Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Tapered Roller Bearings From the People's Republic of China

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-601]

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Tapered Roller

Bearings From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: tapered

roller bearings from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order

on tapered roller bearings (64 FR 15727) pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of a

notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive comments filed

on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department

determined to conduct a full (240-day) review. As a result of this

review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary

Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G.

Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

This review is being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752

of the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset

reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year

(``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63

FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in CFR part 351

(1999) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in

the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3--Policies Regarding the Conduct

of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing

Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset

Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

The merchandise covered by this antidumping duty order (52 FR

22667, June 15, 1987) includes tapered roller bearings (``TRBs'') and

parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's Republic of

China (``PRC''); flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units

incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings

(except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without

spindles, whether or not for automotive use. The subject merchandise

was originally classified under item numbers 680.30, 680.39, 681.10,

692.32 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated

(``TSUSA''); currently, according to the U.S. Customs Service, they are

classifiable under item numbers 8482.20.00.10, 8482.20.00.20,

8482.20.00.30, 8482.20.00.40, 8482.20.00.50, 8482.20.00.60,

8482.20.00.70, 8482.20.00.80, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15.00,

8482.99.15.40, 8482.99.15.80, 8483.20.40.80, 8483.20.80.80,

8483.30.80.20, 8708.99.80.15 and 8708.99.80.80 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') (see June 8, 1999, Memorandum

to File: HTSUS Numbers for Tapered Roller Bearings). Although the above

HTSUS and TSUSA subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

In the ninth administrative review (62 FR 61276, 61289, November

17, 1997), the Department clarified the scope of the order when it

added two additional HTSUS numbers (8708.99.90.15 and 8708.99.80.80)

applicable to imports of the subject merchandise which previously had

not been included in the order. In addition, the Department clarified

under the HTSUS numbers that should correspond to subject merchandise

previously classified under TSUSA item number 692.32 in the original

antidumping order. We note that scope rulings are made on an order-wide

basis.

History of the Order

In the original investigation, covering the period September 1,

1985 through August 31, 1986 (55 FR 6669, February 26, 1990), the

Department determined a margin of 0.97 for Premier Bearing & Equipment,

Ltd. (``Premier''); 4.69 percent for China National Machinery &

Equipment Import & Export Corporation (``CMEC'') and 2.96 percent for

``all others.''

There have been ten administrative reviews for the subject

antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:

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

Period of review

Review (``POR'') Citation

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

(1)................. 6 Feb 1987-31 May 1988.. 56 FR 66 (January 2,

1991).

(2)................. 1 June 1988-31 May 1989. 56 FR 66 (January 2,

1991).

(3)................. 2 May 1989-31 May 1990.. 61 FR 29345 (June 10,

1 June 1989-31 May 1990. 1996).

61 FR 29345 (June 10,

1996).

(4)................. 1 June 1990-31 May 1991. 61 FR 65527 (December

13, 1996).

(5)................. 1 June 1991-31 May 1992. 61 FR 65527 (December

13, 1996).

(6)................. 1 June 1992-31 May 1993. 61 FR 65527 (December

13, 1996).

[[Page 57035]]

(7)................. 1 June 1993-31 May 1994. 62 FR 6189 (February 11,

1997).

(8)................. 1 June 1994-31 May 1995. 62 FR 6173 (February 11,

1997).

(9)................. 1 June 1995-31 May 1996. 62 FR 61276 (November

17, 1997).

(10)................ 1 June 1996-31 May 1997. 63 FR 63842 (December

28, 1998).

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

Over the life of this order the Department has investigated and/or

reviewed imports from 21 different producers/exporters. Although all 21

had, at some point, established the right to a separate rate, three of

these companies ceased participation in the more recent reviews, and

therefore, are no longer entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, the

order was revoked in part with respect to subject merchandise produced

by Shanghai General Bearing Company, Ltd. (62 FR 6173, February 11,

1997).

Background

On April 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the

antidumping order on TRBs from the PRC (64 FR 15727), pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice of Intent

to Participate on behalf of domestic interested parties, The Timken

Company (``Timken'') and The Torrington Company (``Torrington'')

(``domestic interested parties'') within the applicable deadline (April

16, 1998) specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. The domestic interested parties each claimed interested

party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer of a

domestic like product. On May 3, 1999, Zheijiang Machinery Import &

Export Corporation (``Zheijiang Machinery''); Liaoning Mec Group, Ltd.

(``Liaoning''); Luoyang Bearing Corporation (Group) (``Luoyang'');

Zheijiang Changshan Changhe Bearing Co., Ltd. (``ZCCBC''); Zheijiang

Wanxiang Group (``Wanxiang''); China National Machinery Import & Export

Corporation (``CMC''); Xibei Bearing Group Import & Export Co., Ltd.

(``Xibei''); and Xiangyiang Bearing Factory (``Xiangyiang''); and the

China TRB Sunset Coalition (``China Coalition'') (collectively

``respondent interested parties'') notified the Department that they

intended to participate in this sunset review. CMC noted that it is a

different and distinct company from CMEC.

We received complete substantive responses from the domestic and

respondent interested parties on May 3, 1999. In response to a request

from respondent interested parties, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.302, granted an extension of the deadline for filing substantive

responses, and, on May 7, 1999, the respondent interested parties

submitted supplemental information to complete their substantive

response.

Timken claims that it was a petitioner in the original

investigation and a participant in the ten administrative reviews.

Torrington, however, did not participate in the original investigation

or any administrative review. The respondent interested parties claimed

interested party status under section 771(9)(B) of the Act, as foreign

producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. As an association of

foreign producers/exporters of subject merchandise, the China Coalition

claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act.

None of the above respondent interested parties participated in the

original investigation. However, Zheijiang and CMC participated in the

seventh through tenth reviews; Liaoning and Luoyang participated in the

third through tenth reviews; and Wanxiang participated in the ninth and

tenth reviews. ZCCBC is currently the subject of a new shipper review.

On May 12, 1999, we received rebuttal comments from the domestic

and respondent interested parties. On May 24, 1999, the Department

determined to conduct an expedited sunset review of this order on the

basis that respondent interested parties accounted for significantly

less than 50 percent of the value of imports over the past five

years.1 On June 10, 1999, within the 70-day deadline

specified in 19 CFR 351.309(e)(ii), respondent interested parties

submitted comments on the Department's determination to conduct an

expedited sunset review. On July 20, 1999, we notified the

International Trade Commission that we had reconsidered our

determination of adequacy and, on the basis of complete substantive

responses from domestic and respondent interested parties to the notice

of initiation, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), the

Department determined to conduct a full (240-day) sunset review of this

order.

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

\1\ See May 24, 1999, Memorandum for Jeffrey A. May, Re: Sunset

Review of Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of

China: Adequacy of Respondent Interested Party Response to the

Notice of Initiation.

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

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the

Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a

review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1,

1995). Accordingly, on July 20, 1999, the Department determined that

the sunset review of the antidumping duty investigation on TRBs from

the PRC is extraordinarily complicated, and extended the time limit for

completion of the preliminary results of this review until not later

than October 18, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the

Act.2

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

\2\ See Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of

China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Five-Year

Review (July 20, 1999).

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

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is

conducting this review to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making this

determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average

dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews

and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period

before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping order, and

shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the

Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail

if the order is revoked.

The Department's preliminary determination concerning continuation

or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed

below. In addition, the domestic and respondent interested parties'

comments with respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the

magnitude of the margin are addressed within the respective sections

below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history

accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically

the Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1

(1994) (``the SAA''), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1

(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the

[[Page 57036]]

Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on

methodological and analytical issues, including the bases for

likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on

an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2). In addition, the Department

indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an

antidumping order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping where (a) dumping continued at any level above de minimis after

the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise

ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated

after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject

merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).

Domestic interested parties argue that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping. With respect to whether dumping continued at any

level above de minimis after the issuance of the order, domestic

interested parties assert in their substantive response that TRB

producers from the PRC have dumped subject merchandise into the United

States prior to 1987 (see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of

domestic interested parties at 7). Further, the domestic interested

parties assert that, throughout the history of the order, bearings

producers in China have had to sell at less than fair value in order to

export to the United States. Id. For example, the rate of dumping found

for ``all others'' increased from 8.83 percent in the 1990/91 review,

to 33.18 percent in the most recent 1996/97 review.

With respect to whether dumping was eliminated after the issuance

of the order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined

significantly, the domestic interested parties assert that the margins

of dumping for PRC imports have increased over the life of the order,

along with the volume of TRB imports. Further, the domestic interested

parties assert that Chinese producers have continued to increase their

exports of subject merchandise--despite increasing margins--because of

incentives unique to the PRC market. Their examples include government

incentives such as preferential loan and tax policies; triangular debt

in the bearings industry, in which government policies requiring full

employment with limited money supply result in a surge of exports to

attract hard currency; and PRC government reform of state-owned

enterprises (``SOEs''), in which their sale or liquidation results in

excess capacity that can be devoted to production for export. Id. at 8-

9.

Respondent interested parties argue that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on TRBs from China will not result in a

continuation or recurrence of dumping. With respect to whether dumping

continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the

order, the respondent interested parties assert that the weighted-

average margins of dumping have declined significantly in recent years

and that the margins of dumping for the 1997/98 review are likely to

decline to a de minimis level (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of

respondent interested parties at 21).

With respect to whether dumping was eliminated after the issuance

of the order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined

significantly, the respondent interested parties assert that, imports

of subject merchandise from China are dramatically higher during the

period following the issuance of the order. Id at 20. Specifically, the

respondent interested parties assert that annual imports of TRBs from

China during the period from 1994 to 1998 averaged over twenty times

the level in 1985, the year preceding the issuance of the order. Id.

Moreover, they note that China's import market share is substantially

higher during this more recent period than in 1985. Id. at 21.

In their rebuttal comments of May 12, 1999, domestic interested

parties assert that the respondent interested parties' submission

should not be deemed adequate because the Chinese government has not

indicated its willingness to participate in the sunset review (see May

12, 1999 Rebuttal Comments of domestic interested parties at 5). The

domestic interested parties argue that, absent government

participation, the Department will not obtain the kind of data that

would warrant a full review. Furthermore, domestic interested parties

reassert that, in every review in every year since the order was put in

place, the Department has found dumping. Id. at 7. As dumping has not

been eliminated, and significant margins continued to be found, dumping

is therefore likely to continue or recur.

In their May 12, 1999 rebuttal comments, respondent interested

parties assert that the domestic interested parties' distort the

effects of revocation and possible margins by using the PRC-wide review

rates to total PRC imports, when a substantial portion of these imports

are from Chinese companies that have received separate rates in past

administrative reviews (see May 12, 1999 Rebuttal comments of

respondent interested parties at 2).

With respect to the issue of government incentive programs raised

by domestic interested parties, respondent interested parties argue

that Chinese TRB producers and exporters do not receive benefits from

any export incentive programs. They assert that the only benefit

received by TRB producers and exporters is reimbursement of, and/or

exemption from, VAT taxation for exporting. Id. at 3. However, the

refunding of VAT is not deemed a subsidy under either U.S. law or under

the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Moreover,

respondent interested parties argue that market economy countervailing

duty principles should not be applied to non-market economies in the

evaluation of fair market value. Id at 4.

With respect to the issue of triangular debt raised by domestic

interested parties, respondent interested parties assert that

triangular debt (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic

interested parties) has no bearing on the Chinese TRB companies, which,

as the Department has repeatedly recognized, are not state-owned (see

May 12, 1999 Rebuttal Comments of respondent interested parties at 4).

Respondent interested parties dispute the domestic interested

parties' assertion that there is reduced demand for TRBs in the PRC,

arguing that, on the contrary, Chinese government policies and SOE

reform are increasing the domestic demand for TRBs. Id. at 6. Moreover,

they dispute the argument of the domestic interested parties that

Chinese TRB producers maintain inventories of subject merchandise,

which they are stockpiling for U.S. export. Id. at 7.

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies continue to

dump despite the discipline of an order in place, the Department may

reasonably infer that dumping would continue were the discipline to be

removed. In this case, the Department finds that, although the margins

of four companies decreased below de minimis in the ninth and tenth

reviews, dumping by other producers/exporters nonetheless continued

since the issuance of an antidumping order. In addition, the PRC-wide

rate has increased steadily every year since the third review,

especially between the sixth and seventh reviews. Given that dumping

has continued over the life of the order, the Department preliminarily

determines that dumping is likely to continue if the order were

revoked.

[[Page 57037]]

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will

normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in

the final determination of the original investigation. Further, for

companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not

begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department

normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from

the investigation (see section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).

Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated

margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption

determinations (see sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin).

As noted above, the Department published a rate of 0.97 percent for

Premier, 4.69 percent for CMEC and, 2.96 for ``all others'' in its

final determination of sale at less than fair value (55 FR 6669,

February 26, 1989). In addition, the Department has conducted ten

administrative reviews of this order. Further, we note that, to date,

the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this

case.

The domestic interested parties assert that the Department should

select the highest calculated rate that corresponds to the review

period in which the companies--Wanfangdian, Jilin, Lianoning and

Guizhou--had their highest import volumes. The domestic interested

parties argue that, for these companies, the increases in the dumping

margin correspond to increases in U.S. imports, indicating that these

companies increased dumping in order to expand their market share.

Furthermore, domestic interested parties argue that, because imports of

Chinese TRBs and PRC-wide dumping margins have increased almost every

year since the issuance of the order, the Department should determine

that the most recent PRC-wide rate of 33.18 percent is the rate likely

to prevail for imports from all producers that do not currently have a

separate rate (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic

interested parties at 13). Finally, the domestic interested parties

argue that companies that lost their status as independent companies

should be assigned the most recent PRC-wide rate.

Respondent interested parties argue that, in view of the

dramatically increased level of imports from China from the period

before the issuance of the antidumping order, and the declining

weighted-average dumping margins in the most recent two reviews, the

Department should provide to the Commission the weight average of the

most recent rates of 3.20 percent, 0.02 percent and 0.03 percent for

Luoyang, Liaoning, and CMC, respectively (i.e., rates from the 1996/97

administrative review) (see May 3, 1999 Substantive Response of

respondent interested parties at 22), as the margin likely to prevail

if the order were revoked.

In their May 12, 1999, rebuttal, the domestic interested parties

reassert that as Chinese TRB imports have increased during the life of

the subject order, margins have also increased, showing that producers/

importers from the PRC have had to increase dumping in order to

increase sales volume (see May 12, 1999 Rebuttal of domestic interested

parties at 7). In addition, the domestic interested parties disagree

with the respondent interested parties' argument that the Department

should calculate the weight average of the margins of Luoyang,

Liaoning, and China National in the 1996/97 review, as the margin

likely to prevail if the order were revoked, because, allegedly, these

respondents failed to identify extraordinary circumstances that would

warrant such revised rates. Id. at 9.

With respect to the domestic interested parties' argument that the

Department use the historical PRC-wide rate, respondent interested

parties assert that this argument ignores the fact that over 23

different companies were not participants in the original investigation

(see May 12, 1999 Rebuttal of respondent interested parties at 10).

Moreover, in one or more annual reviews, nearly all companies received

separate rates and lower margins than the determined PRC-wide rate. Id.

With respect to the issue of assignment of the PRC-wide rate to

companies previously eligible for separate rate, respondent interested

parties assert that certain companies dropped out of the review process

because they decided to leave the U.S. market and for no other reason.

Id at 7.

As stated above, the Department normally will provide to the

Commission the margin that was determined in the original

investigation. The SAA at 889-90 and the House Report at 63 state that

declining (or no) margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports

may indicate that foreign companies do not have to dump to maintain

market share in the United States, and that dumping is less likely to

continue or recur were the order to be revoked. Therefore, section

II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin states that in response to

argument from an interested party, the Department may provide to the

Commission a more recently calculated margin for a particular company

where, for that particular company, dumping margins declined or dumping

was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import volumes

remained steady or increased. Additionally, if a company chooses to

increase dumping in order to increase or maintain market share, the

Department may provide the Commission with a more recently calculated

margin for that company.

Based on our review of information submitted by the interested

parties, the U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, and data from our

original investigation and subsequent administrative reviews, the

Department preliminarily determines that:

(1) With respect to Wafangdian, Jilin and Liaoning, the Department

agrees with the domestic interested parties that company-specific

export volumes and company-specific dumping margins peaked

concurrently, during the 1994/95 period of review. Additionally,

company-specific exports and the dumping margin for Guizhou Machinery

peaked concurrently during the 1995/96 period of review. This trend

shows that these companies may be willing to increase dumping in order

to increase or maintain market share. Therefore, the Department, in

accordance with section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,

preliminarily intends to report to the Commission company-specific

rates from the periods of review during which their imports increased:

29.40 percent for Wafangdian, from the 1994/95 review period; 29.40

percent for Jilin, from the 1994/95 and 1995/96 periods of review; 9.72

percent for Lioaning, from the 1994/95 period of review, and 21.79

percent for Guizhou Machinery, from the 1995/96 period of review.

(2) At some time over the life of the order, CMEC, Guizhou

Automotive and Tianshui Hailin were subject to separate rates, but were

assigned the PRC-wide rate when they did not participate in subsequent

reviews. The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'

argument that it is not appropriate to assign a rate to these companies

based on a status they no longer enjoy. Therefore, the Department

preliminarily intends to report to the Commission the 1995/96 review

PRC-wide rate of 29.40 percent for CMEC, Guizhou Automotive and

Tianshui Hailin.

(3) With respect to CMC and Luoyang, the Department agrees with

respondent interested parties that as company-specific exports from

these companies increased from the period prior to issuance of the

order, their company-specific weighted-average dumping

[[Page 57038]]

margins have declined in the two most recent reviews. The Department

finds the same trend for Zheijiang Machinery and Waxiang, which shows

that each of these exporters are likely to continue dumping at the

lower rates found in more recent reviews. Thus, the Department, in

accordance with section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,

preliminarily intends to report to the Commission the company-specific

margin of 0.03 percent for CMC, 3.20 percent for Luoyang, and 0.11

percent for Zheijiang Machinery, each from the 1996/97 period of

review; and 0.03 percent for Waxiang from the 1995/96 review.

(4) Because three respondent interested parties--Xiangyiang, Xibei

and ZCCBC (a participant in the current new shipper review)--have never

been determined eligible for a company-specific rate, the Department

preliminarily intends to assign the PRC-wide rate of 29.40 percent to

these companies.

(5) The margins for Premier, a company subject to the original

investigation, have generally increased throughout the history of the

order. Premier's original margin of 0.97 percent peaked at 25.56

percent in the 1993/94 review, and then decreased to 7.22 percent in

the most recent 1996/97 review. Absent comments or information

regarding the margin and import volumes for Premier from domestic and

respondent interested parties, the Department, in accordance with

section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, preliminarily intends to

report to the Commission a more recent rate of 5.43 percent for

Premier. This rate is from the 1995/96 period of review, in which the

overall volume of imports peaked and then began to decline.

(6) With respect to the PRC ``all others'' rate, the Department

agrees with domestic interested parties' argument that, as import

volumes generally increased, with the highest volumes in the years with

the highest margins, companies have increased dumping in order to

maintain or increase market share. We note that the total volume of

imports less imports of those companies with separate rates increased

from fiscal years 1994 through 1996, then declined in fiscal years 1997

through 1998. During this five-year period, the PRC rate increased

approximately 30 percent, reaching a peak of 33.18 percent in FY 1997.

Following this margin increase, imports declined approximately 60

percent. Because overall imports increased through 1996 and then began

to decline, the Department preliminarily intends to report to the

Commission a rate of 29.40 percent for ``all others'', in accordance

with section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin. This is the PRC-wide

rate from the 1995/96 administrative review.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

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

Margin

Producer/exporter (percent)

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

China National Machinery Import & Export Corp.(``CMC'').... 0.03

Zheijiang Wanxiang Group................................... 0.03

Zheijiang Machinery Import & Export Corp................... 0.11

Luoyang.................................................... 3.20

Premier.................................................... 5.43

Liaoning................................................... 9.72

Guizhou Machinery.......................................... 21.79

Wafangdian................................................. 29.40

Jilin...................................................... 29.40

China National Machinery Import & Export Corp.(``CMEC'')... 29.40

Guizhou Automotive......................................... 29.40

Tianshui Hailin............................................ 29.40

Xiangyiang................................................. 29.40

Xibei...................................................... 29.40

Zheijiang Changshan Changhe Bearing Co. (``ZCCBC'')........ 29.40

All Others................................................. 29.40

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

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any

hearing, if requested, will be held on December 14, 1999, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no

later than December 7, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues

raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than December 13,

1999. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this

sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues

raised in any such Policy Bulletin.

This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: October 18, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-27686 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P