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 Rescission 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 Rescission of Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Partial Rescission 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,

[[Page 8791]]

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The

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 21 manufacturers/

exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998.

We are rescinding the reviews for thirteen 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bearings were withdrawn in a timely manner.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 23, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please contact the appropriate case analysts

for the various respondent firms as listed below, at Import

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

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

France. Lyn Johnson (SKF), Larry Tabash or Davina Hashmi (SNFA), J.

David Dirstine (SNR), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Germany. Mark Ross (INA and Torrington Nadellager), Farah Naim or

Davina Hashmi (SKF), Thomas Schauer (FAG), Robin Gray, or Richard

Rimlinger.

Italy. Anne Copper or J. David Dirstine (SKF), Edythe Artman or Mark

Ross (FAG), Minoo Hatten (Somecat), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Japan. J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.), Thomas

Schauer (NTN), Davina Hashmi (NPBS), Diane Krawczun (NSK Ltd.), Robin

Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Romania. Suzanne Flood (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Robin Gray.

Sweden. Davina Hashmi (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 of Commerce's (the

Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

On May 15, 1989, 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 29, 1998,

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, we published a notice of initiation

of administrative reviews of these orders for the period May 1, 1997,

through April 30, 1998 (the POR) (63 FR 35188). 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 Rofer LDA (France), Rodaindustria SA

(France), Rodaindustria Vigo SA (France), Bucher Guyer (France), Alfa

Team GmbH (Germany), D&R Technisher Grosshandel (Nurnberg) (Germany),

D&R Technisher Grosshandel (Rednitzhembach) (Germany), Frolich & Dorken

GmbH (Germany), RMV Walzlager Vetr. GmbH (Germany), Wyko Export

(Germany), Minetti (Italy), Motovario (Italy), and NMB/Pelmec

(Singapore). Because there were no other requests for review of the

above-named firms, we are rescinding the reviews with respect to these

companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d).

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 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, 8482.99.6595, 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, Mounted or Unmounted, 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, 8482.99.70, 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, Mounted and Unmounted, and Parts

Thereof: These products include all spherical plain bearings that

employ a spherically shaped sliding element and include spherical plain

rod ends.

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

[[Page 8792]]

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, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998) (AFBs VIII).

Although 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 merchandise:

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

Name of firm Merchandise

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

France:

11SKF France (including all relevant All

affiliates).

SNFA S.A. (SNFA France).................... All

SNR........................................ All

Germany:

SKF GmbH (including all relevant All

affiliates) (SKF Germany).

Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/ BBs, CRBs

Kuensenbeck).

FAG........................................ All

INA........................................ All

Italy:

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

affiliates) (FAG Italy).

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

relevant affiliates) (SKF Italy).

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

Japan:

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

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (Nachi).............. 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

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, CRBs

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

In a letter dated July 1, 1998, the Torrington Group requested to

be excused from responding to the Department's questionnaire in the

review involving BBs from Germany. The Torrington Group stated that,

during the POR, it imported into the United States only eight units

covered by the order on BBs from Germany and all units were imported

and obtained by the Torrington Company from Torrington Nadellager GmbH

via an affiliated-party transaction. The Torrington Group stated

further that after importation it loaned the eight units to an

unaffiliated U.S. customer for examination, retrieved the units from

the customer, and destroyed the units after retrieval. 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

Michael Panfeld, dated July 15, 1998, located in Import

Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, Main Commerce

Building (hereafter, B-099). 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, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden,

and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative

Reviews, 63 FR 6512, 6514 (February 9, 1998).)

Duty Absorption

On May 29, 1998, and July 29, 1998, the Torrington Company

requested that the Department determine with respect to all

respondents, except Torrington Nadellager and SNFA UK, whether

antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. On May 29, 1998,

FAG Bearings Corp. requested that the Department determine for

Torrington Nadellager whether antidumping duties had been absorbed

during the POR. These requests were filed pursuant to section 751(a)(4)

of the Act.

Section 751(a)(4) of the Act 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 (see also 19 CFR 351.213(j)(1)). Section 751(a)(4) was added

to the Act by the URAA.

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

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

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

the Department will make a duty-absorption determination, if requested,

for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. 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) of the Act 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, they are

transition orders in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act;

therefore, based on the policy stated above, the Department will

consider a request for an absorption

[[Page 8793]]

determination during a review initiated in 1998. This being a review

initiated in 1998 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

requests filed by the Torrington Company and FAG Bearings Corp., with

the exception of TIE, SNFA France, and Somecat, sold AFBs through

importers that are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 771(33)

of the 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 or kind sales with

dumping

margins

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

France:

SKF................................ BBs 17.88

SNR................................ BBs 10.18

CRBs 14.38

Germany:

SKF................................ BBs 3.20

CRBs 33.85

SPBs 22.03

Torrington Nadellager.............. CRBs 0.26

FAG................................ BBs 10.93

CRBs 26.83

INA................................ BBs 9.14

CRBs 9.25

SPBs 4.00

Italy:

FAG................................ BBs 10.38

SKF................................ BBs 20.73

Japan:

Koyo............................... BBs 30.38

CRBs 47.46

Nachi.............................. BBs 48.39

CRBs 7.93

NPBS............................... BBs 22.42

NSK................................ BBs 4.88

................................. CRBs 16.25

NTN................................ BBs 39.38

CRBs 86.38

SPBs 60.68

Sweden:

SKF................................ BBs 4.17

CRBs 100.00

United Kingdon:

Barden............................. BBs 19.43

NSK/RHP............................ BBs 34.25

CRBs 56.08

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

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

questionnaire with respect to its sales of CRBs and the dumping margin

for all sales of CRBs were determined on the basis of adverse facts

available (see Use of Facts Available below). Lacking other

information, we find duty absorption on all U.S. sales of CRBs by SKF

Sweden.

With respect to the above companies, 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 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 located in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce

Building, Room B-099.

Use of Facts Available

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

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

average dumping margin is appropriate for SKF Sweden with respect to

CRBs because this firm did not respond to our antidumping

questionnaire. We find that this firm has not provided ``information

that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore,

we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is

appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of this

company because it did not cooperate to the best of its ability by not

responding to our questionnaire.

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

available. Partial facts available was applied in cases in which we

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

dumping margin. For TIE (Romania), we had no factor value on the record

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

factor value for this input. In addition, we discovered at verification

that, for a few transactions, TIE inadvertently reported factors-of-

production (FOP) information for a factory other than the actual

producing factory. We determine that non-adverse partial facts

available should be applied to these transactions for the following

reasons: the sales with misreported FOP data account for a very small

percentage of U.S. sales; we are satisfied with the accuracy of TIE's

FOP data for other U.S. sales; the misreported FOP data accurately

reflect the experience of the other factories in producing the same

models; the misreported FOP data constitute an inadvertent error by TIE

which could not reasonably be corrected at verification. As non-adverse

partial facts available, we have used the information TIE reported as

the FOP of the affected models. See Memorandum of January 29, 1999,

from Suzanne Flood to Laurie Parkhill in Room B-099.

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 (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 merchandise subject to a

particular order, 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 are as follows: May 25-31, 1997; July

13-19, 1997; October 19-25, 1997; November 23-29, 1997; January 25-31,

1998; April 5-11, 1998. 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) to the URAA (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

[[Page 8794]]

repacking expenses in the United States. When 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, e.g., 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, except NPBS, that added value in the

United States.

Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when 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 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(c) for an

explanation of our practice on this issue.) Therefore, we preliminarily

determine 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 the sales subject to the special rule, 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 all

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. 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.

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 foreign like

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

weeks we selected for U.S. CEP sales plus one month prior to the POR

and one following the POR. The sample months were February, May, July,

October, and November of 1997 and January, April, and May of 1998.

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

provided for in section 773(b) of the Act in the last completed review

with respect to SKF France (BBs), INA (All), SKF Germany (All), FAG

Italy (BBs), SKF Italy (BBs), SKF Sweden (BBs), Koyo (BBs), Nachi (BBs

and CRBs), NPBS (BBs), NSK (BBs and CRBs), NTN Japan (All), Barden U.K.

(BBs), and NSK/RHP (BBs and CRBs), 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 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

packing the merchandise. 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

merchandise subject to an antidumping order for a respondent that

reported no U.S. sales or shipments of merchandise subject to that

order.

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, when 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. When 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-mentioned

companies and indicated merchandise except where there were no sales or

shipments subject to review.

[[Page 8795]]

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

the home market, 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 which are

the foreign like product 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. When

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 351.410. 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, when 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 section below.)

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

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

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

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

fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit in the calculation of CV. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for all respondents

except SNFA S.A. and Torrington Nadellager, we based SG&A expenses and

profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each 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

Torrington Nadellager and SNFA S.A., pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)

of the Act, we calculated profit for CV using an alternative

methodology because the calculation of profit in accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act is not attainable from the information

on the record. For SNFA S.A. we calculated profit for CV in accordance

with 773(e)(2)(B)(i); for Torrington Nadellager we calculated profit

for CV in accordance with 773(e)(2)(B)(iii). See analysis memoranda

from case analysts to Robin Gray, dated January 26, 1999, in Room B-099

for a description of the alternative CV-profit calculation

methodologies.

When appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for COS differences and

level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses from and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses to NV. For comparisons to CEP, we

made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses.

We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.

When 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 (8) of the Act. (See Level of Trade section

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

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 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, 1999, on file in Room 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 the following: (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 the following 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

[[Page 8796]]

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 Suzanne Flood to Laurie Parkhill,

dated January 20, 1999, ``Assignment of Separate Rate for

Tehnoimportexport: 1997-98 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 on file in Room 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 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 Room B-099. 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 an 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 we

have conducted involving Romania, we have treated Romania as an 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 an NME for these preliminary results.

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. 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 To The File from

Suzanne Flood, dated January 21, 1999, ``Surrogate-Country Selection:

1997-98 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 Room 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

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 1997 United Nations Trade

Commodity Statistics (UNTCS), which includes the most recent published

data closest to the 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. We

also reduced the steel input factors to account for the scrap steel

that was sold by the producers of the relevant bearings.

For labor, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's

regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. We have

used the regression-based wage rate on Import Administration's internet

website at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/wages.

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

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

consistent with AFBs VIII, we used the percentages calculated from the

1996 financial statements of the Indonesia company, P.T. Jaya Pari

Steel Ltd. Corporation. See TIE Preliminary Analysis Memorandum from

Suzanne Flood. 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.

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,

1997, through April 30, 1998, to be as follows:

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

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

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

France

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

SKF.......................................... 7.35 (\2\) 7.39

[[Page 8797]]

SNFA......................................... 0.41 0.21 (\2\)

SNR.......................................... 2.91 1.91 (\1\)

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

Germany

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

SKF.......................................... 1.24 5.58 3.08

Torrington Nadellager........................ (\2\) 0.45 (\3\)

FAG.......................................... 3.32 9.42 (\1\)

INA.......................................... 7.51 3.97 0.93

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

Italy

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

FAG.......................................... 0.95 (\1\) .......

SKF.......................................... 3.42 (\3\) .......

Somecat...................................... 1.24 (\2\) .......

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

Japan

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

Koyo......................................... 6.81 11.73 (\1\)

Nachi........................................ 11.19 1.51 (\1\)

NPBS......................................... 2.64 (\2\) (\2\)

NSK Ltd...................................... 0.74 4.31 (\2\)

NTN.......................................... 0.59 0.71 1.05

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

Romania

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

TIE.......................................... 0.78 ....... .......

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

Sweden

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

SKF.......................................... 2.87 13.69 .......

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

United Kingdom

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

Barden Corporation........................... 2.89 (\1\) .......

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

NSK/RHP...................................... 21.46 51.05 .......

SNFA......................................... 0.00 (\2\) .......

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

\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last

relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/

sales.

\2\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no

individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.

\3\ No review.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 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 30, 1999.............. 8:30 am.................... 1412

Sweden................................... March 31, 1999.............. 8:30 am.................... 1412

Romania.................................. March 31, 1999.............. 2:00 pm.................... 1412

Germany.................................. April 1, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 1412

Italy.................................... April 2, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 1412

United Kingdom........................... April 5, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 1412

France................................... April 5, 1999............... 2:00 pm.................... 1412

Japan.................................... April 6, 1999............... 8:30 am.................... 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 with an electronic version

included.

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

Case Briefs due Rebuttals due

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

General Issues........................... March 19, 1999................... March 26, 1999.

Sweden................................... March 22, 1999................... March 29, 1999.

Romania.................................. March 22, 1999................... March 29, 1999.

Germany.................................. March 23, 1999................... March 30, 1999.

Italy.................................... March 24, 1999................... March 31, 1999.

United Kingdom........................... March 25, 1999................... April 1, 1999.

France................................... March 25, 1999................... April 1, 1999.

[[Page 8798]]

Japan.................................... March 26, 1999................... April 2, 1999.

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

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.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an

exporter/importer-specific assessment rate or value for subject

merchandise.

Export Price Sales

With respect to EP sales for these preliminary results, we divided

the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal

value and EP) for each importer/customer by the total number of units

sold to that importer/customer. We will direct the Customs Service to

assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of

merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries under the

relevant order during the review period.

Constructed Export Price Sales

For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total

dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of

those reviewed sales for each importer. When an affiliated party acts

as an importer for EP sales we have included the applicable EP sales in

this assessment-rate calculation. We will direct the Customs Service to

assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs

values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries

under the relevant order during the review period. While the Department

is aware that the entered value of sales during the POR is not

necessarily equal to the entered value of entries during the POR, use

of entered value of sales as the basis of the assessment rate permits

the Department to collect a reasonable approximation of the antidumping

duties which would have been determined if the Department had reviewed

those sales of merchandise actually entered during the POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each respondent (i.e., each

exporter and/or manufacturer included in these reviews) we divided the

total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that

company's sales of merchandise during the review period subject to each

order.

In order to derive a single deposit rate for each order for each

respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP deposit rates (using the

EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). To accomplish this

when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the total dumping

margins for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the

sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the review period to

days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total net value for all

CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP total

net value by the same ratio. We then divided the combined total dumping

margins for both EP and CEP sales by the combined total value for both

EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate.

Entries of parts incorporated into finished bearings before sales

to an unaffiliated customer in the United States will receive the

respondent's deposit rate applicable to the order.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative

reviews for all shipments of AFBs entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms

whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and therefore

de minimis, the Department shall not require a deposit of estimated

antidumping duties; (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 for the relevant order made

effective by the final results of review published on July 26, 1993

(see Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and

Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26,

1993), and, for BBs from Italy, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

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

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination

of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty

Orders, 61 FR 66472 (December 17, 1996)). 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 reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: February 16, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-4443 Filed 2-22-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P