[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25654-25663]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07my08-49]
[[Page 25654]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-412-801
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Intent to Rescind Reviews in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts
thereof (ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
United Kingdom. The reviews cover 27 manufacturers/exporters. The
period of review is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value by companies subject to these reviews. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in these reviews are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Richard Rimlinger,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3931 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department published the antidumping duty
orders on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
United Kingdom in the Federal Register (54 FR 20900). On June 29, 2007,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of
initiation of administrative reviews of 163 companies subject to these
orders. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of
Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007).
On January 16, 2008, we extended the due date for the completion of
these preliminary results of reviews from January 31, 2008, to April
15, 2008. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR
2887 (January 16, 2008). On April 15, 2008, we extended the due date
for the completion of the results from April 15, 2008, to April 30,
2008. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 21311 (April
21, 2008).
For these administrative reviews, the period of review covered is
May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. The Department is conducting these
administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of Orders
The products covered by the orders are ball bearings (other than
tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. These products include all
antifriction bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports
of these products are classified under the following categories:
antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings
(including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or
mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.10,
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, 8482.99.35,
8482.99.2580, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40,
8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50,
8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.6000, 8708.99.06,
8708.99.3100, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.8015,
8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and
8803.90.90.
As a result of recent changes to the HTS, effective February 2,
2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following
additional HTS item numbers: 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.00,
8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.8900, 8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00,
8708.70.6060, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.20.00,
8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, 8708.99.81.80.
Although the HTS item numbers above are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of these
orders remain dispositive.
The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether
the bearing is covered by one of the orders. These orders cover all the
subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage,
rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) outlined above with certain
limitations. With regard to finished parts, all such parts are included
in the scope of these orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are
included if they have been heat-treated or if heat treatment is not
required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts
that are not covered by these orders are those that will be subject to
heat treatment after importation. The ultimate application of a bearing
also does not influence whether the bearing is covered by the orders.
Bearings designed for highly specialized applications are not excluded.
Any of the subject bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately
be utilized in aircraft, automobiles, or other equipment, are within
the scope of these orders.
For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the orders,
see the ``Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill'' regarding scope
determinations, dated April 30, 2008, which is on file in the Central
Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce building, room B-099, in the
General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 2006-2007 reviews.
Intent to Rescind Reviews in Part
We received a letter, dated June 21, 2007, from a company, Essex
Nexans Europe SAS, on behalf its subsidiaries Essex Nexans SAS, Essex
Nexans L&K GmbH, and Essex International Ltd., in which it stated that
Essex Nexans and its subsidiaries did not manufacture, sell, or ship
ball bearings of French, German, Italian, or U.K. origin to the United
States during the period of review. We also received letters of no
shipments from IKN GmbH and WWC Service-Center GmbH concerning ball
bearings from France, Germany, Italy, or the United Kingdom. We have
received no comments on the submissions from the three companies.
Because we preliminarily find that Essex Nexans Europe SAS and its
subsidiaries, IKN GmbH, and WWC Service-Center GmbH had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the period of review, we intend to rescind
the
[[Page 25655]]
administrative reviews with respect to these companies. If we continue
to find at the time of our final results that they had no shipments of
ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, or the United Kingdom, we
will rescind the reviews of these companies.
Selection of Respondents
Due to the large number of companies in the reviews and the
resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a
request had been made and not withdrawn, the Department exercised its
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for the reviews.
Where it is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of
subject merchandise because of the large number of such companies,
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, allows the Department to limit its
examination to either a sample of exporters, producers, or types of
products that is statistically valid, based on the information
available at the time of selection, or exporters and producers
accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the
exporting country that can be reasonably examined.
Accordingly, in June 2007 we requested information concerning the
quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 163
exporters/producers listed in the initiation notice. We received
responses from most of the exporters/producers in June and July of
2007. A number of the companies indicated that they had no shipments of
the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of
review. A number of the companies indicated that they were affiliated
with other companies for which we had initiated administrative reviews,
and these companies and their affiliates reported their sales to the
United States collectively. Some of the companies withdrew their
requests for review prior to our selection of respondents for
individual examination. Finally, three companies, Christian Feddersen
GmbH & Co. KG, Lentz & Schmahl GmbH, and Societe Nexans, for which we
initiated reviews subject to the orders on France, Germany, Italy, and
the United Kingdom, did not respond to our questionnaire. Based on our
analysis of the responses and our available resources, we chose to
examine the sales of the following companies:
France:
[ast] SKF France S.A. and SFK Aerospace France S.A.S. (SKF France)
Germany:
[ast] Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG (GRW)
[ast] SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
Italy:
[ast] SKF RIV-SKF Officine di Villas Perosa S.p.A.; SKF Industrie
S.p.A.; RFT S.p.A.; OMVP S.p.A. (collectively SKF Italy)
Japan:
[ast] JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.)
(JTEKT)
[ast] NTN Corporation (NTN)
United Kingdom:
[ast] The Barden Corporation (UK) Limited; Schaeffler (UK) Ltd.
(formerly known as the Barden Corporation (UK) Ltd.; FAG (UK) Ltd.
(collectively Barden/FAG)) (collectively Barden/Schaeffler UK)
See order-specific memoranda to Laurie Parkhill regarding respondent
selection, dated August 14, 2007, for the detailed analysis of the
selection process for each country-specific review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subsequent to our selection of respondents, two of the U.K.
companies, Molins PLC and NSK Bearings Europe, and one of the
Japanese companies, NSK Ltd., withdrew their requests for a review
and we rescinded the reviews of these companies. See 72 FR 64577
(November 16, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the responding companies which remain under review and which we did
not select for individual examination, we have either calculated a
simple average of the weighted-average margins of the two selected
respondents in a review (Japan) or assigned the weighted-average margin
of a sole selected respondent in a review (United Kingdom). Thus, based
on our preliminary margin calculations, we have calculated a margin of
10.30 percent for non-selected respondents from Japan. See Memorandum
to Laurie Parkhill regarding the calculation of a simple-average margin
for the Japan proceeding, dated April 30, 2008.
For the U.K. review, while we have applied, for these preliminary
results, the rate of 0.28 percent calculated for the sole respondent
selected for individual examination, Barden/Schaeffler UK, to the
company not individually examined, Rolls Royce, we invite comments from
interested parties regarding the methodology to be used to determine
the rate for the non-examined company. Specifically, we invite
interested parties to comment on the rate to be applied to the non-
examined company, considering, but not limited to, the following
factors: (a) the Department has limited its examination of respondents
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act; (b) section 735(c)(5) of
the Act provides that, with some exceptions, the all-others rate in an
investigation is to be calculated excluding any margins that are zero,
de minimis, or based entirely on facts available; (c) the Statement of
Administrative Action states that, with respect to the calculation of
the all-others rate in such cases, ``the expected method will be to
weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined
pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is
available. However, if this method is not feasible, or if it results in
an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping
margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use
other reasonable methods.'' See Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316,
vol.1 (1994) at 870 (SAA) at 873.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified
information provided by Barden/Schaeffler UK in the administrative
review of the order on ball bearings from the United Kingdom using
standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant
sales and financial records and the selection and review of original
documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results
are outlined in the public version of our Barden/Schaeffler UK
verification report, which is on file in the CRU, room 1117 of the main
Department building.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of
adverse facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary
results of reviews with respect to four companies.
A. Use of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the
information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under
this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in 782(i), the administering authority shall use,
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act
provides that, if the administering authority determines that a
response to a request for information does not comply with the request,
the
[[Page 25656]]
administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and,
to the extent practicable, provide an opportunity to remedy the
deficient submission. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act
provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be
used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information, if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
As discussed above, in June 2007, we requested information
concerning the quantity and value of sales to the United States from
each of the exporters/producers listed in the initiation notice for the
current reviews. Three companies, Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG,
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH, and Societe Nexans, did not respond to our
request concerning their sales or exports of ball bearings from France,
Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. Because these companies did not
respond to our request, we could neither consider them in our selection
of respondents for individual examination nor complete any
administrative reviews of the companies. Because these companies have
failed to provide the information requested and thus have significantly
impeded the respective proceedings, we find that we must base their
margins on the use of facts otherwise available. See section 776(a) of
the Act.
Additionally, we find that it is appropriate to use facts otherwise
available for certain U.S. sales made by SKF Germany for which SKF
Germany was not the producer and for which the producer failed to
provide cost-of-production (COP) information by the deadline for
submission of the information. The Department's practice is to use the
actual production costs of unaffiliated suppliers in lieu of the
exporter's acquisition costs to calculate COP and constructed value and
is extending this practice, where appropriate, to the reviews of the
orders on ball bearings. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of
Review in Part, 72 FR 58053 (October 12, 2007) (AFBs 17), and
accompanying Decision Memorandum, at Comment 17. See also Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final
Determination to Revoke the Order in Part: Individually Quick Frozen
Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 70295 (December 11, 2007) (Final-
Raspberries from Chile).
SKF Germany's supplier is an interested party because it is a
producer of the subject merchandise. See sections 771(9)(A) and 771(28)
of the Act. Further, section 771(28) of the Act states that,
``{f{time} or purposes of section 773 of the Act, the term exporter or
producer' includes both the exporter of the subject merchandise and the
producer of the same subject merchandise to the extent necessary to
accurately calculate the total amount incurred and realized for costs,
expenses, and profits in connection with production and sales of that
merchandise.'' Id. In addition, the SAA at 835 explains that ``the
purpose of section 771(28) . . . is to clarify that where different
firms perform the production and selling functions, Commerce may
include the costs, expenses, and profits of each firm in calculating
cost of production and constructed value.'' Id.
On November 6, 2007, we determined that SKF Germany should report
the actual COP for bearings it purchased from its largest supplier.\2\
Accordingly, on November 7, 2007, we requested that SKF Germany
coordinate with its largest supplier and report the actual COP data for
those bearings SKF Germany purchased during the period of review. On
November 14, 2007, SKF Germany stated that it had conferred with its
supplier and that, for reasons SKF designated as proprietary, its
supplier would not be able to provide any cost data for the period of
review. On November 28, 2007, we sent a letter to SKF Germany's
supplier requesting that it coordinate with SKF Germany and report the
actual COP data for those bearings purchased by SKF Germany during the
period of review. The response deadline was January 3, 2008. We
received no response by the deadline and no extension of the deadline
was requested by any party. On January 8, 2008, we received an untimely
submission from the supplier which did not include the actual COP for
the period of review. On January 31, 2008, consistent with 19 CFR
351.302(d) and 19 CFR 351.104(a)(2), we rejected the supplier's
submission as untimely and informed it that we would not consider the
information in our final results. On February 1, 2008, the supplier
submitted a letter in which, although it acknowledged that it
``neglected to submit the requested data by the due date or request an
extension to do so,'' it requested that we reconsider our decision for
rejecting its submission. See Letter to Laurie Parkhill, dated February
1, 2008. On March 3, 2008, we responded to the supplier, reaffirming
our decision to reject its COP data as untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill regarding the calculation
of the cost of production and constructed value for merchandise
produced by unaffiliated suppliers, dated November 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, if the
Department finds that an interested party ``fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in
the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782, the administering authority and the Commission shall,
subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination under this title.'' Section
782(c)(1) of the Act is not applicable because SKF Germany's supplier
did not notify the Department that it would be unable to provide the
COP information as requested in our November 28, 2007, letter. Further,
sections 782(e) and (d) of the Act are not applicable because the
requested information was not submitted by the established deadline.
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, because SKF
Germany's supplier did not provide the relevant COP information by the
established deadline, we find that use the facts otherwise available is
warranted.
In addition, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the
Department finds that ``an interested party failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information,'' an adverse inference may be used in determining the
facts otherwise available. Because SKF Germany's supplier, which, as a
producer of subject merchandise and an interested party in this
proceeding, did not act to the best of its ability by failing to
provide the COP information by the deadline, we preliminarily find that
it is appropriate to make an adverse inference pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act with respect to the bearings that SKF Germany
purchased from that supplier and sold in the United States. Thus, for
the sales of those bearings, we have applied an AFA rate in place of
rates for those sales that, if we had the
[[Page 25657]]
cost information, would be based on the normal value of the bearings.
B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available
In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the
Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an
interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with a request for information from the
administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under
this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available. See, e.g., Final-Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR at 70297;
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Circular Welded
Carbon-Quality Line Pipe From Mexico, 69 FR 59892, 59896 (October 6,
2004).
Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it
had cooperated fully.'' See Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in
Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, 72
FR 44112 (August 7, 2007) (Prelim- Raspberries from Chile) (unchanged
in Final-Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR at 70297). See also SAA at 870.
Further, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR
27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1380-84 (CAFC 2003).
Because the non-responding companies Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co.
KG, Lentz & Schmahl GmbH, and Societe Nexans - could have provided data
concerning the quantity and value of their sales of subject merchandise
to the United States during the period of review but did not do so, we
determine that they have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best
of their ability. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and
Determination to Revoke Order in Part: Antifriction Bearings and Parts
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United
Kingdom, 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004) (AFBs 14). We informed them
in our requests for information that, if they did not respond, we may
proceed on the basis of the use of the facts available. Therefore, we
conclude that the use of an adverse inference is warranted in applying
the use of facts otherwise available to these companies.
Furthermore, with respect to SKF Germany and its largest supplier,
although we provided SKF Germany's supplier with notice informing it of
the consequences of its failure to respond adequately to our request
for its COP data (see our November 28, 2007, letter), it did not
provide us with the relevant cost data in a timely manner. This
constitutes a failure of the supplier to cooperate to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information by the Department
within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Further, because we
rejected the supplier's submission as untimely, there is no information
on the record for us to consider and, therefore, section 782(e) of the
Act is not applicable. Based on the above, we have preliminarily
determined that SKF Germany's largest supplier, as a producer of
subject merchandise, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability
and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available,
an adverse inference is warranted. See Prelim-Raspberries from Chile,
72 FR 44114 (unchanged in Final-Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR at
70297). See also Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Individually
Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, 71 FR 45000 (August 8, 2006)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Final Determination to Revoke the Order In
Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile (72 FR 6524,
February 12, 2007)).
C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available
As facts available with an adverse inference, we have selected the
rates of 66.42 percent for France, 70.41 percent for Germany, 69.99
percent for Italy, and 60.15 percent for the United Kingdom.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall
corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used for
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding
constitutes secondary information. See SAA at 870. The word
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the
extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information
used. Unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling
expenses, however, there are no independent sources for calculated
dumping margins. The only source for margins is administrative
determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative review, if the
Department chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from
a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the
reliability of the margin for that time period. AFBs 14, 69 FR at
55577. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the highest
dumping margin as best information available because the margin was
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting
in an unusually high margin.
We find that the rates we are using for these preliminary results
have probative value. For France and Italy, we corroborated the highest
rates calculated in the respective less-than-fair-value investigations.
As there is no information on the record of these reviews that
demonstrates that the rates selected are not appropriate AFA rates for
the non-responsive firms, we preliminarily determine that the rates of
66.42 percent and 69.99 percent for France and Italy, respectively,
have probative value and, therefore, are appropriate rates for use as
AFA. For the United Kingdom, while the highest rate calculated in the
proceeding was 61.14 percent, in this review we have no transaction-
specific margins with which to corroborate this rate. We can
corroborate 58.20 percent from the 1996/1997 review of the order
(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)) because it fell
within the range of margins we calculated for this administrative
review and, thus, we have selected this rate as the AFA rate for the
United Kingdom.
For Germany, the selected AFA rate of 70.41 percent is the highest
rate ever
[[Page 25658]]
calculated for a company in any segment of this proceeding.\3\ Because
the producer of certain merchandise SKF Germany sold to the United
States did not provide us with the actual COP data for this review, we
examined individual transactions made by SKF Germany of merchandise it
purchased from the same supplier in the immediately preceding (2005-06)
administrative review and the margins on those transactions in order to
determine whether the rate of 70.41 percent was probative. See
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 32074 (June
11, 2007) (unchanged in Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of
Korea, 72 FR 46035 (August 16, 2007)). We found a number of sales with
dumping margins falling either above or below the rate of 70.41
percent. Therefore, we preliminarily find that this rate is
corroborated to the extent practicable. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel
Pipe, Inc. vs. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1340 (CAFC 2002)
(``Because Commerce selected a dumping margin within the range of Ta
Chen's actual sales data, we cannot conclude that Commerce `overreached
reality'.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The rate of 70.41 percent is the weighted-average margin we
calculated for FAG during the original investigation. See
Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings,
and Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From the Federal
Republic of Germany, 54 FR 20900 (May 15, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more detail concerning the selection of an AFA rate, see the
country-specific Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill regarding corroboration
of the respective AFA rates, dated April 30, 2008.
The SKF Group's Acquisition of Bearing Manufacturers
On July 4, 2006, the SKF Group\4\ acquired Somecat S.p.A. (Somecat)
in Italy and SNFA S.A.S.U. (SNFA) in France. Both Somecat and SNFA had
been revoked previously from the antidumping duty orders covering ball
bearings from Italy and France, respectively. See Antifriction Bearings
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et
al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Revocation of Orders in Part, 65 FR 49219, 49221 (August 11, 2000).
During the course of these administrative reviews, we have reviewed the
changes that have transpired since the acquisition of these companies
during the period of review by the SKF Group with respect to ball
bearings produced in Italy by Somecat and SKF Italy and ball bearings
produced in France by SNFA and SKF France for purposes of determining
whether it is appropriate to collapse these companies in our reviews of
the respective antidumping duty orders covering this merchandise.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we have preliminarily determined that
SKF France and SNFA should not be collapsed for purposes of our
antidumping analysis in this review; we have also preliminarily
determined that Somecat and SKF Italy should be collapsed for purposes
of our antidumping analysis in this review. Due to the business-
proprietary nature of these decisions, details are provided in country-
specific Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill regarding the collapsing of
entities, dated April 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SKF Italy and SKF France are part of the SKF Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department normally requests sales and cost data from the
entities that the Department determines to collapse in a review. In
this case, we have insufficient time to request, obtain, and analyze
the necessary sales and cost data to collapse Somecat and SKF Italy
fully at this stage of the administrative review. Therefore, we have
not asked Somecat and SKF Italy to provide the necessary sales and cost
data for this review but we expect to request Somecat and SKF Italy to
provide the necessary data for both companies in the next
administrative review.
Effective on the publication date of these preliminary results, we
will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and collect a cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties on entries of merchandise produced or
exported by Somecat at the weighted-average margin we have calculated
for the preliminary results of review for SKF Italy.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
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 U.S.
transactions that occurred during the period of review 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
10,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States of 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 14, 2006 - May 20, 2006; July 2, 2006 - July 8, 2006; October 22,
2006 - October 28, 2006; December 10, 2006 - December 16, 2006; January
21, 2007 - January 27, 2007; April 1, 2006 - April 7, 2006. We reviewed
all EP sales transactions the respondents made during the period of
review.
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.
Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA at 823-
824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated
with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes
commissions, direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those
indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring
in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted
under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we
computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both
the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those
sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to
U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to
total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. 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 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
[[Page 25659]]
CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other subject
merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated
customer 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 purchaser. Based on this
analysis, we determined that the estimated value added in the United
States by the further-manufacturing firms 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 for SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF
Italy, JTEKT, NTN, and Barden/Schaeffler UK. Also, for these firms, we
determine that there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of these
sales is appropriate. For analysis of the further-manufactured sales,
see the company-specific analysis memoranda, dated April 30, 2008.
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.
For the calculation of NTN's dumping margin, we did not include any
zero-priced transactions in our analysis and there was no other record
evidence indicating that NTN received consideration for these
transactions; we did include in our analysis the so-called ``sample''
sales where NTN did receive compensation. In addition, based on NTN's
response to our supplemental questionnaire, we calculated a direct
selling expense for NTN's EP sales, attributable to the provision of
technical support and other selling-support functions to NTN's EP
customer by NTN's U.S. affiliate. Furthermore, we accounted for NTN's
re-calculation of its re-packing expense with respect to its reported
CEP sales to capture differences in expenses associated with packing
materials, packing labor, and packing labor overhead inherent in
packing requirements with respect to different customer categories. We
also accounted for NTN's re-calculation of its inventory carrying costs
incurred in Japan for NTN's EP and CEP sales that it submitted in its
response to our supplemental questionnaire. Pursuant to a supplemental
questionnaire, NTN provided us with factors that we used to recalculate
the EP expenses, repacking, and inventory carrying costs.
There were no other claimed or allowed adjustments to EP or CEP
sales by other respondents.
Home-Market Sales
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)(1) 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 on the prices at
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the
exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same
level of trade as the EP or CEP sales.
Due to the extremely large number of home-market transactions that
occurred during the period of review and the resulting administrative
burden involved in examining all of these transactions, we sampled
sales to calculate normal value in accordance with section 777A of the
Act. When a firm had more than 10,000 home-market sales transactions on
a country-specific basis, we used sales in sample months that
corresponded to the sample weeks which we selected for U.S. CEP sales,
sales in a month prior to the period of review, and sales in the month
following the period of review. The sample months were February, May,
July, October, and December 2006 and January, April, and May 2007.
The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales to
affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that we
determined not to be arm's-length prices from our analysis. To test
whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the
prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct
selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in
accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated
party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices
charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold
to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated
party were at arm's-length prices. See Antidumping Proceedings:
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186
(November 15, 2002). We included in our calculation of normal value
those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length
prices.
Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-
cost sales in the 2005-2006 reviews with respect to ball bearings
produced in the respective countries and sold by the following firms:
SKF France; SKF Germany, GRW (Germany); SKF Italy; JTEKT, NTN (Japan);
Barden/Schaeffler UK. See AFBs 17, 72 FR at 58054. These reviews
represent the last completed segment for each respondent selected for
individual examination. Therefore, for the instant review, we have
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like
product under consideration for the determination of normal value in
these reviews may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided
by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these firms in
the respective home markets.
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, the 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
[[Page 25660]]
sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its
questionnaire responses.
After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like
product 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 period of review 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 period of review, we 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. See the
analysis memoranda for SKF France, SKF Germany, GRW, SKF Italy, JTEKT,
NTN, and Barden/Schaeffler UK, dated April 30, 2008. Based on this
test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to SKF France, SKF
Germany, GRW, SKF Italy, JTEKT, NTN, and Barden/Schaeffler UK.
Model-Match Methodology
For all respondents, we compared U.S. sales with sales of the
foreign like product in the home market. Specifically, in making our
comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical home-
market model was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average
home-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP
test of the identical product during the relevant month. We calculated
the weighted-average home-market prices on a level of trade-specific
basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we
identified the most similar home-market model. To determine the most
similar model, we limited our examination to models sold in the home
market that had the same bearing design, load direction, number of
rows, and precision grade. Next, we calculated the sum of the
deviations (expressed as a percentage of the value of the U.S.
characteristics) of the inner diameter, outer diameter, width, and load
rating for each potential home-market match and selected the bearing
with the smallest sum of the deviations. If two or more bearings had
the same sum of the deviations, we selected the model that was sold at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sale and was the closest
contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. If two or more models were sold
at the same level of trade and were sold equally contemporaneously, we
selected the model that had the smallest difference-in-merchandise
adjustment. Finally, if no bearing sold in the home market had a sum of
the deviations that was less than 40 percent, we concluded that no
appropriate comparison existed in the home market and we used the
constructed value of the U.S. model as normal value. For a full
discussion of the model-match methodology for these reviews, see Ball
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005) (AFBs 15), and
the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2, 3, and 5
and Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 25538, 25542 (May 13, 2005).
Normal Value
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 19 CFR 351.411 and for
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP,
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market
direct selling expenses from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
to, normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from
normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and
CEP calculations.
For NTN's sales of samples in the home market, we have determined
that these sales were made outside the ordinary course of trade and
have excluded them from our calculation of normal value. Furthermore,
we accounted for NTN's re-calculation of its packing expense for
reported home-market sales to capture differences in expenses
associated with packing materials inherent in packing requirements with
respect to different customer categories. In addition, we accounted for
NTN's re-calculation of its inventory carrying costs incurred in the
home market for its home-market sales that it submitted in its response
to our supplemental questionnaire.
For JTEKT, consistent with prior reviews, we denied certain
negative home-market billing adjustments that JTEKT granted on a model-
specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis. See,
e.g., AFBs 14, and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 21, and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent to Rescind Review in
Part, 72 FR 31271 (June 6, 2007) (Preliminary AFBs 17) at 72 FR 31275,
unchanged in AFBs 17.
In the two most recent administrative reviews of JTEKT, we examined
the relationship between JTEKT and one of its affiliated home-market
firms and determined that it was appropriate to collapse the two
companies as one entity. See, e.g., AFBs 16 at Comment 18 and
Preliminary AFBs 17, 72 FR at 31275, unchanged in AFBs 17. Upon
examining the relationship between the two companies in this review, we
have determined that it is appropriate to continue to collapse these
two companies. See the preliminary analysis memorandum for JTEKT, dated
April 30, 2008, for further details that include reference to JTEKT's
business-proprietary information.
Finally, with respect to JTEKT, consistent with our determination
in AFBs 17 (see the final analysis memorandum for JTEKT, dated October
4, 2007, at page 2), we revised its calculation of inventory carrying
costs (ICCs) incurred in the home market so that the ICCs for home-
market sales are calculated on the same basis as the ICCs for U.S.
sales. See the preliminary analysis memorandum for JTEKT, dated April
30, 2008, for details of this recalculation.
[[Page 25661]]
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of
trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different
level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible,
in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See the ``Level of
Trade'' section below.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We
calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the
Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses,
U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed
value. 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 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.
When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19
CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by
deducting home-market direct selling expenses from constructed value.
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 constructed value at the same level of
trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed value 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.
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determined normal value 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 normal-value
level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home market.
When normal value is based on constructed value, 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 from that of a U.S. sale and the difference
affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between the sales on which normal value 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, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
Where the respondent reported no home-market levels of trade that
were equivalent to the CEP level of trade and where the CEP level of
trade was at a less advanced stage than any of the home-market levels
of trade, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based
on the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product.
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For respondents' CEP
sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sale to the first unaffiliated customer and
made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was subject to the
so-called ``offset cap'', calculated as the sum of home-market indirect
selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses
deducted from CEP (or, if there were no home-market commissions, the
sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. commissions).
For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill
entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Various Countries:
2006/2007 Level-of-Trade Analysis,'' dated April 30, 2008, on file in
the CRU, room 1117.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings
and parts thereof from various countries exist for the period May 1,
2006, through April 30, 2007:
France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Company (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG........................... 66.42
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................ 66.42
SKF France.................................................. 11.17
Societe Nexans.............................................. 66.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG........................... 70.41
GRW......................................................... 0.12
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................ 70.41
SKF Germany................................................. 12.41
Societe Nexans.............................................. 70.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG........................... 69.99
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................ 69.99
SKF Italy (and Somecat)..................................... 7.06
Societe Nexans.............................................. 69.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aisin Seiki Company, Ltd.................................... 10.30
Canon, Inc.................................................. 10.30
JTEKT....................................................... 8.02
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp........................................ 10.30
Nippon Pillow Block Company Ltd............................. 10.30
NTN......................................................... 12.58
Sapporo Precision, Inc...................................... 10.30
Toyota Motor Corp./Toyota Industries Corp................... 10.30
Yamazaki Mazak Trading Company.............................. 10.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/Schaeffler UK........................................ 0.28
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG........................... 58.20
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................ 58.20
Rolls Royce PLC............................................. 0.28
Societe Nexans.............................................. 58.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of this
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
the date of publication
[[Page 25662]]
of this notice. A general-issues hearing, if requested, and any
hearings regarding issues related solely to specific countries, if
requested, will be held at the main Department building at times and
locations to be determined.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following: (1)
the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
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 reviews.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings
are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Briefs due Rebuttals due
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues.................................... June 11, 2008 June 18, 2008
France............................................ June 12, 2008 June 19, 2008
Germany........................................... June 13, 2008 June 20, 2008
Italy............................................. June 16, 2008 June 23, 2008
Japan............................................. June 17, 2008 June 24, 2008
United Kingdom.................................... June 18, 2008 June 25, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of these administrative
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such written briefs or at the hearings, if held, not later than 120
days after the date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP 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 (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for
merchandise subject to these reviews as described below. We will issue
instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of
these reviews.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies
included in these preliminary results of reviews for which the reviewed
companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual
review, we will instruct CBP to apply the rates listed above to all
entries of subject merchandise from such firms.
For companies for which we are relying on total AFA to establish a
dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply the assigned dumping
margins to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were
produced or exported by the companies.
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 exporter's importer or customer by the total
number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will
direct CBP 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. We will direct CBP 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. See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
Cash-Deposit Requirements
In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average 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. Finally, we 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.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative
reviews for all shipments of ball bearings and parts thereof 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 established
in the final results of reviews; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigations but the
manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (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 Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From France, et al; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
[[Page 25663]]
Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty
Order, 58 FR 39729, 39730 (July 26, 1993). For ball bearings from
Italy, see 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, 66521 (December 17, 1996). These rates are the
all-others rates from the relevant less-than-fair-value investigations.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Effective the publication date of these preliminary results, we
will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and collect a cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties on entries of merchandise produced or
exported by Somecat at the weighted-average margin we have calculated
for the preliminary results of review for SKF Italy.
Notification to Importer
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
These preliminary results of administrative reviews are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: April 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-10078 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S