federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6191government seeking to channel exportsthrough companies with relatively lowdumping rates. See Disposable Lightersat 22363. A market-oriented-industrydetermination, by way of contrast,focusses on overall control of thedomestic industry, rather than simplyon its export activities, and thereforeleads to a decision as to whether homemarket or third-country prices withinthe industry are sufficiently marketdriventhat such prices may be used toestablish FMV.Petitioner’s argument that there issufficient direct or indirect governmentcontrol to treat all exporters as ‘‘related’’is unsupported by the record and is notdispositive, since our separate-ratesinquiry focuses on the extent of arespondent’s independence with respectto export activities. The PRC companiesthat responded to our questionnairesubmitted information indicating a lackof both de jure and de facto control overtheir export activities. Contrary toPetitioner’s claim that the necessaryinformation concerning the de factoportion of the analysis is inaccessible toboth Petitioner and to the Department,such information was in fact subject toverification and was discussed in therelevant verification reports. Based onour analysis of the Silicon Carbidefactors, the verified information on therecord supports our determination thatthese 11 respondents are, both in lawand in fact, free of government controlover their export activities. Thus, itwould be inappropriate to treat thesefirms as a single enterprise and assignthem a single margin. Accordingly, wehave continued to calculate separatemargins for these companies. SeeTapered Roller Bearings and PartsThereof, Finished and Unfinished, Fromthe People’s Republic of China; FinalResults of Antidumping DutyAdministrative Reviews (TRBs IV–VI),61 FR 65527, 65528 (December 13,1996).Comment 2Petitioner argues that the Departmentshould base the values of all factors ofproduction (FOP) on the annual reportof SKF India (SKF). Petitioner notesthat, for the preliminary results, theDepartment used the SKF report tovalue three factors (overhead; selling,general, and administrative expenses(SG&A); and profit), whereas theDepartment derived values for the directlabor and raw material factors from twoother, unrelated sources (Investing,Licensing & Trading Conditions Abroad,India (IL&T India) statistics and Indianimport statistics, respectively).Petitioner argues that the annual reportof SKF is the only record source thatyields values for all five factors and that,as such, the SKF report is a single,coherent source that includes segregatedinformation on each of the principalFOP and other costs necessary toconstruct FMV. Petitioner contends thatthe statute instructs the Department tovalue FOP based on the best informationregarding the values of such factors ina market-economy country or countriesthat are (A) at a level of economicdevelopment comparable to that of thenon-market-economy (NME) country,and (B) significant producers ofcomparable merchandise (citingsections 773(c) (1) and (4) of the Act).Petitioner further claims that theDepartment’s use of other sources tovalue labor and raw materials, whileusing SKF’s labor and raw materialsinformation to derive overhead, SG&Aand profit, is inherently distortive, giventhe ratios the Department calculatedfrom these figures.Petitioner states that the use of theSKF report for all FOP values isconsistent with the importance thecourts attach to internal coherence andthe use of a single source when possible(citing Timken Co. v. United States, 12CIT 955, 962, 963, 699 F. Supp. 300,306, 307 (1988), affirmed 894 F.2d 385(Fed. Cir. 1990) (collectively Timken)).Petitioner suggests that the SKF reportmost nearly approximates a verified,surrogate questionnaire response of thetype the Department formerly soughtfrom producers in potential surrogatecountries.Petitioner further contends that,whereas SKF’s costs and expensesrepresent those of a producer of theclass or kind of merchandise subject toreview, the surrogate data for directlabor and raw materials the Departmentused cover a broad range of industriesand products. Petitioner claims that thedirect labor classification theDepartment used covers, in addition tobearings producers, hundreds ofindustry sectors under broad headingsunrelated to bearings production andargues that there is no rational basis forusing such a non-specific source as asurrogate. Petitioner claims that theIL&T India labor costs cover anaggregate of all Indian industrieswithout distinction and that the IL&TIndia report itself points out (at 45) thatwages and fringe benefits ‘‘varyconsiderably by industry, company sizeand region.’’ Therefore, Petitionerargues, it is not rational to view theIL&T India information asrepresentative of labor costs in bearingproduction in India.Petitioner asserts that the ‘‘other’’alloy steel category from the Indianimport statistics, which the Departmentused to value material costs for thepreliminary results, is similarly broadand may or may not include imports ofthe steel used to produce bearings.However, even if included, Petitionerclaims that bearing steel represents onlya part of steel imports in the basketcategory.Petitioner notes that record evidence(referencing the SKF India report, a1989–1990 report of Asian Bearing, anIndian TRB producer, and the results ofa remand in the original less-than-fairvalue(LTFV) investigation) shows thecosts of raw materials and laborincurred by actual bearings producers inIndia to be consistently higher than thetrade statistics values the Departmentused in the preliminary results, eitherbecause the industries or productcategories covered by the labor and rawmaterials sources are overly broad orbecause domestic prices are differentfrom those of imports.Petitioner argues in the alternativethat, in the event that the Departmentdoes not use the SKF report to value allFOP, the Department must adjust theoverhead and SG&A rates to reflect theuse of lower materials and labor valuesfrom the separate sources. Petitionerclaims it would be distortive to includeSKF’s full materials and labor costs inthe cost of manufacture (COM)denominator of the overhead and SG&Acalculations unless they are also thebasis for valuing the raw materials anddirect labor factors in the constructedvalue (CV) calculation. Petitionerproposes that the Department multiplythe total weight of materials for SKF bythe average value of steel that it uses inthe final results and multiply the totalnumber of hours worked at SKF by theIL&T India labor value used for thematerial and labor figures theDepartment included in the overheadand SG&A calculations.Petitioner states that the most obviousadjustment needed to the materialselement of the overhead and SG&Acalculations is due to the Department’suse of Indian steel values free of duties;specifically, because the Indian importdata the Department applied in thepreliminary results are based on predutyimport values, it is inappropriateto use an SKF materials value thatincludes duties in the overhead andSG&A calculations. Petitioner suggeststhat, if the Department does not applythe proposed adjustment (i.e., total SKFmaterial weight times the Indian valueused), the amount of duties paid by SKFon imported materials, as indicated inthe SKF report, must be segregated fromthe materials total in the overhead andSG&A calculations in order to deriveapples-to-apples ratios.