[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22372-22381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9721]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Administrative and Changed-Circumstances Reviews
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 from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom for
the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. We have preliminarily
determined that sales have been made below normal value by certain
companies subject to these reviews. We have also preliminarily
determined that Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG is the successor-
in-interest to Schaeffler KG with respect to the order on ball bearings
and parts thereof from Germany.
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.
DATES: Effective Date: April 21, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1989, the Department published the antidumping duty
orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France (54 FR 20902),
Germany (54 FR 20900), Italy (54 FR 20903), Japan (54 FR 20904), and
the United Kingdom (54 FR 20910) in the Federal Register. On June 30,
2010, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b), we published a notice of
initiation of administrative reviews of 133 companies subject to these
orders. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759
(June 30, 2010) (Initiation Notice).
Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews we published in the
Federal Register the final results of the 2008-2009 administrative
reviews of the orders, in which we revoked the antidumping duty order
on ball bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom, in part,
with respect to merchandise exported or sold by The Barden Corporation
(U.K.) Limited and Schaeffler (U.K.) Limited (The Schaeffler Group)
effective May 1, 2009.\1\ As a result we rescinded the 2009-2010
administrative review of the order on merchandise from the United
Kingdom.\2\ We have also rescinded the administrative reviews with
respect to 34 other companies based on the withdrawals of the
applicable requests for reviews. See Rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final
Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order
in Part, 75 FR 53661 (September 1, 2010) (AFBs 20).
\2\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.:
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
69402 (November 12, 2010), and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 327 (January 4, 2011) (collectively Rescission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 14, 2011, we issued a notice of extension of the
deadline for completion of the preliminary results of reviews from
January 31, 2011, to March 17, 2011. See Ball Bearings and Parts
Thereof From France, et al.: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 2647 (January
14, 2011). On March 22, 2011, we issued a second notice of extension of
the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of reviews from
March 17, 2011, to April 18, 2011. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From France, et al.: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative and Changed-Circumstances Reviews, 76
FR 15940 (March 22, 2011).
The period of review is May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. The
Department is conducting these administrative reviews in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Orders
The products covered by the orders are ball bearings and parts
thereof. These products include all antifriction bearings that employ
balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified
under the following categories: Antifriction balls, ball bearings with
integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and
parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts
thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings:
3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.50.10, 8414.90.41.75,
8431.20.00, 8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00,
8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 8482.99.65.95,
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,
8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 8708.99.49.60,
8708.99.58, 8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00,
8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.70,
8708.40.75.80, 8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 8708.50.91.50,
8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75,
8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80.
Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of the
orders remain dispositive.
The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether
the bearing is covered by one of the orders. The 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 the 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 the 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,
[[Page 22373]]
automobiles, or other equipment, are within the scope of the orders.
For a list of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see
the ``Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill'' regarding scope determinations
for the 2009/2010 reviews, dated concurrently with this notice, which
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce
building, room 7046, in the General Issues record (A-100-001).
Selection of Respondents
Due to the large number of companies in the reviews and the
resulting administrative burden to examine 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 individual
examination in these 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 2010 we requested information concerning the
quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 133
exporters/producers for which we had initiated reviews. We received
responses from most of the exporters/producers subject to the reviews;
some companies withdrew their requests for review and some companies
did not respond to our request for information.\3\ Based on our
analysis of the responses and our available resources, we chose to
examine the sales of certain companies. See Memoranda to Laurie
Parkhill, dated August 18, 2010, for the detailed analysis of the
selection process for each country-specific review. We selected the
following companies for individual examination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available section.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France.............................. SKF France S.A. and SKF Aerospace
France S.A.S (SKF France) SNR
Roulements S.A./SNR Europe (SNR).
Germany............................. Schaeffler KG myonic GmbH
(myonic).
Italy............................... Schaeffler Italia S.r.l.
(formerly FAG Italia S.p.A.) SKF
Industrie S.p.A./Somecat S.p.A.
(SKF Italy).
Japan............................... NTN Corporation (NTN) NSK Ltd.
United Kingdom...................... Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited
and Schaeffler (U.K.) Limited \4\
NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. (NSK
U.K.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Selected Respondents
For the respondents we did not examine individually in the
administrative reviews of the orders on merchandise from France,
Germany, and Italy, we cannot apply our normal methodology of
calculating a weighted-average margin using the results of the reviews
for the two respondents we selected in each review for individual
examination due to their requests to protect their business-proprietary
information. In such situations, it is our normal practice to calculate
a weighted-average margin using the publicly available U.S. sales
values and antidumping duty margins of the two selected respondents or
to use the simple average of their margins, depending on which result
is closer to the actual weighted-average margin of the companies in
question. See AFBs 20 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Revocation resulted in rescission of the review with respect
to these firms. See ``Background'' section above and Rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For responding companies in the administrative reviews of the
orders on subject merchandise from France, Germany, and Italy that were
not individually examined, we have used weighted-average margins and
the publicly available U.S. sales values of the two selected
respondents in each respective review to calculate the weighted-average
margin. Therefore, we have applied, for these preliminary results, the
rate of 5.12 percent (France), the rate of 6.26 percent (Germany), and
the rate of 12.32 percent (Italy) to the firms not individually
examined in the respective reviews. See the country-specific Memoranda
to the File concerning Respondents Not Selected for Individual
Examination for France, Germany, and Italy dated concurrently with this
notice for an explanation of our calculations.
With respect to the responding companies which remain under review
and which we did not select for individual examination in the review of
the order on subject merchandise from the United Kingdom, we have
assigned the margin we have calculated for NSK U.K. of 5.90 percent to
these firms because, after rescission of the review with respect to
Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited and Schaeffler (U.K) Limited, NSK
U.K. was the sole remaining company selected for individual
examination. With respect to the responding companies which remain
under review and which we did not select for individual examination in
the review of the order on subject merchandise from Japan, because we
do not have publicly available information on U.S. sales value for one
of the selected respondents, we have assigned to the non-selected
respondents the simple-average margin of the two respondents selected
for individual examination; that rate is 11.36 percent.
Voluntary Respondents
We received voluntary responses from Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi),
and Mori Seiki Co., Ltd., with respect to the review of the order on
merchandise from Japan. Due to changes in our workload since our
initial selection of respondents for individual examination, we decided
to treat these firms as firms selected for individual examination as
well. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill dated November 15, 2010.
No-Shipments Respondent
On July 15, 2010, SNR UK submitted a letter indicating that it made
no sales to the United States during the period of review. We have not
received any comments on SNR UK's submission. We confirmed SNR UK's
claim of no shipments by issuing a ``No-Shipments Inquiry'' to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on March 18, 2011.
With regard to SNR UK's claim of no shipments, our practice since
implementation of the 1997 regulations concerning no-shipments
respondents has been to rescind the administrative review if the
respondent certifies that it had no shipments and we have confirmed
through our examination of CBP data that there were no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997), and Oil
Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR
53161, 53162 (September 7, 2005), unchanged in Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Japan: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006). As a result, in
such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to liquidate any entries
from the no-shipment company
[[Page 22374]]
at the deposit rate in effect on the date of entry.
In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (May 2003 clarification).
Based on SNR UK's assertion of no shipments and no indication from
CBP that there are suspended entries of subject merchandise from SNR
UK, we preliminarily determine that SNR UK had no sales to the United
States during the POR.
Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any
existing entries of merchandise produced by SNR UK at the all-others
rate should we continue to find at the time of our final results that
SNR UK had no shipments of subject merchandise from the United Kingdom.
See Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26933 (May 13,
2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989
(September 17, 2010). See also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73
FR 77610, 77612 (December 19, 2008). In addition, the Department finds
that it is more consistent with the May 2003 clarification not to
rescind the review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to
complete the review with respect to SNR UK and issue appropriate
instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review. See the
``Assessment Rates'' section of this notice below.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified
information provided by NSK Ltd. and Schaeffler KG.
We conducted these verifications 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 versions of our verification reports which are on file in
CRU, room 7046 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 several 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 of the Act, significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, 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 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 disregard, subject to section 782(e) of the
Act, 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.
The following companies did not respond to our request to provide
information concerning the quantity and value of their U.S. sales:
France--AVIAC, Eurocopter SAS, Groupe Intertechnique, SNECMA, and
Tecnofan; Italy--Eurocopter and SNECMA; Japan--Tsubakimoto. Because
these companies did not respond to our request, we could not determine
whether and to what extent these companies participated in sales of
subject merchandise to the U.S. market. Moreover, because these
companies failed to provide the information requested and thus
significantly impeded the respective country-specific reviews, we find
that we must base their margins on facts otherwise available. See
section 776(a) of the Act.
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 adverse inference in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., 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, 70297 (December 11, 2007)
(Raspberries from Chile Final), and 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, 44114 (August 7, 2007) (unchanged in Raspberries from Chile
Final, 72 FR at 70297). 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 did not provide requested data
concerning their sales of subject merchandise to the United States
during the period of review, we determine that they have failed to
cooperate by not
[[Page 22375]]
acting to the best of their ability. See Antifriction Bearings and
Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part,
and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574 (September 15,
2004) (AFBs 14). Therefore, we conclude that the use of an adverse
inference is warranted in applying facts otherwise available to these
companies.
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 AVIAC, Eurocopter SAS, Groupe
Intertechnique, SNECMA, and Technofan (France), 69.99 percent for
Eurocopter SAS and SNECMA (Italy), and 73.55 percent for Tsubakimoto
(Japan). These rates represent the highest rates calculated in the
history of the respective proceedings and are from the respective less-
than-fair-value investigations for each country. See Final
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 54
FR 19092, 19096 (May 3, 1989), Final Determinations of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Spherical Plain and
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Italy; and Final
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value; Spherical Plain
Bearings and Parts Thereof, From Italy, 54 FR 19096, 19101 (May 3,
1989), and Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof From Japan, 54 FR 19101, 19108 (May 3, 1989).
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 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 39940 (July 11, 2008). The word
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value.
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 we choose as facts available a calculated dumping margin
from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is our practice to find the
margin for that time period reliable. See, e.g., 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) (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,
as identified above, have probative value and, therefore, are
appropriate rates for use as AFA. All rates fell within the range of
margins we calculated for companies in the respective country-specific
administrative reviews and there is no information on the record of the
reviews that demonstrates that the selected rates are not appropriate
AFA rates for the non-responsive firms.
For more detail concerning the corroboration of the AFA rates, see
the country-specific Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill, dated concurrently
with this notice.
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 selected 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:
June 7, 2009-June 13, 2009; July 5, 2009-July 11, 2009; October 18,
2009-October 24, 2009; November 1, 2009-November 7, 2009; January 10,
2010-January 16, 2010; March 28, 2010-April 3, 2010. We reviewed all EP
sales transactions which the respondents we selected for individual
examination 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. See 19 CFR 351.401(c) and 351.102(b)(38). We also made
deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Certain companies received freight revenues or packing revenues
from the customer for certain U.S. sales. In Certain Orange Juice from
Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008) (OJ Brazil), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 and in
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857
(February 11, 2009) (PRC Bags), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6, the Department determined to treat such
revenues as an offset to the specific expenses for which they were
intended to compensate. Accordingly, we have used the revenues of the
particular respondents as an offset to their respective expenses.
Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated 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
sections 772(d)(1) and (2) 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) of the Act 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
[[Page 22376]]
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 NTN, because it reported fiscal-year expenses, we
recalculated technical-service expenses, certain U.S. inland-freight
expenses, indirect selling expenses, and repacking expenses using an
allocation on the basis of fiscal-year value of sales instead of its
reported allocation on the basis of value of sales during the period of
review. Also, with respect to NTN, we recalculated the reported
inventory-carrying costs consistent with the methodology described in
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in
Part, 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008) (AFBs 18), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.
With respect to SNR, because it reported inland-freight expenses
and international-freight expenses applicable to its U.S. sales on the
basis of value, we recalculated these expenses on the basis of weight.
See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 12170, 12173
(March 9, 2006), unchanged in Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
With respect to NSK Ltd., we reclassified certain expenses
associated with Japanese workers in the United States as indirect
selling expenses and deducted them from CEP consistent with the
methodology described in AFBs 16 and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 26.
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 with
the exception of Asahi.
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 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 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 Mori Seiki Co., Ltd., NSK Ltd.,
NSK U.K., NTN, Schaeffler KG, SKF France, and SKF Italy. 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 the analysis of the decision not to
require further-manufactured data, see the Department's company-
specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this
notice. 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 Asahi, we determined that the special rule did not apply
because the value added in the United States did not exceed
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Consequently, Asahi
submitted responses to our further-manufacturing questionnaire which
included the costs of the further processing performed by Asahi in the
United States. We analyzed these sales in the same manner as non-
further-manufactured products but deducted the value of further
manufacturing incurred in the United States and an amount for profit
attributable to the further manufacturing. We used the data reported in
Asahi's questionnaire responses to calculate the further-manufacturing
expense which we deducted from U.S. prices.
There were no other claimed or allowed adjustments to EP or CEP
sales by the respondents. For further descriptions of our analysis, see
the company-specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently
with this notice.
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 selected 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 March
2009, June 2009, July 2009, October 2009, November 2009, January 2010,
March 2010, and June 2010.
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 were
made at
[[Page 22377]]
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded from our
analysis sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home
market that we determined not to be at arm's-length prices. 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. See company-specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated
concurrently with this notice.
Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in the last completed
segment of the relevant country-specific proceeding we disregarded
below-cost sales for Asahi, NSK Ltd., NSK U.K., NTN, Schaeffler Italia
S.r.l., Schaeffler KG, SKF France, SKF Italy, and SNR. Therefore, for
the instant reviews, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales by all of the above companies of the foreign like product
under consideration for the determination of normal value 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. Pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these
firms in the respective home markets.
With respect to myonic, on November 15, 2010, The Timken Company
alleged that myonic sold the foreign like product in Germany at prices
below the COP during the period of review. Based on the information on
the record and pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we found we
had reasonable grounds to initiate a COP investigation with respect to
myonic. See the December 16, 2010, Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill
entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany: Request to
Initiate Cost Investigation for myonic GmbH.''
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. With respect to NTN, we recalculated the
reported general and administrative expenses by including expenses
associated with replacing the defective product with respect to sales
made to a certain customer category. With respect to Schaeffler KG, we
did not allow Schaeffler KG's claimed interest income as an offset to
its interest expenses because Schaeffler KG did not demonstrate that
the interest income was short-term in nature. In our COP analysis, we
used the home-market sales and COP information provided by each
respondent in its questionnaire responses or, in the case of Schaeffler
Italia S.r.l., additional COP information provided by its largest
supplier.
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. Based on
this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to Asahi,
myonic, NSK Ltd., NSK U.K., NTN, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., Schaeffler
KG, SKF France, SKF Italy, and SNR. See the relevant company-specific
preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this notice.
Model-Match Methodology
For all respondents, where possible, we compared U.S. sales with
sales of the foreign like product in the home market. Specifically, in
making our comparisons, if an identical home-market model was reported,
we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market prices that were
based on all sales which, where appropriate, 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. model'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 with 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. For a full
discussion of the model-match methodology we have used in these
reviews, see 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), and Ball
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 (September 16,
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2,
3, and 5.
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
[[Page 22378]]
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Where
companies received freight or packing revenues from the home-market
customer, we offset these expenses in accordance with OJ Brazil and PRC
Bags as discussed above. With respect to NTN, we recalculated the
reported inventory-carrying costs consistent with the methodology
described in AFBs 18 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 13. 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 recalculated Schaeffler KG's
home-market imputed expenses using the interest rate we calculated
based solely on loans denominated in the currency in which the home-
market sales were made (i.e., Euros). 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, 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 ``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 were 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 home-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
home-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 CEP sales in
such situations, 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, dated
concurrently with this notice, entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts
Thereof from Various Countries: 2009/2010 Level-of-Trade Analysis,'' on
file in the CRU in the General Issues record (A-100-001).
Weighted-Average Margin
In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average margins
(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 weighted-
average margin.
Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review
On January 14, 2011, Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG
(Schaeffler Technologies) requested that the Department initiate a
changed-circumstances review to determine whether Schaeffler
Technologies is the successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. On February
24, 2011, we initiated a
[[Page 22379]]
changed-circumstances review pursuant to the request from Schaeffler
Technologies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Germany:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review, 76 FR
10335 (February 24, 2011). We also announced that we would conduct the
changed-circumstances review in the context of the 2009/2010
administrative review.
In determining whether one company is the successor to another for
purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines
a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in
management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer
base. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan: Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679, 14680
(March 23, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
Japan, 71 FR 26452 (May 5, 2006) (collectively CCR Japan), and
Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994).
Although no single or even several of these factors will necessarily
provide a dispositive indication of succession, generally the
Department will consider one company to be a successor to another
company if its resulting operation is similar to that of its
predecessor. See CCR Japan and Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13,
1992), at Comment 1. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with
respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new
company operates as the same business entity as the prior company, the
Department will assign the new company the cash-deposit rate of its
predecessor. Id. See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the
Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 63 FR 14679 (March 26, 1998), unchanged in
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 63 FR 20572 (April 27,
1998), in which the Department found that a company which only changed
its name and did not change its operations is a successor-in-interest
to the company before it changed its name.
In its request dated January 14, 2011, Schaeffler Technologies
provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-in-
interest to Schaeffler KG.
We preliminarily determine that Schaeffler Technologies is the
successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. In its January 14, 2011,
submission, Schaeffler Technologies provided evidence supporting its
claim to be the successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. Specifically,
Schaeffler Technologies demonstrated that, while the business
concerning ball bearings conducted by Schaeffler KG has been
transferred to Schaeffler Technologies as part of a reorganization
process, the management, production facilities, supplier relationships,
and customer base are materially not affected. All of Schaeffler KG's
employees and managers remained with Schaeffler Technologies after the
transfer was consummated and continue to be employed by Schaeffler
Technologies. See January 14, 2011, submission from Schaeffler
Technologies at 5. The production facilities now used by Schaeffler
Technologies are the same as those used by Schaeffler KG and have not
been modified or supplemented after the transfer. Id. at 6. Schaeffler
Technologies continues to deal with the same suppliers with which
Schaeffler KG dealt prior to the transfer and, Schaeffler Technologies
claims, any changes in supplier relationships that might occur stem
from ordinary commercial considerations not related to the transfer.
Id. at 6. Finally, there have been no changes to the customer base of
Schaeffler Technologies from that which existed under Schaeffler KG
except those that result from the normal acquisition or loss of
particular customers in the ordinary course of business. Id. at 6.
In summary, Schaeffler Technologies has presented evidence to
support its claim of successorship. The record indicates that the
February 1, 2010, transfer of Schaeffler KG's bearings business to
Schaeffler Technologies has not changed the operations of the company
in a meaningful way. The management, production facilities, supplier
relationships, and customer base of Schaeffler Technologies are
substantially unchanged from their status or circumstances prior to the
acquisition. The record evidence demonstrates that the new entity
operates essentially in the same manner as the predecessor company.
Based on the above, we preliminarily determine that Schaeffler
Technologies is the successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG.
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,
2009, through April 30, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Company (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel Vacuum Technology.................................. 5.12
Audi AG.................................................... 5.12
AVIAC...................................................... 66.42
Avio....................................................... 5.12
Bosch Rexroth SAS.......................................... 5.12
Caterpillar Group Services S.A............................. 5.12
Caterpillar Materials Routiers S.A.S....................... 5.12
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................ 5.12
Dassault Aviation.......................................... 5.12
Eurocopter SAS............................................. 66.42
Groupe Intertechnique...................................... 66.42
Kongskilde Limited......................................... 5.12
Perkins Engines Company Limited............................ 5.12
SKF France, S.A. and SKF Aerospace S.A.S................... 4.88
SNECMA..................................................... 66.42
SNR Roulements S.A. and SNR Europe......................... 7.60
Technofan.................................................. 66.42
Volkswagon AG.............................................. 5.12
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH.................................... 5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi AG.................................................... 6.26
BAUER Machinen GmbH........................................ 6.26
Bosch Rexroth AG........................................... 6.26
BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgerate GmbH...................... 6.26
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................ 6.26
Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG............................. 6.26
Kongskilde Limited......................................... 6.26
Myonic GmbH................................................ 11.42
Robert Bosch GmbH.......................................... 6.26
Robert Bosch GmbH Power Tools and Hagglunds Drives......... 6.26
The Schaeffler Group, Schaeffler KG, and Schaeffler 3.67
Technologies GmbH.........................................
SKF GmbH................................................... 6.26
Volkswagon AG.............................................. 6.26
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH.................................... 6.26
W & H Dentalwerk Burmoos GmbH.............................. 6.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi AG.................................................... 12.32
Bosch Rexroth S.p.A........................................ 12.32
Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L............................... 12.32
Caterpillar of Australia Pty. Ltd.......................... 12.32
Caterpillar Group Services S.A............................. 12.32
Caterpillar Mexico, S.A. de C.V............................ 12.32
Caterpillar Americas C.V................................... 12.32
Eurocopter................................................. 69.99
Hagglunds Drives S.r.l..................................... 12.32
Kongskilde Limited......................................... 12.32
Perkin Engines Company Limited............................. 12.32
Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., WPB Water Pump Bearing GmbH & Co. 2.87
KG, and The Scchaeffler Group.............................
[[Page 22380]]
SKF Industries S.p.A., Somecat S.p.A., and SKF RIV-SKF 14.50
Officine di Villar Perosa S.p.A...........................
SNECMA..................................................... 69.99
Volkswagen AG.............................................. 12.32
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH.................................... 12.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd....................................... 3.46
Audi AG.................................................... 11.36
Bosch Corporation.......................................... 11.36
Bosch Packaging Technology K.K............................. 11.36
Bosch Rexroth Corporation.................................. 11.36
Caterpillar Japan Ltd...................................... 11.36
Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L............................... 11.36
Caterpillar Group Services S.A............................. 11.36
Caterpillar Brazil Ltd..................................... 11.36
Caterpillar Africa Pty. Ltd................................ 11.36
Caterpillar of Australia Pty. Ltd.......................... 11.36
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................ 11.36
Caterpillar Americas Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V............. 11.36
Caterpillar Logistics Services China Ltd................... 11.36
Caterpillar Mexico, S.A. de C.V............................ 11.36
Hagglunds Ltd.............................................. 11.36
Hino Motors Ltd............................................ 11.36
JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co.)....... 11.36
Kongskilde Limited......................................... 11.36
Mazda Motor Corporation.................................... 11.36
Mori Seiki Co., Ltd........................................ 3.50
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation................................ 11.36
Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.................................. 11.36
NSK Ltd.................................................... 9.28
NTN Corporation and NTN Kongo Corporation 13.43............
Perkins Engines Company Limited............................ 11.36
Tsubakimoto Precision Products Co., Ltd.................... 73.55
Volkswagen AG.............................................. 11.36
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH.................................... 11.36
Yamazaki Mazak Trading Corporation......................... 11.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel Vacuum Technology.................................. 5.90
Bosch Rexroth Ltd.......................................... 5.90
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................ 5.90
Caterpillar Group Services S.A............................. 5.90
Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd........................... 5.90
Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L............................... 5.90
Caterpillar Marine Power UK................................ 5.90
NSK Bearings Europe Ltd.................................... 5.90
Perkins Engines Company Ltd................................ 5.90
SKF (U.K.) Limited and SKF Aeroengine Bearings U.K......... 5.90
SNR UK..................................................... \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
We will disclose the calculations we used in our analysis to
parties to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a general-issues hearing and any
hearings regarding issues related solely to specific countries will be
held at the main Department building at times and locations to be
determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has
an individual rate from the last segment of the proceeding in which
the firm had shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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.
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective case 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 following dates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Briefs due Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France......................... May 31, 2011..... June 6, 2011.
Germany \6\.................... May 31, 2011..... June 6, 2011.
Italy.......................... May 31, 2011..... June 6, 2011.
Japan.......................... May 31, 2011..... June 7, 2011.
United Kingdom................. June 3, 2011..... June 13, 2011.
General Issues................. June 6, 2011..... June 13, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties who submit case briefs (see 19 CFR 351.309(c)) or rebuttal
briefs (see 19 CFR 351.309(d)) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Briefs should include any comments with respect to the
changed-circumstances review concerning Schaeffler Technologies
GmbH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department intends to issue the final results of these
administrative and changed-circumstances reviews, including the results
of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the
hearings, if held, within 120 days of 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.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of review produced by companies selected
for individual examination 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 country-specific 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 May 2003
clarification, 68 FR 23954.
For the companies which were not selected for individual
examination and for the companies to which we are applying AFA, we will
instruct CBP to apply the rates listed above to all entries of subject
merchandise produced and/or exported by such firms.
Consistent with the May 2003 clarification, for SNR UK which
claimed it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United
States, if there are any entries of subject merchandise produced by SNR
UK into the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the
unreviewed entries of merchandise at the applicable all-others rate.
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of these reviews.
[[Page 22381]]
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 examined 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
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of administrative reviews
for all shipments of subject merchandise 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 the 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 reviews 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). 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.
Notification to Importers
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 and preliminary
results of changed-circumstances review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(b)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: April 14, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-9721 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P