Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-485-801, A-559-801, A-

401-801, A-412-801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore,

Sweden and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

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 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, Romania, Singapore, Sweden 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 21 manufacturers/exporters. The

period of review (the POR) is May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996.

We are terminating the reviews for five other manufacturers/

exporters because the requests for reviews were withdrawn in a timely

manner.

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 on all appropriate entries.

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: June 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The appropriate case analyst, for the

various respondent firms listed below, at Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

France

Chip Hayes (SKF), Lyn Johnson (SNFA), Michael Panfeld (SNR), Kris

Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.

Germany

Thomas Barlow (Torrington Nadellager), J. David Dirstine (SKF),

Suzanne Flood (INA), Michael Panfeld (NTN Kugellagerfabrik), Thomas

Schauer (FAG), Kris Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.

Italy

Chip Hayes (SKF), Mark Ross (FAG), or Richard Rimlinger.

Japan

J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Charles Riggle (NTN), Matthew

Rosenbaum (NPBS), Thomas Schauer (NSK Ltd., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.),

Kris Campbell, or Richard Rimlinger.

Romania

Thomas Barlow (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Kris Campbell.

Singapore

Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.

Sweden

Mark Ross (SKF) or Richard Rimlinger.

United Kingdom

Hermes Pinilla (FAG, Barden, NSK/RHP) or Kris Campbell.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to

the Tariff 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).

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, Thailand and Singapore. On June 20,

1996, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(c), we published a notice of

initiation of administrative reviews of certain of these orders for the

period May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996 (61 FR 31506). Subsequently,

on July 30, 1996, we published an amendment to our initiation notice

which, inter alia, terminated the review with respect to BBs from

Thailand and conditionally initiated reviews for all other exporters of

BBs from Romania in addition to Tehnoimportexport (61 FR 39629). The

Department is now conducting these administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely

withdrawals of review requests for Meter S.p.A. (Italy), Asahi Seiko

(Japan), Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd. (Japan), Kohwa Technos Corp. (Japan),

and Sanwa Kizai Co., Ltd. (Japan). 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 C.F.R. 353.22(a)(5).

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,

[[Page 31567]]

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, 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, 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 1997)

(AFBs VI). 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

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

SKF Compagnie d'Applications Mecaniques, All

S.A. (including all relevant

affiliates) (SKF France).

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

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

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

Germany

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

FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA All

(FAG Germany).

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

NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH All

(NTN Germany).

SKF GmbH (including all relevant All

affiliates) (SKF Germany).

Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/ CRBs

Kuensebeck).

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

Italy

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

FAG Italia S.p.A. (including all BBs, CRBs

relevant affiliates) (FAG Italy).

SKF-Industrie S.p.A. (including all BBs

relevant affiliates) (SKF Italy).

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

Japan

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

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

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.................... All

Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd. All

(NPBS).

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

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

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

Romania

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

Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (TIE)........... BBs

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

Singapore

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

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

Ltd./(NMB Singapore/Pelmec).

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

Sweden

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

SKF Sverige (including all relevant BBs

affiliates) (SKF Sweden).

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

United Kingdom

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

Barden Corporation...................... BBs, CRBs

FAG (U.K.) Ltd.......................... BBs, CRBs

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

Ltd. (NSK/RHP).

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

Duty Absorption

On May 31, 1996, and July 9, 1996, the Torrington Co. requested

that the Department determine with respect to all respondents, except

Torrington Nadellager and SNFA, whether antidumping duties had been

absorbed during the POR. This request was filed pursuant to section

751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act.

[[Page 31568]]

Section 751(a)(4) provides for the Department, if requested, to

determine, during an administrative review initiated two years or four

years after publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have

been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if

the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an

importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter.

Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Tariff Act by the URAA. The

Department's interim regulations do not address this provision of the

Tariff Act.

For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the

Tariff Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section

351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping regulations

provides that the Department will make a duty-absorption determination,

if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998.

See 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 1996). The preamble to the proposed

antidumping regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be

considered initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998

will be considered initiated in the fourth year. 61 FR at 7317.

Although these proposed antidumping regulations are not yet binding

upon the Department, they do constitute a public statement of how the

Department expects to proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the

Tariff Act. This approach ensures that interested parties will have the

opportunity to request a duty-absorption determination prior to the

time for sunset review of the order under section 751(c) on entries for

which the second and fourth years following an order have already

passed. Because these orders on AFBs have been in effect since 1989,

these are transition orders in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of

the Tariff Act; therefore, based on the policy stated above, the

Department will consider a request for an absorption determination

during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review initiated in

1996 and a request having been made, we are making a duty-absorption

determination as part of these administrative reviews.

The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the

subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated

importer. In these cases, all firms subject to the duty-absorption

request filed by the Torrington Co., with the exception of TIE, sold

through importers that are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section

751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. Furthermore, we have preliminarily

determined that there are dumping margins for the following firms with

respect to the percentages of their U.S. sales, by quantity, indicated

below:

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

Percentage

of U.S.

affiliate's

Name of firm Class of kind sales with

dumping

margins

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

France

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

SKF.................................. BBs 34.84

CRBs 100.00

SPBs 100.00

SNR.................................. BBs 36.23

CRBs 64.80

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

Germany

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

FAG.................................. BBs 54.58

CRBs 64.05

SPBs 18.70

INA.................................. BBs 81.91

CRBs 88.78

NTN.................................. BBs 36.44

SKF.................................. BBs 7.03

CRBs 53.85

SPBs 21.26

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

Italy

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

FAG.................................. BBs 20.43

SKF.................................. BBs 7.99

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

Japan

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

Koyo................................. BBs 44.43

CRBs 53.22

Nachi................................ BBs 59.81

CRBs 32.44

NPBS................................. BBs 61.41

NSK.................................. BBs 31.30

CRBs 36.82

NTN.................................. BBs 21.24

CRBs 12.86

SPBs 47.01

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

Singapore

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

NM Singapore/Pelmec Ind.............. BBs 17.74

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

Sweden

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

SKF.................................. BBs 45.29

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

United Kingdom

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

NSK/RHP.............................. BBs 1.46

CRBs 18.77

Barden............................... BBs 0.34

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

In the case of SKF France, the firm did not respond to our

questionnaire with respect to CRBs and SPBs and the dumping margins for

all sales of these classes or kinds of merchandise were determined on

the Basis of adverse facts available. Lacking other information, we

find duty absorption on all sales.

With respect to those companies (with affiliated importers) whose

margins were not determined based on adverse facts available, we

rebuttably presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales

which were dumped. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence that

the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the

ultimately assessed duty. However, there is no such evidence on the

record. Under these circumstances, we preliminarily find that

antidumping duties have been absorbed by the above-listed firms on the

percentages of U.S. sales indicated. If interested parties wish to

submit evidence that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States

will pay the ultimately assessed duty, they must do so no later than 15

days after publication of these preliminary results.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified

information provided by certain respondents, using standard

verification procedures, 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 the verification reports.

Use of Facts Available

We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of

the Tariff Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the

weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for SNFA with respect to

BBs and CRBs, for Torrington Nadellager with respect to CRBs, and for

SKF France with respect to CRBs and SPBs because these firms did not

respond to our antidumping questionnaire. We find that these firms have

not provided ``information that has been requested by the administering

authority.'' Furthermore, we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b)

of the Tariff Act, it is appropriate to make an inference adverse to

the interests of these companies because they failed to cooperate to

the best of their ability by not responding to our questionnaire.

With respect to SNFA, an importer of subject merchandise, Agusta

Aerospace Corporation (AAC) submitted information regarding its

purchases of subject merchandise produced by SNFA. We have not used

this information to calculate an antidumping duty rate for either SNFA

or AAC. It is our practice to base our analysis on information provided

by the respondent, in this case SNFA, and to calculate a single rate

for each respondent. Further, AAC did not provide sufficient data to

allow for a determination of the antidumping duty rate for SNFA's POR

sales of subject

[[Page 31569]]

merchandise. The only information that AAC provided concerned its own

imports of merchandise produced by SNFA and that information is in fact

insufficient to allow for an analysis of the duty rate applicable to

these imports. We are also denying a request made by AAC that, because

it imported and sold a de minimis amount of subject merchandise from

SNFA during the POR, such imports should be exempted from the

antidumping duty order. The statute and our regulations do not provide

for exceptions to the dumping law based on a small quantity of imports.

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. This is secondary information

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

Section 776(c) of the Tariff 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, and Torrington Nadellager, 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.

In certain situations, we found it necessary to use partial facts

available. Partial facts available was applied in cases where we were

unable to use some portion of a response in calculating the dumping

margin. This occurred with respect to tooling revenues reported by NSK

and related-party-input costs provided by Nachi. For partial facts

available, we extrapolated information from the company's response and

used that information in our calculations. For further information,

please see the analysis memoranda on file for these firms.

We also found that Barden failed to report information concerning

the channel(s) of distribution of its EP sales despite requests for

such information in both the initial and supplemental questionnaires.

Since we did not have this information, we were unable to determine

which level of trade in the home market most closely corresponded to

the level(s) of trade of Barden's EP sales. Because Barden repeatedly

failed to report the requested information, we have used an inference

that is adverse to Barden with respect to the missing information

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. As partial adverse facts

available, we matched Barden's EP sales to the level of trade in the

home market with the highest average prices.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price--Market-Economy Countries

For the price to the United States, we used EP or CEP as defined in

sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Tariff 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 Tariff 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 were June 4-

10, 1995, August 20-26, 1995, October 15-21, 1995, December 17-23,

1995, February 11-17, 1996, and March 24-30, 1996. 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 Tariff Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff 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, indirect selling

expenses, and repacking expenses in the United States. Where

appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we

also deducted the cost of any further manufacture or assembly, except

where the special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Tariff Act was

applied (see below). Finally, we made an adjustment for profit

allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Tariff Act.

Some respondents claimed an offsetting adjustment to U.S. indirect

selling expenses to account for the cost of financing cash deposits

during the POR. In past reviews of these orders we have accepted such

an adjustment, mainly to account for the opportunity cost associated

with making a deposit (i.e., the cost of having money unavailable for a

period of time). However, we have preliminarily determined to change

our practice of accepting such an adjustment.

We are not convinced that there are opportunity costs associated

with paying deposits. Moreover, while it may be true that importers

sometimes incur an expense if they borrow money in order to pay

antidumping duty deposits, it is a fundamental principle that money is

fungible. If an importer acquires a loan to cover one operating cost,

that may simply mean that it will not be necessary to borrow money to

cover a different operating cost. We find that the calculation of the

dumping margin should not vary depending on whether a party has funds

available to pay cash deposits or requires additional funds in the form

of loans.

Therefore, we find that an adjustment to indirect selling expenses

where parties have claimed financing costs is inappropriate and we have

denied such an adjustment for these preliminary results of reviews. We

invite interested parties to comment on this issue.

[[Page 31570]]

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 Tariff Act applied for all firms that added

value in the United States except INA and NPBS.

Section 772(e) of the Tariff 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 that added value in the United States

except INA and NPBS 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. Also, for the companies in question, we determined that

there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a

reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of such sales is

appropriate. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins

for these sales, we have used the weighted-average 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--Market-Economy Countries

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 Tariff 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 Tariff 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 Tariff 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 were April, June, August, October, and December of 1995,

and February, March, and May of 1996.

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, SKF

Sweden, Koyo, Nachi, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind.,

FAG U.K., Barden U.K. and NSK/RHP and the classes or kinds of

merchandise under review, 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 Tariff Act.

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we

initiated COP investigations of sales by SNR, FAG Germany, FAG Italy,

INA, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF Sweden, Koyo, Nachi, NPBS,

NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec, FAG U.K., and NSK/RHP in the home

market. In addition, based on allegations submitted by the Torrington

Co. subsequent to our initiation of these reviews, we determined that

there was a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that NTN Germany may

have made sales in the home market at prices below the COP and we

initiated a COP investigation of NTN Germany as well.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff 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 shipments nor did we conduct a

COP analysis for respondents for which we relied on total facts

available to determine weighted-average dumping margins for a class or

kind of merchandise.

After calculating the COP, we tested whether home market sales of

AFBs were made at prices below the 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 Tariff Act, where less than

20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices

less than the 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 were made within an extended period of time in substantial

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

Tariff Act. Based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for

the POR, we also determined that these sales 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 Tariff 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

[[Page 31571]]

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 Tariff 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 Tariff Act and for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff 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. 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 Tariff 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 Tariff Act. (See Level of Trade below.)

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff 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 Tariff Act. We included the cost of materials and

fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff 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 weighted-average 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 Tariff 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.

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 Tariff Act. (See Level of Trade

below.)

Level of Trade

To the extent practicable, we determine NV for sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there are no

sales at the same level of trade, we compare U.S. sales to home market

(or, if appropriate, third-country) sales at a different level of

trade. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the

home market. When NV is based on CV, the level of trade is that of the

sales from which we derive selling, SG&A and profit.

For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the level-of-

trade analysis is the sale (or constructed sale) from the exporter to

the importer. While the starting price for CEP is that of a subsequent

resale to an unaffiliated buyer, the construction of the CEP results in

a price that would have been charged if the importer had not been

affiliated. We calculate the CEP by removing from the first resale to

an independent U.S. customer the expenses under section 772(d) of the

Tariff Act and the profit associated with these expenses. These

expenses represent activities undertaken by the affiliated importer. As

such, they occur after the transaction between the exporter and the

importer for which we construct CEP. Because the expenses deducted

under section 772(d) represent selling activities in the United States,

the deduction of these expenses normally yields a different level of

trade for the CEP than for the later resale (which we use for the

starting price). Movement charges, duties and taxes deducted under

section 772(c) do not represent activities of the affiliated importer,

and we do not remove them to obtain the CEP level of trade.

To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of

trade than U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales are at

different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. The

marketing process in both markets begins with goods being sold by the

producer and extends to the sale to the final user, regardless of

whether the final user is an individual consumer or an industrial user.

The chain of distribution between the producer and the final user may

have many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur somewhere

along this chain. In the United States, the respondent's sales are

generally to an importer, whether independent or affiliated. We review

and compare the distribution systems in the home market and U.S. export

markets, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent

and level of selling expenses for each claimed level of trade. Customer

categories such as distributor, original equipment manufacturer (OEM),

or wholesaler are commonly used by respondents to describe levels of

trade, but, without substantiation, they are insufficient to establish

that a claimed level of trade is valid. An analysis of the chain of

distribution and of the selling functions substantiates or invalidates

the claimed levels of trade. If the claimed levels are different, the

selling functions performed in selling to each level should also be

different. Conversely, if levels of trade are nominally the same, the

selling functions performed should also be the same. Different levels

of trade necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but

differences in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone

sufficient to establish a difference in the levels of trade. A

different level of trade is characterized by purchasers at different

stages in the chain of distribution and sellers performing

qualitatively or quantitatively different functions in selling to them.

When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different

level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference

in levels of trade affects price comparability. We determine any effect

on price comparability by examining sales at different levels of trade

in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be

manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home

market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of

trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we

calculate the difference

[[Page 31572]]

in the average of the net prices of the same models sold at different

levels of trade. We use the average difference in net prices to adjust

NV when NV is based on a level of trade different from that of the

export sale. If there is no pattern of consistent price differences,

the difference in levels of trade does not have a price effect and,

therefore, no adjustment is necessary.

The statute also provides for an adjustment to NV when NV is based

on a level of trade different from that of the CEP if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the CEP and if we are unable to

determine whether the difference in levels of trade between CEP and NV

affects the comparability of their prices. This latter situation can

occur where there is no home market level of trade equivalent to the

U.S. sales level or where there is an equivalent home market level but

the data are insufficient to support a conclusion on price effect. This

adjustment, the CEP offset, is identified in section 773(a)(7)(B) and

is the lower of the following:

The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale, or

The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting

price used to calculate CEP.

The CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP. The CEP

offset is made only when the level of trade of the home market sale is

more advanced than the level of trade of the U.S. (CEP) sale and there

is not an appropriate basis for determining whether there is an effect

on price comparability.

For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analysis

for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Level

of Trade, March 24, 1997, in Import Administration's Central Records

Unit (Room B-099 of the main Commerce building (hereafter, B-099)).

Methodology for Romania

Separate Rates

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of

subject merchandise subject to review in a non-market-economy (NME)

country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is

sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate. For

purposes of this ``separate rates'' inquiry, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under the test established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as

amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May

2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries

are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can

demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and

in fact (de facto), with respect to exports.

Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure

absence of government control includes: (1) An absence of restrictive

stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control

of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is

based on four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or

subject to the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each

exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;

(3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions regarding

the selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter has the

authority to negotiate and sign contracts. See Silicon Carbide at

22587.

We have determined that the evidence of record demonstrates an

absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to

exports by TIE according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and

Silicon Carbide. For a discussion of the Department's preliminary

determination that TIE is entitled to a separate rate, see Memorandum

from Thomas O. Barlow to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 24, 1997,

``Assignment of Separate Rate for Tehnoimportexport: 1995-96

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Antifriction

Bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from

Romania'' (Separate Rate Memo), which is a public document on file in

B-099. Since TIE is preliminarily entitled to a separate rate and is

the only Romanian firm for which an administrative review has been

requested, it is not necessary for us to review any other Romanian

exporters of subject merchandise.

Export Price--Romania

For sales made by TIE we based our margin calculation on EP as

defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act because the subject

merchandise was first sold before the date of importation by the

exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States (TIE)

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.

We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the price used

to establish EP, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, bank

charges and international freight (air and ocean). To value foreign

inland freight we used the freight rates from the public version of the

May 10, 1996 and July 15, 1996 submissions of P.T. Multi Raya Indah

Abadi, respondent in the antidumping case concerning melamine

institutional dinnerware from Indonesia which is on file in B-099. We

used the actual reported expenses for international freight and bank

charges because the expenses were incurred in market-economy

currencies. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value--Romania

For merchandise exported from a NME country, section 773(c)(1) of

the Tariff Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a

factors-of-production methodology if available information does not

permit the calculation of NV using home-market or third-country prices

under section 773(a) of the Tariff Act. In every investigation or

review conducted by the Department involving Romania, we have treated

Romania as a NME country. None of the parties to this proceeding has

contested such treatment in this review and, therefore, we have

maintained our treatment of Romania as a NME for these preliminary

results.

Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of

the Tariff Act and section 353.52 of the Department's regulations. In

accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Tariff Act, the factors of

production used in producing AFBs include, but are not limited to,

hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts

of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital

cost, including depreciation.

In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act, the

Department valued the factors of production, to the extent possible,

using the prices or costs of factors of production in market-economy

countries which are at a level of economic development comparable to

that of Romania and which are significant producers of comparable

merchandise. We determined that Indonesia is at a level of economic

development comparable to that of Romania. We also found that Indonesia

is a producer of bearings. Therefore, we have selected Indonesia as the

primary surrogate country. For a further

[[Page 31573]]

discussion of the Department's selection of surrogate countries, see

Memorandum from Thomas O. Barlow to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 24,

1997, ``Surrogate-Country Selection: 1995-96 Administrative Review of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Antifriction Bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof from Romania'' (Surrogate Memo),

which is a public document on file in B-099.

For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the Romanian factors of

production as follows:

Where direct materials used to produce AFBs were imported

into Romania from market-economy countries, we used the import price to

value the material input. To value all other direct materials used in

the production of AFBs, i.e., those which were sourced from within

Romania, we used the import value per metric ton of these materials

into Indonesia as published in the Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical

Bulletin--Imports which include data on months during the POR. We made

adjustments to include freight costs incurred between the domestic

suppliers and the AFB factories, using freight rates obtained from the

public version of the April 27, 1995 calculation memorandum for the

antidumping case Disposable Lighters from the People's Republic of

China (A-570-834) (Lighters from the PRC), which is on file in B-099.

We also made a deduction to the steel input factors to account for the

scrap steel which was sold by the producers of the relevant bearings.

For direct labor, we used the Indonesian average daily

wage and hours worked per week for the iron and steel basic industries

reported in the 1994 Special Supplement to the Bulletin of Labour

Statistics, published by the International Labour Office.

For factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we could

not find values for the bearings industry in Indonesia. Therefore, we

used information which the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, provided

in the antidumping duty investigation of certain carbon-steel butt-weld

pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China because the pipe-

fittings industry is a similar metal manufacturing industry (see A-570-

814, cable from American Embassy--Jakarta, Indonesia, September 9,

1991).

To value packing materials, where materials used to

package AFBs were imported into Romania from market-economy countries,

we used the import price. To value all other packing materials, i.e.,

those sourced from within Romania, we used the import value per metric

ton of these materials (adjusted with the wholesale-price-index

inflator to place these values on an equivalent basis) as published in

the Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin--Imports. We adjusted

these values to include freight costs incurred between the domestic

suppliers and the AFB factories. To value freight costs, we used

freight rates obtained from the public version of the calculation

memorandum in Lighters from the PRC, cited above.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of

the Tariff Act. We used the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank

or, where not available, we used average monthly exchange rates

published by the International Monetary Fund in International Financial

Statistics.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the

weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period May 1,

1995, through April 30, 1996 to be as follows:

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

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

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

France

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

SKF....................................... 3.48 18.37 42.79

SNFA...................................... 66.42 18.37 \3\

SNR....................................... 8.68 23.77 \2\

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

Germany

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

FAG....................................... 12.42 19.49 10.33

INA....................................... 49.41 19.77 28.62

NTN....................................... 9.44 \2\ \2\

SKF....................................... 4.25 17.83 4.78

Torrington Nadellager..................... \3\ 76.27 \3\

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

Italy

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

FAG....................................... 1.64 \2\ ........

SKF....................................... 4.66 \3\ ........

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

Japan

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

Koyo Seiko................................ 14.66 12.17 \3\

Nachi..................................... 14.02 3.51 \2\

NPBS...................................... 19.58 \2\ \2\

NSK Ltd................................... 9.49 6.26 \2\

NTN....................................... 5.82 3.84 8.31

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

Romania

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

TIE....................................... 0.01 ........ ........

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

Singapore

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

NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind.................. 1.40 ........ ........

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

[[Page 31574]]

Sweden

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

SKF....................................... 13.13 ........ ........

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

United Kingdom

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

NSK/RHP................................... 2.90 13.74 ........

FAG (U.K.)................................ \1\ \1\ ........

Barden.................................... 0.30 \1\ ........

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

\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an

individual rate 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:

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

Room

Date Time No.

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

General Issues...................... July 8, 1997...................... 10:00 a.m.................... 4830

Sweden.............................. July 9, 1997...................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830

Romania............................. July 9, 1997...................... 2:00 p.m..................... 4830

Italy............................... July 10, 1997..................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830

United Kingdom...................... July 11, 1997..................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830

Singapore........................... July 11, 1997..................... 2:00 p.m..................... 4830

Germany............................. July 14, 1997..................... 9:00 a.m..................... 4830

France.............................. July 14, 1997..................... 2:00 p.m..................... 4830

Japan............................... July 15, 1997..................... 10:00 a.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.............. June 24, 1997......... July 1, 1997.

Sweden...................... June 25, 1997......... July 2, 1997.

Romania..................... June 25, 1997......... July 2, 1997.

Italy....................... June 26, 1997......... July 3, 1997.

United Kingdom.............. June 27, 1997......... July 7, 1997.

Singapore................... June 27, 1997......... July 7, 1997.

Germany..................... June 30, 1997......... July 7, 1997.

France...................... June 30, 1997......... July 7, 1997.

Japan....................... July 1, 1997.......... July 8, 1997.

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

The Department will 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 120 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

importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates 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 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.

[[Page 31575]]

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 Tariff 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 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), and Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From

France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66472

(December 17, 1996)). 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22(c)(5).

Dated: June 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-15118 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P