Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from Romania; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 68 (Monday, April 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15465-15468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8508]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-485-602]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, from Romania; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, The Timken Company 
(Timken), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished (TRBs), from 
Romania. The review covers shipments of the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995. The 
review indicates the existence of dumping margins during the period of 
review.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export 
price and the NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heith Rodman or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    On June 19, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(52 FR 23320) the antidumping duty order on TRBs from Romania. On June 
6, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register (60 FR 29821) 
a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this 
antidumping duty order. On June 30, 1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(a), the petitioner requested that

[[Page 15466]]
we conduct an administrative review of the following firms: 
Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (TIE); Tehnoforestexport; S.C. Rulmenti S.A. 
Alexandria (Alexandria); S.C. Rulmentul S.A. Brasov (Brasov); S.C. 
Rulmenti S.A. Birlad (Birlad); S.C. Rulmenti Grei S.A. Ploiesti 
(Ploiesti); S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Slatina (Slatina); and S.C. URB Rulmenti 
Suceava S.A. (Suceava). We published the notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review on July 14, 1995 (60 FR 36260), 
and an amended initiation notice on August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42500).

Scope of this Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of TRBs from Romania. 
These products include flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger units 
incorporating tapered roller bearings, and tapered roller housings 
(except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without 
spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise is 
currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item 
numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.30.40, and 
8483.90.20. Although the HTS item numbers are provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
order remains dispositive.
    This review covers eight companies and the period June 1, 1994 
through May 31, 1995. Of the eight companies for which petitioner 
requested a review, only TIE made shipments of the subject merchandise 
to the United States during the period of review. Alexandria and Brasov 
produced the merchandise sold by TIE to the United States, but have 
stated that they did not ship TRBs directly to the United States. 
Tehnoforestexport, Barlad, Ploiesti, Slatina, and Suceava have 
responded that they did not produce or sell TRBs subject to this 
review.

Separate Rates

    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China 
(56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May 2, 1994) (Silicon 
Carbide). Under this policy, exporters in non-market-economy (NME) 
countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they 
can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in 
fact, with respect to exports. Evidence supporting, though not 
requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control includes: 
(1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is based 
on four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or subject 
to the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) 
whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter has the 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts.
    TIE is the only company covered by this review with shipments of 
the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
review. Therefore, TIE is the only firm for which we have made a 
determination of whether it should receive a separate rate.
    We have found that the evidence on the record demonstrates an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
TIE according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. For further discussion of the Department's preliminary 
determination that TIE is entitled to a separate rate, see Decision 
Memorandum to the Director, Office of Antidumping Compliance, dated 
March 28, 1996, ``Assignment of a separate rate for Tehnoimportexport, 
S.A. in the 1994/1995 administrative review of tapered roller bearings 
and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, from Romania,'' which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce 
Building).

Export Price

    Information on the record indicates that TIE was the only Romanian 
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
period of review. For sales made by TIE, the Department used export 
price, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, in calculating 
U.S. price. We calculated export price based on the price to unrelated 
purchasers. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight and ocean freight. We used surrogate information from Thailand 
to value foreign inland freight for reasons explained in the ``Normal 
Value'' section of this notice.

Normal Value

    For merchandise exported from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using factors 
of production methodology if available information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home market or third country prices under 
section 773(a) of the Act. In every case conducted by the Department 
involving Romania, Romania has been treated as an NME country. None of 
the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this 
review. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act and section 353.52 of the Department's regulations. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the factors of production 
utilized in producing TRBs include, but are not limited to--(a) hours 
of labor required, (b) quantities of raw materials employed, (c) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and (d) representative 
capital cost, including depreciation. In accordance with section 
772(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the factors of production, 
to the extent possible, using the prices or costs of factors of 
production in market economy countries that are--(a) at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of Romania, and (b) a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise.
    We determined that Poland and Thailand are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of Romania. We have found that both 
Poland and Thailand are significant producers of bearings, but that 
Poland's economy is more similar to Romania's. Therefore, we have 
selected Poland as the primary surrogate country. Where we have been 
unable to locate publicly available published information to establish 
surrogate values from Poland, we have used Thailand as a secondary 
surrogate country. For a further discussion of the Department's 
selection of these surrogate countries, see Memorandum for Maureen 
Flannery, dated February 12, 1996, ``Surrogate Country Selection for 
Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania,'' and Memorandum to the File, 
dated March 29, 1996, ``Selection of the surrogate country in the 1994/
1995 administrative review of tapered roller bearings and parts 
thereof, finished or unfinished, from Romania,'' which are on file in 
the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce Building).
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the Romanian factors of

[[Page 15467]]
production as follows, in accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act:
    •  Where materials used to produce TRBs were imported into 
Romania from market-economy countries, we used the import price to 
value the material input. To value all other direct materials used in 
the production of TRBs, we used the European currency unit (ECU) per 
metric ton value of imports into Poland from the countries of the 
European Community for the period June 1994 through May 1995, obtained 
from the EUROSTAT, Monthly EC External Trade (EUROSTAT). We made 
adjustments to include freight costs incurred between the suppliers and 
the TRB factories. We also made an adjustment for scrap steel which was 
sold.
    •  For direct labor, we used the average monthly wages for 
the metal products manufacturing industry reported in the August 1995 
issue of the Statistical Bulletin, published by the Central Statistical 
Office in Warsaw. To determine the number of hours worked each month, 
we used information published by the International Labour Office in the 
Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 1995.
    •  Because we could not find a value for factory overhead 
from Poland, we used the public rates for Thai bearing companies, used 
by the Department in the 1988-1990 administrative review of AFBs from 
Romania (AFBs from Romania), and submitted by petitioner for the record 
of this review. Factory overhead was reported as a percentage of total 
cost of materials.
    •  For selling, general, and administrative expenses, we used 
information from a publicly available summarized version of selling, 
general, and administrative expenses from Thai bearing companies used 
in AFBs from Romania, and submitted by petitioner for the record of 
this review, because we had no usable information from Poland for these 
expenses.
    •  For profit, we could not find a value for the bearing 
industry or other metal manufacturing industry in Poland. We also could 
not find a value for the bearing industry in the secondary surrogate 
country, Thailand. We therefore used information for the pipe industry, 
a similar metal manufacturing industry, in Thailand, from the 
Preliminary Results of the 1992-1993 Administrative Review of Pipe and 
Tube from Thailand (Pipe and Tube from Thailand). That review contained 
public information indicating that the profit from the pipe and tube 
industry in Thailand is greater than eight percent. We are using eight 
percent as the profit margin in this preliminary determination not 
because it was formerly the statutory minimum profit figure, but 
because publicly available information indicates that the profit figure 
is not less than eight percent. No other public information is 
available. If additional public information becomes available either as 
a result of the final determination in Pipe and Tube from Thailand or 
otherwise, we will consider using that information in our final 
results. We are inviting comments on this issue.
    •  To value the packing materials, we used the ECU per metric 
ton value of imports into Poland from the countries of the European 
Community as published in the EUROSTAT. Some materials used to pack 
TRBs were imported into Romania from market-economy countries and, in 
these instances, we used the import price to value the packing 
material. We adjusted these values to include freight costs incurred 
between the suppliers and the TRB factories.
    •  To value foreign inland freight, we used information from 
a publicly available summarized version for foreign inland freight 
reported for the 1987/1988 administrative review of circular welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, because we had no usable 
information from Poland for this expense.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with Section 773A(a) of 
the Act. Currency conversions were made at the daily rates certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank where available. Where certified Federal 
Reserve Bank rates were not available, we used average monthly exchange 
rates published by the International Monetary Fund in International 
Financial Statistics.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
          Manufacturer/exporter              Time period      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehnoimportexport, S.A..................     6/1/94-5/31/95        35.86
Tehnoforestexport.......................     6/1/94-5/31/95        *0.00
S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Alexandria...........     6/1/94-5/31/95        *0.00
S.C. Rulmentul S.A. Brasov..............     6/1/94-5/31/95        *0.00
S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Barlad...............     6/1/94-5/31/95        *0.00
S.C. Rulmenti Grei S.A. Ploiesti........     6/1/94-5/31/95        *0.00
S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Slatina..............     6/1/94-5/31/95        *0.00
S.C. URB Rulmenti Suceava S.A...........     6/1/94-5/31/95       *0.00 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*No shipments during the period of review, but never determined to merit
  a separate rate. Therefore, we applied the Romania-wide rate          
  established in the most recent segment of the proceeding.             

    Parties to the proceedings may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. The Department will publish a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of TRBs from Romania entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for TIE will be the rate we determine in the final results of 
review; (2) for the other companies named above which had no shipments 
during

[[Page 15468]]
the period of review and which were not found to have separate rates, 
Tehnoforestexport, Alexandria, Brasov, Barlad, Ploiesti, Slatina, and 
Suceava, and for all other Romanian exporters, the cash deposit rate 
will be 00.00%, the Romania-wide rate established in the most recent 
segment of the proceeding; and (3) for non-Romanian exporters of 
subject merchandise from Romania, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the Romanian supplier of that exporter. These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 of the Department's regulations to 
file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: March 29, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-8508 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P