federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6193includes 1993–94 transactions.Therefore, Chin Jun reasons, the SKFdata is so stale that the use of it wouldnot be proper. Chin Jun states that theDepartment’s preference is to use datawhich is contemporaneous to the periodof review.Guizhou Machinery et al. respond toPetitioner’s contention that the cost ofdirect materials of actual bearingsproducers in India is shown to beconsistently higher than the tradestatisticvalues used in the preliminaryresults by stating that such a fact doesnot render the trade statistics incorrectand that, furthermore, there is nothingin the law requiring the Department touse the highest value in choosingsurrogate values.Transcom submits that theDepartment should rely on the Indianimport statistics in factor valuation,rather than on the company-specificdata contained in the SKF report,because the Indian data arecontemporaneous with the period ofreview, while the SKF data areoutdated. Transcom agrees with ChinJun and Guizhou Machinery et al. thatthe import data provide a more detaileddescription, and therefore more exactvaluation, of steel used by the Chineseproducers, whereas the SKF report doesnot provide sufficient informationconcerning the type of steel for whichcosts are reported and provides noguidance in determining a surrogatevaluation of the FOP used in producingbearings in China.Petitioner responds to Chin Jun’sargument that the use of SKF data isinappropriate as SKF is typical ofneither China nor India by stating thatthe report is consistent with that ofAsian Bearing, another producer inIndia, which the Department declined touse. Petitioner claims that theDepartment did not use data from SKFSweden or consolidated data from theSKF Group, but data from SKF India,which reflect the operating conditionsof an Indian bearing company.Department’s PositionWe agree with respondents. Section773(c)(1) of the Act states that, forpurposes of determining FMV in a NME,‘‘the valuation of the FOP shall be basedon the best available informationregarding the values of such factors.* * *’’ Our preference is to valuefactors using published information (PI)that is most closely concurrent to thespecific POR. See Final Determinationof Sales at Less Than Fair Value:Certain Partial-Extension Drawer SlidesFrom the People’s Republic of China, 60FR 54472, 54476 (October 24, 1995).Based on the record evidence we havedetermined that surrogate countryimport statistics (Indonesian for valuingsteel used to produce cups and cones,Indian for steel used to produce rollersand cages), exclusive of import duties,comprise the best available informationfor valuing raw material costs. Ourreasons for preferring data for Indonesia,rather than for our primary surrogate,India, for valuing steel used to producecups and cones are set forth in ourresponse to Comment 3.We prefer published surrogate importdata to the SKF data in valuing thematerial FOP for the following reasons.First, we are able to obtain data specificto the POR, which more closely reflectthe costs to producers during the POR.Second, the raw material costs from theSKF report do not specify the types ofsteel purchased by SKF. The recorddoes not indicate whether SKFpurchased bar steel (the type used bythe Chinese manufacturers) or moreexpensive tube steel to produce bearingsparts. Third, although we agree withPetitioner’s point that SKF is a producerof subject merchandise, the report alsoidentifies other products itmanufactures. From the informationcontained in the SKF report, we areunable to allocate direct labor and rawmaterials expenses to the production ofsubject merchandise. For these reasons,we have valued the material FOP usingsurrogate import data.Furthermore, we agree withrespondents that Petitioner’s citation toTimken for the proposition that we mustuse a single surrogate source whenpossible is misplaced. That case, whichcriticized the Department’s failure tojustify its choice between adjustmentfactors, does not state that all factorsmust be valued in the same surrogatecountry. Indeed, the opinion in Timkenexplicitly states that ‘‘Commerce mayavail itself with data from a countryother than the designated conduit,adoption of such an inter-surrogatemethodology [although departing fromthe normal practice at that time]remains within the scope of Commerce’sdiscretionary powers.’’ 12 CIT at 959.The fact that the 1989–90 report ofIndian producer Asian Bearing, like theSKF data, shows higher raw materialscosts than the import data we used inthe preliminary results does not compelthe conclusion that we must use somedomestic Indian data source. In additionto being stale, the Asian Bearing datasuffers from the same defects as the SKFdata. The purpose of the NME factormethodology is not to construct the costof manufacturing the subjectmerchandise in India per se but to usedata from one or more surrogatecountries to construct what the cost ofproduction would have been in China,were China a market-economy country.See Sulfanilic Acid from the People’sRepublic of China; Final Results andPartial Recession of Antidumping DutyAdministrative Review, 61 FR 53702,53710 (Comment 12) (Oct. 15, 1996).We also disagree with Petitioner’scontention that we should adjust theoverhead and SG&A rates if we continueto use the SKF report to value theserates while valuing the material andlabor FOP using other sources. As notedabove, we prefer to base our factorsinformation on industry-wide PI.Because such information is notavailable regarding overhead and SG&Arates for producers of subjectmerchandise during the POR, we usedthe overhead and SG&A rates applicableto SKF India, a company that producessubject and non-subject merchandise.In deriving these rates, we used theSKF India data both with respect to thenumerators (total overhead and SG&Aexpenses, respectively) anddenominator (total cost ofmanufacturing). This methodologyallowed us to derive ratios of SKFIndia’s overhead and SG&A expenses.These ratios, when multiplied by theFOP we used in our analysis, therebyconstitute the best available informationconcerning the overhead and SG&Aexpenses that would be incurred by abearings producer given such FOP.Petitioner’s recommended adjustmentwould affect (reduce) the denominator,but it would leave the overhead andSG&A expenses in the numeratorunchanged. As such, we find that thisadjustment would itself distort theresulting ratio, rather than curing thealleged distortion in our calculations.Finally, with respect to Petitioner’sassertion that the overhead, SG&A, andprofit denominators we used in thepreliminary results improperly includedimport duties paid, we note thatPetitioner has not provided anyinformation regarding the amount ofimport duties that are included nor hasPetitioner provided a means ofidentifying and eliminating such dutiesfrom our calculations. Although wewould not include duties paid on theimportation of merchandise by SKF, wehave no evidence as to the amount ofduties, if any, that are included in SKF’sraw materials costs. Therefore, we didnot subtract any amount for importduties in our calculation of overheadand SG&A percentages. See TRBs IV–VIat 65529–65530.Comment 3Shanghai and Chin Jun submittedcomments regarding the appropriateIndian import classification number(s)