federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6211Instead, the level of partial BIA dependson the size and nature of the deficiencyand the degree to which the deficiencyaffects the rest of the response.Regardless of the particular type ofBIA we use, we do not apply a neutralfigure as BIA, except where there is aninadvertent gap in the record or wherea minor or insignificant adjustment isinvolved. None of these situationsapplies to Chin Jun in this case. BIA isintended to be adverse, even in a‘‘partial BIA’’ situation, because onepurpose of the BIA provision of thestatute is to induce respondents toprovide timely, complete and accurateinformation. Chin Jun’s claim that wemay use an adverse inference only if wehave found that a party ‘‘has failed tocooperate by not acting to the best of itsability to comply with a request forinformation’’ (citing section 773(e)(2))does not apply to this review becausethis review is being conducted underthe Act as it stood on December 31,1994, which did not contain thisprovision. Chin Jun’s recourse to Allied-Signal is likewise misplaced. Althoughthe Department’s choice of BIA rejectsthe low-margin information Chin Junproposes over higher-margin BIA, ChinJun has not shown that the highermargininformation is ‘‘demonstrablyless probative of current conditions,’’ asrequired by Allied-Signal. Because ChinJun did not provide FOP informationwhich would allow us to calculatemargins for certain models, there are nodata on record showing the actual ratesfor these models to be less than 25.56percent, which is the highest ratedetermined in this review. Therefore, asBIA, we have applied this rate to thoseU.S. sales affected by the missing FOPinformation.Comment 31Chin Jun states that, for thepreliminary results, the dumpingmargins and sales value for Wafangdianand Jilin are aberrational. Chin Junnotes that the number of sales that thesetwo companies had compared to thetotal sales that the Department reviewedfor this administrative review is smalland that the highest rate calculated forany other exporter in the preliminaryresults for this review is 12.06 percentwhile Wafangdian received a rate of75.87 percent and Jilin received a rateof 60.91 percent. Moreover, Chin Junpresumes that it is probable that allcompanies, except Wafangdian andJilin, will have final antidumping ratesof less than 12 percent. As such, ChinJun contends that Wafangdian’s andJilin’s dumping margins are aberrationalin all respects and should not be usedas the basis for BIA for any of Chin Jun’stransactions.Department’s PositionAs a result of corrections and changesnoted elsewhere, we have recalculatedrespondents’ margins for these finalresults. The highest rate for this reviewperiod is 25.56 percent. As weexplained in our response to Comment30, this is an appropriate cooperative-BIA rate for those U.S. sales for whichChin Jun was unable to supply factorsdata.Comment 32Chin Jun claims that the Departmentapplied BIA to certain sales of modelsfor which it had provided FOP data.Therefore, Chin Jun argues, theDepartment should not use BIA toestablish FMV for these models.Department’s PositionWe agree with Chin Jun. As discussedin our response to Comment 26, wehave corrected clerical errors in theidentifying model numbers. This allowsus to compare sales data for the modelsin question with the correspondingfactors data.Comment 33Chin Jun notes that the Departmentused a profit rate of 10.85 percent basedon information contained in the SKFreport. Chin Jun points out that SKFIndia is related to SKF Sweden and,therefore, the transfer prices and otherrelated-party transactions betweenparent and subsidiary could radicallyaffect profit margins. Thus, Chin Junargues, the Department should use thestatutory minimum of eight percent toestablish a surrogate value for profit.Petitioner responds that it is not clearwhat Chin Jun’s comments regardingSKF India’s relationship to SKF Swedenare supposed to mean nor what resultswould obtain if the claim were true. Inany event, Petitioner asserts, Chin Jundid not provide any evidence thatrelated-party transactions occurred or, ifthey did, that they affected SKF India’sprofits or other results in any way.Petitioner argues that the Departmentshould use SKF India’s actual profit inthe final results, recalculated to reflectthe changes to overhead and SG&A asasserted in Comment 2Department’s PositionWe agree with Petitioner. Whilecalculating the profit ratio using thedata provided in the SKF report, wenoted that SKF India is related to SKFSweden. Chin Jun did not provide anyinformation to support its statement thatthe transactions between SKF India andits Swedish parent could radically affectprofit margins. Therefore, for the finalresults, we have applied the calculatedprofit ratio based on the SKF India’sAnnual Report as the surrogate value forprofit.Comment 34Transcom Inc. (Transcom) and L&SBearing Company (L&S), domesticimporters of subject merchandise, arguethat the Department’s decision to applywhat they consider to be punitive BIAappraisement and deposit rates tocompanies that were never part of thereview is unlawful. Transcom and L&Sstate that, for this review, there werevarious companies from which theypurchased subject merchandise, none ofwhich received a questionnaire or wasnamed in the notice of initiation ofreview. Transcom states that entriesfrom each of the unnamed companieswere subject to estimated antidumpingduty deposits at the ‘‘all others’’ rate ineffect at the time of entry and arguesthat the Department is precluded as amatter of law from either assessing finalantidumping duties on the unreviewedcompanies at any rate other than that atwhich estimated antidumping dutydeposits were made or imposing thenew BIA-based deposit rate onshipments from unreviewed companies.In particular, Transcom says that itpurchased bearings from Gold HillInternational Trading and ServicesCompany (Gold Hill), a Hong Kongbasedcompany. Transcom contendsthat Gold Hill did not request a review,was not named in the notice ofinitiation for this review, and did notreceive a questionnaire or any otherrequest for information or participationin this review. Transcom claims that theDepartment appears to have imposedpunitive assessment and deposit rateson Gold Hill by including Gold Hill’sexports under the BIA rates for ‘‘allother’’ PRC exporters and argues thatthe Department is precluded as a matterof law from either assessing finalantidumping duties on the unreviewedcompanies at any rate other than that atwhich estimated antidumping dutydeposits were made or imposing thenew BIA deposit rate on the unreviewedcompanies.Transcom and L&S, citing section751(a) of the Act, state that theDepartment is directed to determine theamount of antidumping duties to beimposed pursuant to periodic reviews.They add that, in accordance with 19CFR 353.22(e), unreviewed companiesare subject to automatic assessment ofantidumping duties and a deposit ofestimated duties at the rate previouslyestablished. Transcom and L&S note