federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6207were in the printouts we released afterthe preliminary results. In this case,where complete printouts are likely tobe voluminous, we generally releaseprintouts with a portion of respondent’stransactions. Because a printoutshowing the margin calculations for allof Shanghai’s sales would have beenvoluminous, we provided Shanghaiwith a printout showing the calculationsfor 50 percent of its sales during thePOR. Upon review, other errors orcorrections noted elsewherenotwithstanding, we have determinedthat our calculation of Shanghai’s totalmargin is correct and reflects ouranalysis of Shanghai’s data.Comment 26Jilin states that the Departmentcalculated a margin for one of Jilin’smodels based on an erroneous netweight which affected the calculation ofocean freight and marine insurance. Theerror appears to be due to a misplaceddecimal point, Jilin explains, whichincorrectly resulted in a reported netweight which is 10 times the actualweight. Jilin states that the error isobvious when compared to otherinformation on the record. Jilin notesthat it included the correct net weightin its FOP data as reported by themanufacturer.Jilin argues, first, that the size of thededuction to its USP for ocean-freightand marine-insurance expenses for thatmodel is inconsistent with that of otherrespondents who sold the same model.Next, Jilin claims that a comparison ofthe net weight reported for that modelby other respondents shows that the netweightfigure in Jilin’s USP calculationis aberrational. Jilin refers to the samemodel number and the associated netweights reported by other respondentsand points out that those net weights areconsistent with each other, as well aswith that reported in Jilin’s FOP data.Jilin requests that the Departmentcorrect its calculations by using the netweight as reported in its sales listing butadjust the location of the decimal pointto reflect the correct net weight.Petitioner points out that Departmentused the exact weights reported andaffirmed by Jilin in its responses.Petitioner further notes that adjustingthe decimal point backward one spacedoes not result in the net weight inJilin’s reported U.S. sales list matchingthat which was in Jilin’s reported FOPdata, which Jilin argues is the correctnet weight. Petitioner contends thatJilin’s claim of an alleged clerical erroris an attempt to submit new informationafter the preliminary results and toamend its response.Department’s PositionIn light of a decision by the CAFC, wehave reevaluated our policy forcorrecting clerical errors of respondents.See NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States,Slip Op. 94–1186 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(NTN). As a result of the NTN decision,we now accept corrections of suchclerical errors under the followingconditions: (1) The error in questionmust be demonstrated to be a clericalerror, not a methodological error, anerror in judgement, or a substantiveerror; (2) we must be satisfied that thecorrective documentation provided insupport of the clerical error allegation isreliable; (3) the respondent must haveavailed itself of the earliest reasonableopportunity to correct the error; (4) theclerical-error allegation, and anycorrective documentation, must besubmitted to the Department no laterthan the due date for the respondent’sadministrative case brief; (5) the clericalerror must not entail a substantialrevision of the response; and (6) therespondent’s corrective documentationmust not contradict informationpreviously determined to be accurate atverification. See Certain Fresh CutFlowers From Colombia; Final Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReviews, 61 FR 42833, 42834 (August19, 1996) (Colombian Flowers).The error in question, the incorrectplacement of a decimal point, is clearlyclerical in nature. We have analyzedthis error using the criteria set forth asa result of the NTN decision and havedetermined that it meets the conditionsunder which we will accept corrections.We reviewed the responses submittedby other PRC-based bearingmanufacturers, as well as informationfrom Jilin’s FOP data. The net weight forthe same model number reported byother suppliers is about one tenth of theamount in Jilin’s U.S. sales list. We notefurther that the FOP data were providedby the manufacturer, Jilin’s supplier, notby Jilin itself, and that the FOP datawere consistent with informationprovided by other manufacturers of thesame model. Thus, we determined thatthe FOP data provided by Jilin’ssupplier were reliable. Furthermore,Jilin availed itself of the earliestopportunity to correct the error andsubmitted the request for this correctionno later than the time of the case brief.Finally, correction of this clerical errordoes not entail a substantive revision ofthe response. Because we did not verifyJilin’s response in this review, the lastcriterion does not apply.After adjusting the location of thedecimal point, the net weight in Jilin’ssales list is higher than that in its FOPdata, and we have calculatedadjustments to USP based on the higherfigure from the sales list.Comment 27Respondents Liaoning, Wafangdian,Guizhou Machinery, and Henan allegeerrors regarding model comparisons inthe Department’s margin calculations,arguing that in some instances theDepartment compared the price of acomponent to the CV of an assembledset, while in other instances it appliedBIA to U.S. sales for which both salesand FOP data were available.Liaoning states that the Departmentcompared sales of a cone (inner ring) tothe CV of a cone assembly (inner ring,rollers and cage). Liaoning explains thatthe Department reduced the total CV fora complete set—consisting of a coneassembly and a cup (outer ring)—byexcluding the cost for the cup, thencompared the resulting cost of the coneassembly to the sale of a cone. Liaoningnotes that the ‘‘IR’’ attached to themodel number in its U.S. sales listingindicates ‘‘inner ring’’ and argues thatthe Department should, for the finalresults, compare the sale of the modelin question to the CV for the singledesignated component.Similarly, Wafangdian claims that theDepartment compared the U.S. sale of acone assembly to the CV of a completeTRB set. Wafangdian states that the netweight of the model sold in the UnitedStates is consistent with the net weightreported in its February 6, 1994 FOPquestionnaire response for a coneassembly.Guizhou Machinery and Henan claimthat, for sales of certain models, theDepartment was not able to match therelated sales and cost data because themodel codes they reported contained aclerical error in the code prefixes.Guizhou Machinery and Henan explainthat the model codes they reported inthe sales and FOP responses are oftenused interchangeably in the industry,where the numerical codes remain thesame but purchasers sometimes refer tothe numerical code with a slightlydifferent prefix attached. GuizhouMachinery and Henan state that, thedifference in prefixes notwithstanding,the identical numerical codes indicatethat the models are identical and arguethat the sales and cost data of suchmodels should be compared in the finalresults. Guizhou Machinery and Henansuggest that other respondents’ data onthe record indicate that the net weightsare consistent between model numberswith identical numerical codes,supporting their contention that themodels themselves are identical.