federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6195comparison of the Indian importstatistics with other sources, e.g., U.S.import data, will confirm that the Indianimport data are aberrational and must beadjusted.Petitioner contends that Shanghai’sdiscussion of the steel category to beused for cups and cones is largely basedon speculation unsupported by recordevidence and is, to a large extent,factually wrong. First, Petitioner notesShanghai’s assertion that the absence inthe Indian import statistics of a specificsubdivision for bearing-quality steelindicates only a lack of imports of thistype of steel during the period coveredby the statistics. Petitioner claims thatthere is no basis for such speculation.Second, with respect to Shanghai’sargument that the exact type of bearingsteel used by PRC-based producerscould enter India under category7227.90.11, Petitioner notes thatcategory 7227.90.11 refers to bars androds of bearing-quality steel in coils.Petitioner argues that Shanghai does notcite any record evidence to suggest thatany respondent uses bar in coil.Petitioner adds that bar steel not in coilcould not be entered into India undercategory 7227.90.11.Petitioner contends that Shanghai’sclaim regarding category 7228.30.01 asthe proper category of Indian steelimports for the type of steel used in theproduction of cups and cones isinappropriate because category7228.30.01 represents bright bars.Petitioner claims that, to the best of itsknowledge, no one has ever beforesuggested in the course of this or anyother proceeding that bright bars areused to manufacture bearings. Petitionerstates that the distinguishing feature of‘‘bright bars’’ is a bright, smooth finishand such bars are not used in themanufacture of TRBs, as the high finishwould be destroyed, given the cuttingand grinding involved in TRBproduction. Furthermore, whereasShanghai argues that the term ‘‘bright’’in Indian subcategory 7228.30.01 doesnot denote bright, high-finish surfaceswhich would indicate the product wasfurther worked so as to fall outside thatcategory, Petitioner claims thatShanghai’s only support for suchargument is to cite a definition in theU.S. HTS. Petitioner argues that such adefinition has no application orrelevance to the Indian schedules.Rather, Petitioner observes, thedefinition is listed among ‘‘AdditionalU.S. Notes’’ as opposed to theinternationally accepted ‘‘Notes’’ toChapter 72.Petitioner also argues that Shanghai’sassertion that category 7228.30.19includes steel other than alloy tool steelis wrong, contending that the ‘‘other’’ incategory 7228.30.19 refers to ‘‘otherthan’’ any other subheading underheading 7228. Petitioner states that, byexcluding not only category 7228.30.01but any other specific eight-digitcategories which are known to notinclude bearing steel, i.e., ‘‘bright bars ofother steel’’ (7228.30.09), ‘‘bars and rodsof spring steel’’ (7228.30.12), and ‘‘barsand rods of tool and die steel’’(7228.30.14), category 7228.30.19remains the only category underheading 7228 that would containbearing steel.Finally, Petitioner responds toShanghai’s argument that the steelvalues included in category 7228.30.19are aberrational and are notrepresentative of the cost of bearinggradesteel. Petitioner claims thatShanghai is arguing, without any factualsupport, that the lowest price in thebasket category is for bearing steel andthat anything else is aberrational.Petitioner further states that Shanghaiattempted to support its argument thatthe value assigned to steel used tomanufacture cups and cones is too highin comparison with relevant world steelprices, without attempting to define‘‘world steel prices’’ or how Shanghaidecided the comparison prices wereappropriate.Petitioner states that Chin Jun’sargument that the value of steel incategory 7228.30.19 used in thepreliminary results far exceeds the valueof steel used to manufacture TRBs isincorrect. Petitioner suggests that theavailable information concerning actualprices of bearing steel in Indiacontradicts Chin Jun’s statement (citingPetitioner’s February 21, 1995submission containing worksheets forthe Results of Remand of FinalDetermination of Sales at Less ThanFair Value: Tapered Roller BearingsFrom the People’s Republic of China(February 15, 1989), as well as data inthe annual reports for SKF and AsianBearing). Based on such data, Petitionerclaims that the surrogate value of thesteel used to manufacture cups andcones is too low to be representative ofbearing-steel prices in India. Petitioneradds that the costs or prices in a marketeconomycountry at a comparable levelof development to the PRC, i.e., India,are at issue—not world prices.Department PositionWe agree that none of the eight-digittariff categories within the 7228.30 steelgroup correspond specifically tobearing-quality steel used tomanufacture cups and cones, but we donot agree with Petitioner that the bestrecourse is to the eight-digit ‘‘others’’category (7228.30.19) within this group.We have determined that the use ofIndian import data is not appropriate tovalue cups and cones in this casebecause, as noted in the argumentsabove and as shown below, we areunable to isolate an Indian import valuefor bearing-quality steel and, for thereasons discussed below, the steelvalues in the Indian import data are notreliable. See Drawer Slides at 54475–76;TRBs IV-VI at 65532.We have examined each of the eightdigitcategories within the Indian7228.30 group and have found that,although bearing-quality steel used tomanufacture cups and cones is mostlikely contained within this basketcategory, there is no eight-digit subcategorythat is reasonably specific tothis type of steel. We eliminated thespecific categories of alloy steel,identified by Petitioner andrespondents, that are clearly notbearing-quality steel as follows. Underthe Indian tariff system, bearing-qualitysteel used to manufacture cups andcones is contained within the broadcategory 7228.30 (Other Bars & Rods,Hot-Rolled, Hot-Drawn & Extruded).However, none of the named subcategoriesof this grouping(7228.30.01—bright bars of alloy toolsteel; 7228.30.09—bright bars of othersteel; 7228.30.12—bars and rods ofspring steel; and 7228.30.14—bars androds of tool and die steel) contains steelused in the production of subjectmerchandise. This leaves an ‘‘others’’category of steel, 7228.30.19. However,we have no information concerningwhat this category contains, and none ofthe parties in this proceeding hassuggested that this category specificallyisolates bearing-quality steel. Further,the value of steel in this eight-digitresidual category is greater than thevalue of the general six-digit basketcategory (7228.30), which in turn isvalued too high to be considered areliable indicator of the price of bearingqualitysteel, as shown below.Where questions have been raisedabout PI with respect to particularmaterial inputs in a chosen surrogatecountry, it is the Department’sresponsibility to examine that PI. SeeDrawer Slides at 54475–76 and CasedPencils, 59 FR 55633, 55629 (1994).Because all parties raised questionsabout the validity of the Indian importdata used to value cups and cones in thepreliminary results, we compared thevalue of Indian imports in category7228.30 with the only record source thatspecifically isolates bearing-quality steelused to manufacture cups and cones:import data regarding U.S. tariff