[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20795-20799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-10508]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20796]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-559-802]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From Singapore; Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Countervailing Duty
Orders.
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of changed circumstances countervailing
duty reviews and revocation of countervailing duty orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 27, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its changed circumstances reviews
and intent to revoke the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on
antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts
thereof (AFBs) from Singapore. We have now completed these reviews and
have determined to revoke the CVD orders. The revocation applies to all
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after January 1, 1995. Therefore, we will
instruct the Customs Service to liquidate, without regard to
countervailing duties, all shipments of the subject merchandise from
Singapore entered on or after January 1, 1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Cameron Cardozo,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 3, 1995, the Torrington Company (Torrington), the
petitioner in the original CVD investigations (54 FR 19125), submitted
a letter to the Department stating that it has no further interest in
the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore for entries after December 31,
1994. Accordingly, Torrington requested revocation of the orders based
on changed circumstances in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.25(d)(1994).
On April 27, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 20671) the preliminary results of its changed circumstances
reviews and intent to revoke the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore.
(See 19 C.F.R. 355.22(h)(4)). These changed circumstances reviews cover
all producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise and all
shipments of this merchandise to the United States entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 1995.
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results
and intent to revoke the orders. On May 30, 1995, NTN-Bower, Inc. and
American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp. (NTN), NSK Corp. (NSK), and
SKF USA, Inc. (SKF) submitted written objections to our intended
revocations. On June 6, 1995, the Minebea Companies, exporters of the
subject merchandise from Singapore, and Torrington submitted rebuttal
comments.
On June 30, 1995, FAG Bearings Corp./Barden Corp. (FAG & Barden)
and NSK filed requests for an injury investigation with the
International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to section 753(a) of the
Act for all five classes of bearings covered by the countervailing duty
orders on AFBs from Singapore. American Koyo Bearing Manufacturing
Corp. (Koyo) filed an injury request with the ITC under section 753(a)
with respect to ball bearings from Singapore. Koyo, FAG & Barden, and
NSK also filed requests for simultaneous expedited section 751(c)
sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs and tapered
roller bearings (TRBs) covering several countries (including, but not
limited to, Singapore) pursuant to section 753(e). NTN and SKF filed
their requests for expedited sunset reviews of all these orders in
conjunction with their section 753(a) requests for an injury
investigation regarding the CVD order on ball bearings from Thailand.
54 FR 19130 (May 3, 1989).
On October 26, 1995, the Department held a public hearing on the
preliminary results of these reviews and the concurrent changed
circumstances review of the CVD order on ball bearings from Thailand.
(See Transcript of Hearing on file in the public file of the Central
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce (Hearing
Transcript)).
The Department has now completed these changed circumstances
reviews in accordance with section 751(b) and 782(h) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995. The
Department is conducting these changed circumstances reviews in
accordance with section 751(b) and has determined to revoke the CVD
orders on AFBs from Singapore based on sections 751(d) and 782(h) of
the Act. See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i).
Scope of the Reviews
Imports covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings (other
than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. The subject
merchandise covers five separate classes or kinds of merchandise and is
described in detail in Appendix A to this notice. The Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) item numbers listed in Appendix A are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description remains
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: SKF, NTN, and NSK (collectively the ``Objecting
Parties''), argue that the statute and the Department's regulations
define a domestic interested party to include ``a manufacturer,
producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like
product.'' 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(9)(C). The Department's regulations
permit revocation of a countervailing duty order based upon lack of
industry support only where domestic interested parties demonstrate no
further interest in the order. Since SKF, NTN, and NSK maintain that
they are domestic producers of a like product and oppose revocation,
they state that the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore may not be
revoked.
The Government of Singapore and four exporters of AFBs from
Singapore (NMB Singapore Ltd., Pelmec Industries Ltd., Minebea Trading,
and Minebea Company Ltd.) (collectively the ``Exporters''), counter
that the Department should revoke the CVD orders despite the objections
raised by the Objecting Parties. The Exporters believe that the
Department should decide this issue based on the standards used to
determine whether standing exists to initiate a CVD investigation. They
claim that this standard is supported by the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit's (CAFC's) ruling in Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. United
States, 862 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that case, according to the
Exporters, the CAFC affirmed the Department's determination to revoke
an antidumping duty (AD) order, despite objections from a domestic
interested party, on the grounds that ``just as industry support
underlies the merits of an order, lack of industry support provides a
ground for
[[Page 20797]]
revocation.'' They believe that the Objecting Parties would not have
standing to object to the initiation of a CVD investigation. According
to the Exporters, the Department may initiate an investigation only if
the petition is supported, inter alia, by ``more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition.'' 19
U.S.C. Sec. 1673a(c)(4)(A). Thus, if companies representing more than
50 percent of the domestic production support revocation of the order,
Commerce should revoke the order. Of the four domestic companies that
have expressed an opinion in this proceeding, the Exporters believe
that Torrington accounts for more than 50 percent of production and,
therefore, the order should be revoked.
Department's Position: We disagree with the Objecting Parties.
Under 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i) the Department may revoke a CVD
order if the Secretary concludes that the order is no longer of
interest to interested parties or that other changed circumstances
exist which are sufficient to warrant revocation. Included in the
definition of ``interested party'' under section 355.2(i)(3) is ``[a]
producer in the United States of the like product.'' Since the
objecting companies meet the definition of an ``interested party,'' we
must address the question of whether the Department may revoke the CVD
orders on AFBs from Singapore despite the objections of these
companies.
The preamble to section 355.25(d) of the Department's regulations
states that the opposition of one or more domestic parties to
revocation should be evaluated in the context of the continuing
requirement that the order have the support of the industry. 53 FR
52333, December 27, 1988. In Oregon Steel Mills the CAFC compared the
level of industry support needed to justify revocation to the level of
industry support needed to justify an investigation. 862 F.2d at 1545.
In determining whether a particular party has standing to object to the
filing of a petition, it is settled law that the agency may exclude
producers who are related to foreign producers or U.S. importers of the
subject merchandise. 19 U.S.C. Secs. 1673a(c)(4)(B) & 1677(4)(B). The
preamble to section 355.2(h) of the Department's regulations, regarding
the proper definition of ``industry,'' states that the reason for
excluding related parties from the industry for standing purposes is to
limit standing to those domestic firms that have a ``stake in the
outcome.'' 53 FR 52307. While section 355.25(d) does not contain
similar language, the logic of the preamble applies equally to a no-
interest revocation situation. Thus, if the objections of the parties
to the revocations derive not from their interest as domestic
producers, but from their relationship to producers of AFBs in other
countries, then they are not considered domestic producers for purposes
of the no-interest revocation issue. Applying the reasoning of another
industry-support case, whether the objections should be recorded
depends upon whether the objecting parties have a common ``stake'' with
the petitioner in the continuation of the orders. Citrosuco Paulista,
S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1085 (CIT 1988).
For the following reasons, the Department has ample reason to
question the alignment of the objectors' interests with the interests
of the petitioner and, thus, whether the objectors have a common
``stake'' with the petitioner in the maintenance of the orders. First,
the CVD investigations of AFBs from Singapore were conducted
simultaneously with AD investigations concerning AFBs from France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the
United Kingdom. Over the course of the original investigations of all
nine countries, the companies currently objecting to revocation were
actively opposed to the imposition of duties sought by the petitioner.
They also urged the ITC to determine that Torrington and other members
of the domestic industry were neither materially injured nor threatened
with material injury by reason of the subject imports.
Moreover, once the CVD orders were imposed on AFBs from Singapore,
the Objecting Parties did not participate in any of the subsequent
administrative reviews. None of the Objecting Parties demonstrated any
interest in the CVD orders after their imposition until the Department
published its intent to revoke these orders. Also, at the October 26,
1995 public hearing, parties stated that the purpose behind their
opposition to the revocation of the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore
is the access it provides them to expedited section 751(c) sunset
reviews under section 753(e) of the Act of the AD orders on AFBs and
TRBs from twelve countries including the ones where their related
companies (including parent companies) are located. (See Hearing
Transcript, at 40, 95). Upon gaining access to this mechanism for
expediting these sunset reviews, the Objecting Parties intend to argue
that there is no injury to the U.S. industry if these AD and CVD orders
on AFBs and TRBs are revoked. (See Hearing Transcript, at 52-3, 94).
In these changed circumstances reviews, Torrington has admitted
that its request for revoking the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore is
designed to prevent the sunset reviews on the AD orders covering AFBs
and TRBs from being expedited. Hearing Transcript, at 32. In this
sense, Torrington is acting consistently in the role of
``petitioner''--that is, it is willing to sacrifice the limited relief
afforded by the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore in order to
safeguard, at least for the time being, the broader relief afforded the
domestic industry by the AD orders on AFBs and TRBs from Singapore as
well as from the other countries. Conversely, the Objecting Parties
have made it clear that their interest in these orders is neither
aligned with that of the petitioner nor made in their capacity as
domestic producers. Thus, the Objecting Parties cannot be said to have
a common ``stake'' with the petitioner in the continuation of the
orders. As such, we do not consider the Objecting Parties to be
domestic producers for purposes of section 782(h)(2) of the Act or 19
C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i).
As a result, the Department finds the objections to revocation
without merit. Accordingly, we find that Torrington's expression of no
interest in the continuation of the orders meets the criteria for
revocation presented in section 782(h)(2) (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677m(h)) and
19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i). (For a further explanation of the
Department's analysis, see April 15, 1996 memorandum to Susan G.
Esserman regarding AFBs from Singapore and Thailand, which is on file
in the public file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the
Department of Commerce.)
Comment 2: Torrington points out that of the ninety-five U.S.
producers of AFBs, only three have expressed opposition to revocation
of the CVD orders with respect to Singapore. Torrington argues that
against this indication of a lack of interest in the orders by the
overwhelming majority of the industry, the opposition of three
companies is insignificant. Torrington also states that the
Department's regulations support this interpretation because ``[t]he
opposition of one or more domestic parties, including the petitioner,
would be evaluated within the context of the continuing requirement
that the order have the support of the industry.'' 53 FR 52306, 52332
(1988).
Torrington continues that the genesis of the regulation is found in
the proceedings involving Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 51 FR 13039
(1986).
[[Page 20798]]
There, the Department revoked (and was upheld by the CAFC) the AD order
notwithstanding the opposition of a single producer out of seven U.S.
producers. See Oregon Steel Mills Inc. v. United States, 862 F.2d 1541
(Fed Cir. 1988). As applied here, argues Torrington, the regulation
provides for revocation of the order since, not one of seven, but three
out of ninety-five companies have expressed opposition to revocation of
the orders. In the circumstances of the case, the industry as a whole
supports the revocation of the order.
Department's Position: The number of objecting parties in relation
to the universe of domestic producers which comprise the domestic AFBs
industry is not the relevant question in this proceeding. As discussed
in our response to Comment 1, the relevant issue is whether those
producers (whose interests are aligned with the petitioner and, thus,
who have a ``stake'' in the relief provided by the order) accounting
for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product
want the order revoked. As a result of our analysis, we have determined
that the Objecting Parties (i) opposed the original petition, (ii) did
not participate in any administrative reviews of the CVD orders on
Singapore, and (iii) now seek to retain the CVD orders on AFBs from
Singapore only as a vehicle to obtain expedited section 751(c) sunset
reviews at which time they will argue for revocation of most, if not
all, of the AD and CVD orders on AFBs and TRBs from twelve countries,
including ones where their related (e.g., parent) companies are
located. Thus, we conclude that the Objecting Parties cannot be said to
have a common ``stake'' with the petitioner in the relief provided by
the orders.
Comment 3: Torrington contends that the URAA provides that the
Department may disregard the objections of domestic producers that are
importers of the subject merchandise or that are related to foreign
producers subject to an order. Given SKF's affiliate in Singapore, SKF
is potentially an importer of the subject merchandise. Although
``support'' for an AD order would not be disregarded under
Sec. 1673a(c)(4)(B)(i), Torrington argues that Commerce ``may''
disregard SKF's position to the extent that it is potentially an
importer of subject merchandise from Singapore under
Sec. 1673a(c)(4)(B)(ii).
Department's Position: At a July 26, 1995 meeting with Department
officials, SKF stated that it is related to a producer of AFBs in
Singapore. Under long-standing administrative practice, which has been
codified in the U.S. antidumping statute for many years at section
771(4)(B) of the Act, the Department has the discretion to exclude a
domestic producer of a like product from the industry if that producer
is related to a foreign producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise. However, in this case, as we explain in response to
Comment 1, we are rejecting SKF's opposition to revocation of the
instant orders because it does not derive from SKF's interests as a
domestic producer. Rather, it reflects SKF's interests as a foreign
producer and/or exporter who seeks, in the context of expedited section
751(c) sunset reviews under section 753(e) of the Act, the revocation
of AD and CVD orders covering related foreign companies. Thus, under
these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Department to exclude
SKF from the industry and to disregard its opposition to revocation of
the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore.
Comment 4: Torrington argues that the Department's independent
authority to revoke the order on the basis of ``other changed
circumstances'' (i.e., 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(ii)) is
appropriately invoked where, as here, the three companies now opposing
revocation were opposed to any AD or CVD orders from the outset and are
themselves subsidiaries of foreign producers subject to concurrent AD
orders. According to Torrington, the existence of multiple AD and CVD
orders covering several countries and the peculiar circumstances in
which SKF, NTN and NSK have opposed revocation of the CVD orders on
Singapore call into question whether the opposition to revocation is
bona fide.
Department's Position: We are revoking the CVD orders on AFBs from
Singapore because they are no longer of interest to the domestic
industry. Accordingly, we do not need to address whether ``other
changed circumstances'' exist which would justify revocation.
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews and Revocation of
Countervailing Duty Orders
The Department has determined to revoke the CVD orders on AFBs from
Singapore. Although we received objections to our preliminary
determination to revoke the orders, the Objecting Parties have made it
clear that their interest in the orders is neither aligned with that of
petitioner nor made in their capacity as domestic producers. Rather,
the Objecting Parties seek to retain these CVD orders only as a vehicle
to argue for revocation of all outstanding CVD and AD orders on AFBs
and TRBs through expedited sunset reviews (see Sec. 753(e) of the Act).
Since the Objecting Parties are not considered domestic producers for
purposes of this no-interest revocation, Torrington's expression of no
interest in the continuation of the orders meets the criteria for
revocation presented in section 782(h)(2) of the Act and section
355.25(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. (For a further
explanation of the Department's analysis, see the Memorandum for Susan
G. Esserman regarding AFBs from Singapore and Thailand, dated April 15,
1996, which is on file in the public file of the Central Records Unit,
Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce). This revocation applies to
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 1995.
The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to terminate
the suspension of liquidation as of the date of publication of this
notice and to liquidate all entries of the subject merchandise entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1,
1995, without regard to countervailing duties. We will also instruct
the U.S. Customs Service to refund with interest any estimated
countervailing duties collected with respect to those entries.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). Timely written notification
of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These changed circumstances reviews and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(b), 751(d) (1) and (3), and 782(h) of the Act (19
U.S.C. Secs. 1675(b), 1675(d) (1) & (3), and 1675m(h) (1995)) and 19
C.F.R. Secs. 355.22(h) and 355.25(d)(1994).
Dated: April 29, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix A
Scope of the Reviews
The products covered by these reviews, antifriction bearings
(other than tapered roller bearings), mounted or unmounted, and
parts thereof, constitute the following separate ``classes or
kinds'' of merchandise as outlined below.
[[Page 20799]]
(1) Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts Thereof:
These products include all antifriction bearings which employ balls
as the rolling element. Such merchandise is classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers: 8482.10.10,
8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.35,
8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80,
8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50,
8708.99.52, 8708.99.55, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.61, 8708.99.64,
8708.99.67, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80.
(2) Spherical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which
employ spherical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is
classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.30.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.50, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.70,
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20,
8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.99.52,
8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73,
and 8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8061,
8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73,
and 8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80.
(3) Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which
employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise
is classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.50.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40,
8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,
8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.99.52, 8708.99.70,
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and
8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8061, 8708.99.70,
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and
8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80.
(4) Needle Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which
employ needle rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is
classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.40.00,
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40,
8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,
8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.99.52, 8708.99.70,
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and
8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8061, 8708.99.70,
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and
8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80.
(5) Spherical Plain Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts
Thereof: These products include all spherical plain bearings which
do not employ rolling elements and include spherical plain rod ends.
Such merchandise is classifiable under the following HTS item
numbers: 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00,
8708.99.52, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70,
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and
8708.99.8061, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70,
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and
8708.99.80.
These reviews cover all of the subject bearings and parts
thereof outlined above with certain limitations. With regard to
finished parts (inner race, outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals,
shields, etc.), all such parts are included in the scope of this
review. For unfinished parts (inner race, outer race, rollers,
balls, etc.), such parts are included if (1) they have been heat
treated, or (2) heat treatment is not required to be performed on
the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts that are not covered by
this review are those where the part will be subject to heat
treatment after importation.
FR Doc. 11389 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P