Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) And Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and The United Kingdom

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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

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 is conducting administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof 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, cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and

spherical plain bearings and parts thereof. The reviews cover 20

manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1996, through

April 30, 1997.

We are terminating the reviews for six other manufacturers/

exporters and for certain types of antifriction bearings from still

other manufacturers/exporters because the requests for reviews of these

firms or types of bearings were withdrawn in a timely manner.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

normal value 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: February 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: The appropriate case analysts for the various

respondent firms are 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), Lisa Tomlinson (SNFA), or Richard Rimlinger.

Germany

John Heires (Torrington Nadellager), Davina Hashmi (SKF), or Robin

Gray.

Italy

Chip Hayes (SKF), Mark Ross (FAG), Kristie Strecker (Somecat),

William Zapf (Meter), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Japan

J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko), Gregory Thompson (NTN), Hermes

Pinilla (NPBS), Thomas Schauer (NSK Ltd.), Jay Biggs (Nachi-Fujikoshi

Corp.), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Romania

Kristie Strecker (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Robin Gray.

Singapore

[[Page 6513]]

Lyn Johnson (NMB/Pelmec) or Richard Rimlinger.

Sweden

Mark Ross (SKF) or Richard Rimlinger.

United Kingdom

Suzanne Flood (Barden Corporation), Diane Krawczun (NSK/RHP),

Hermes Pinilla (FAG), Lyn Johnson (SNFA), Robin Gray, or Richard

Rimlinger.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

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

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

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are

to 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1, 1996).

Background

On May 15, 1989, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty

orders on ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller

bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical plain bearings and

parts thereof (SPBs) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, 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 United Kingdom; and BBs from Romania and

Singapore. On June 17, 1997 and August 28, 1997, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.22(c), we published notices of initiation of administrative

reviews of these orders for the period May 1, 1996 through April 30,

1997 (the POR) (62 FR 32754 (as corrected by 62 FR 34504 and 62 FR

44751) and 62 FR 45621, respectively). The Department is conducting

these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely

withdrawals of review requests for Bruckner (Germany), FAG Kugelfisher

Georg Schaefer AG (Germany), INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG (Germany), NTN

Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH (Germany), SNR Roulements (France),

and C.R. s.r.l. (Italy). In addition, we also received timely

withdrawals of review requests for CRBs sold by FAG Italia S.p.A.

(Italy), CRBs sold by Somecat S.p.A. (Italy), CRBs sold by SNFA

Bearings Ltd. (U.K.), and CRBs and SPBs sold by Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.

(Japan). Because there were no other requests for review of these

companies or specified bearing types for the above-named firms, we are

terminating the reviews with respect to these companies or types of

bearings in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). Furthermore, on

December 17, 1997, we received a withdrawal of a request by Agusta

Aerospace Corporation (AAC) to review BBs and CRBs which were produced

by SNFA France and exported by Agusta S.p.A. to the United States. This

withdrawal request does not affect our review of other BBs and CRBs

sold by SNFA France. Therefore, because SNFA France had no specific

foreknowledge that sales it made to Agusta S.p.A. were destined for the

United States, we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate

entries of all SNFA bearings imported by AAC at the rate required at

the time of entry.

Although we received a request to revoke the antidumping duty order

covering BBs from Singapore with respect to NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec

Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec), we have preliminarily determined

that NMB/Pelmec does not qualify for revocation under 19 CFR

353.25(a)(1) because we preliminarily determine that the firm was

dumping BBs in this review period and we determined that NMB/Pelmec

dumped BBs in the review periods May 1, 1994 through April 30, 1995 (62

FR 54043, October 17, 1997) and May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996 (62

FR 2081, January 15, 1997).

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings

(other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) and

constitute the following classes or kinds of merchandise:

1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all AFBs

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,

8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40,

8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,

8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060,

8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75,

8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800,

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and

8803.90.90.

2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products

include all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling

element. Imports of these products are classified under the following

categories: antifriction rollers, all cylindrical roller bearings

(including split cylindrical roller bearings) and parts thereof, and

housed or mounted cylindrical roller bearing units and parts thereof.

Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50,

6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00, 8482.50.00,

8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530,

8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6595, 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, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043 (October 17, 1997)

(AFBs VII). The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written descriptions of the scope of these

proceedings remain dispositive.

These reviews cover the following firms and classes or kinds of

merchandise:

[[Page 6514]]

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

Name of firm Class or kind

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

France

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

SKF France (including all relevant BBs, SPBs

affiliates).

SNFA S.A. (SNFA France)...................... BBs, CRBs

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

Germany

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

SKF GmbH (including all relevant affiliates) All

(SKF Germany).

Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/ BBs, CRBs

Kuensenbeck).

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

Italy

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

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

affiliates) (FAG Italy).

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

affiliates) (SKF Italy).

Meter, S.p.A. (Meter)........................ CRBs

Somecat, S.p.A. (Somecat).................... BBs

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

Japan

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

Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo).................. BBs

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (Nachi)................ BBs, CRBs

Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd. BBs, CRBs

(NPBS).

NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.)........ BBs, CRBs

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

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

Romania

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

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

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

Singapore

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

NMB/Pelmec................................... BBs

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

Sweden

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

SKF Sverige (including all relevant BBs, CRBs

affiliates) (SKF Sweden).

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

United Kingdom

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

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

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

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

(NSK/RHP).

SNFA (U.K.) Bearings Ltd..................... BBs

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

In a letter dated June 24, 1997, Torrington requested to be excused

from responding to the Department's questionnaire in this review

involving BBs from Germany. Torrington stated that, during the POR, it

imported into the United States only ten units covered by the order on

BBs and all units were imported and obtained by Torrington-U.S. from

Torrington-Germany via an affiliated-party transaction solely for

testing and/or examination.

On August 4, 1997, Torrington notified the Department that it had

destroyed all ten units in question and that there is no possibility of

resale. Based on this, Torrington states that no useful purpose would

be served by requiring it to answer the questionnaire so far as BBs are

concerned. Given that the units in question were destroyed and there

are no sales to review, we have not calculated dumping margins for

these entries in this review involving BBs from Germany. See memorandum

to Laurie Parkhill from Suzanne Flood, dated August 18, 1997. Because

this merchandise was consumed by the affiliated importer and not resold

in any form, we will liquidate these entries without regard to

antidumping duties. (See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,

Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 35713 (July 8, 1996).)

Verification

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

provided by certain respondents using standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the public versions of the

verification reports.

Use of Facts Available

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

the Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the weighted-

average dumping margin is not appropriate for any of the companies

under the current review. However, 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. For partial facts available, we

extrapolated information from the company's response and used that

information in our calculations. For SKF (Germany), NPBS, NTN,

Torrington, and NSK-RHP (UK), average credit days were calculated for

missing payment dates. For TIE (Romania), we had no factor value on the

record to value steel tube. Therefore, we used the value of steel bar

[[Page 6515]]

as the factor value for this input. For Torrington, we used facts

available to construct the value of merchandise where no comparable

home market information existed. For further information, please see

the analysis memoranda on file for all of these firms.

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

For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b)

of the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of

transactions that occurred during the POR and the resulting

administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for

all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales in accordance with

section 777A of the Act. When a firm made more than 2,000 CEP sales

transactions to the United States for a particular class or kind of

merchandise, we reviewed CEP sales that occurred during sample weeks.

We selected one week from each two-month period in the review period,

for a total of six weeks, and analyzed each transaction made in those

six weeks. The sample weeks were June 2-8, 1996; August 11-17, 1996;

October 13-19, 1996; November 3-9, 1996; February 2-8, 1997; and April

13-19, 1997. We reviewed all EP sales transactions during the POR.

We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or

delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to,

the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts

and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement

of Administrative Action (SAA) (at 823-824) to the URAA, 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 Act, we also deducted the cost of any further

manufacture or assembly, except where the special rule provided in

section 772(e) of the Act was applied (see below). Finally, we made an

adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with

section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the

United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, i.e., parts

of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters

and then further processed into other products which were then sold to

unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for

merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of

the Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States,

with the exception of NSK/RHP and NPBS.

Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject

merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in

the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed

substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine

the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other

subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to

provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use

of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of

such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or

other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other

reasonable basis to determine the CEP.

To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed

substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the

value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices

charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold

in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the

subject merchandise by the affiliated person. Based on this analysis,

we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by

all firms, with the exception of NSK/RHP and NPBS, accounted for at

least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated

customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States. (See 19 CFR

351.402 for an explanation of our practice on this issue.) 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 did not permit a proper comparison,

we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by most

respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper

comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United

States pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. With the exception of

Meter, each company's quantity of sales in its home market was greater

than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal

value (NV) on the prices at which the foreign like products were first

sold for consumption in the exporting country.

For Meter, we used third-country sales to Germany to establish NV

because Meter had no sales of the foreign like product in Italy. SNFA

France's home market was viable in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of

the Act. However, because there were no contemporaneous sales of

merchandise comparable to the U.S. sales such that we found no matches,

we used constructed value as the basis of NV.

Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred

during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in

examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate NV

in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm had more than

2,000 home market sales transactions for a particular class or kind of

merchandise, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the

sample weeks we selected for U.S. sales sampling plus one

contemporaneous month prior to the POR and one following the POR. The

sample months were March, June, August, October, and November of 1996;

and February, April, and June of 1997.

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 unaffiliated

customers.

Because the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test

under section 773(b) of the Act in the last completed review with

respect to FAG Italy, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF Sweden,

Koyo, Nachi, NPBS, NSK, NTN Japan, NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind., 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 like product under consideration for the determination of NV in

these reviews

[[Page 6516]]

may have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) as

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to

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

by these firms in the home market.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the

COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed

in producing the foreign like product plus selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for

shipment. In our COP analysis, we used the home market sales and COP

information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses.

We did not conduct a COP analysis regarding a class or kind of

merchandise for a respondent that reported no U.S. sales or shipments

of that class or kind.

After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of

the Act 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 permitted the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to

the reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges,

discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20

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

than 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 in substantial quantities within an extended period of time

pursuant to sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act and because,

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 Act. Based on this test, we

disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of the above companies

and classes or kinds of merchandise except where there were no sales or

shipments subject to review.

We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in

the home market or a third country, as noted above. We considered all

non-identical products within a bearing family to be equally similar.

As defined in the questionnaire, a bearing family consists of all

bearings within a class or kind of merchandise that are the same in the

following physical characteristics: load direction, bearing design,

number of rows of rolling elements, precision rating, dynamic load

rating, outer diameter, inner diameter, and width.

Home market or third-country prices were based on the packed, ex-

factory or delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers.

Where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and

for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B)

of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the

merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for

differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. 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 from NV. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home

market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and

CEP calculations.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the

extent practicable, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade as

the EP or CEP. If NV was calculated at a different level of trade, we

made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with

section 773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level of Trade below.)

On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

issued a decision in Cemex v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed. Cir.).

In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court

discussed the appropriateness of using CV as the basis for foreign

market value when the Department finds home market sales to be outside

the ordinary course of trade. This issue was not raised by any party in

these 96/97 reviews. However, the URAA amended the definition of sales

outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include sales below cost.

See section 771(15) of the Act. Because the Court's decision was issued

so close to the deadline for completing these preliminary results, we

have not had sufficient time to evaluate and apply (if appropriate and

if there are adequate facts on the record) the decision to the facts of

these post-URAA reviews. For these reasons, we have determined to

continue to apply our policy regarding the use of CV when we have

disregarded below-cost sales from the calculation of NV; however, we

invite interested parties to comment, in their case briefs, on the

applicability of the Cemex decision to these reviews.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the

basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like

product in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and

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

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course

of trade for consumption in the home market. 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 Act and 19 CFR 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 Act. (See Level of Trade

below.)

Level of Trade

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

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

sales at the same level of trade, we compared 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

[[Page 6517]]

level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and

profit.

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

trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and

selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer

and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a

different level of trade and the differences affected price

comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price

differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-

market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we made a

level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731

(November 19, 1997).

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

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

of Trade, January 26, 1998, on file 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 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 over exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact

(de facto).

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 Kristie Strecker to Laurie Parkhill, dated January 26, 1998,

``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 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

Factors of Production Memorandum from Disposable Lighters from the

People's Republic of China (A-570-834) (Lighters from the PRC) (April

27, 1995), which is on file in B-099 (for this expense, as well as any

other adjustments or factors in our calculations for which we relied on

pre-POR statistics discussed below, we adjusted those statistics by

annual rates of inflation). We used the actual reported expenses for

international freight and bank charges because the expenses were paid

to market-economy suppliers and 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 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 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 Act and 19 CFR 353.52. In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the

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 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 discussion of the Department's

selection of surrogate countries, see Memorandum from Kristie Strecker

to Laurie Parkhill, dated January 26, 1998, ``Surrogate-Country

Selection: 1996-97 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.

[[Page 6518]]

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

production as follows:

Where direct materials used to produce AFBs were imported

by the producers 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 includes 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 of

Lighters from the PRC, which is on file in B-099. We also reduced the

steel input factors to account for the scrap steel that 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. We added

amounts to labor rates to account for benefits. We used information

from the Foreign Labor Trends, as used in Lighters from the PRC, which

shows supplementary benefits to be thirty-three percent of

manufacturing earnings.

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

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

consistent with AFBsVII, we used the percentages calculated from the

financial statements of the Indonesia company, P.T. Jaya Pari Steel

Ltd. Corporation. We determined that amounts for energy usage for

electricity and natural gas were included in the overhead calculations

in these financial statements.

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.

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,

1996, through April 30, 1997 to be as follows:

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

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

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

France

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

SKF.......................................... 7.40 (\3\) 76.57

SNFA......................................... 0.55 1.78 (\3\)

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

Germany

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

SKF.......................................... 2.27 7.33 5.24

Torrington NAD............................... (\2\) 11.38 (\3\)

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

Italy

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

FAG.......................................... 1.18 (\3\)

SKF.......................................... 3.22 (\3\)

Meter........................................ (\3\) 10.65

Somecat...................................... 0.00 (\3\)

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

Japan

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

Koyo Seiko................................... 6.29 (\3\) (\3\)

Nachi........................................ 6.83 8.53 (\3\)

NPBS......................................... 2.33 (\2\) (\3\)

NSK Ltd...................................... 5.87 2.27 (\3\)

NTN.......................................... 6.16 12.50 10.39

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

Romania

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

TIE.......................................... 0.90

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

Singapore

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

NMB Singapore/Pelmec Ind..................... 4.49

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

Sweden

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

SKF.......................................... 11.73 (\2\)

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

United Kingdom

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

NSK/RHP...................................... 16.66 21.08

FAG (U.K.)................................... (\2\) (\2\)

Barden....................................... 8.02 (\1\)

SNFA......................................... 58.20 (\3\)

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

\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:

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

Case Date Time Room No.

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

General Issues..................... March 18, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412

Sweden............................. March 19, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412

Romania............................ March 19, 1998............. 2:00 p.m......................... 1412

Germany............................ March 20, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412

Italy.............................. March 23, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412

Singapore.......................... March 23, 1998............. 2:00 p.m......................... 1412

United Kingdom..................... March 24, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412

France............................. March 24, 1998............. 2:00 p.m......................... 1412

Japan.............................. March 25, 1998............. 8:30 a.m......................... 1412

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

Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the

respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case 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 case 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 due Rebuttals due

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

General Issues................ March 9, 1998...... March 16, 1998.

Sweden........................ March 10, 1998..... March 17, 1998.

Romania....................... March 10, 1998..... March 17, 1998.

[[Page 6519]]

Germany....................... March 11, 1998..... March 18, 1998.

Italy......................... March 12, 1998..... March 19, 1998.

Singapore..................... March 12, 1998..... March 19, 1998.

United Kingdom................ March 13, 1998..... March 20, 1998.

France........................ March 13, 1998..... March 20, 1998.

Japan......................... March 16, 1998..... March 23, 1998

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

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 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.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the

final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates established in the final results of these

reviews (except that no deposit will be required for firms with zero or

de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the

cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-

value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the

manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all

other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others''

rate 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22(c)(5).

Dated: February 2, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-3212 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P