Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter (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