federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6183only steel costs in the cost of materials,not finished products. Petitioner statesthat this prior approach is correct and,because purchases of traded goods arealready manufactured and do not affectproduction, the Department shouldexclude them from the overheaddenominator.East Sea responds that Petitioner’sargument with regard to ‘‘traded goods’’is misguided and that the Department’scalculations in the preliminary resultsconcerning this line item were correct.Department’s PositionWe disagree with Petitioner. In pastreviews we did not include a line itemfor ‘‘purchases of traded goods’’ in theCOM that we used as the denominatorof the overhead, SG&A, and profit-ratecalculations because the SKF reportsthat we used in those reviews did notinclude this line item. In this review,the SKF Report includes a separate lineitem for this cost. We have included itin the denominator of these calculations(as part of the COM) because, incalculating SKF’s COM, we mustinclude those line items listed on theSKF Report that reflect the costsassociated with the production of themerchandise that are not overhead orSG&A expenses.According to the description in theSKF Report, ‘‘purchases of tradedgoods’’ are properly considered as COMexpenses. They are not overhead orSG&A expenses but instead reflect thecommon practice of manufacturerspurchasing finished and semi-finishedgoods to meet their clients’’ demand.SKF does not incur direct materials ordirect labor expenses with respect tothese products but instead incurs theexpense of purchasing them. Becausethese purchased goods are an integralportion of cost of goods sold, they areordinary business expenses that wecannot ignore, as suggested byPetitioner, simply because they involveproducts that SKF did not manufacture.Therefore, for the final results, we haveincluded ‘‘purchases of traded goods’’ aspart of the denominators we used in theoverhead, SG&A, and profit-ratecalculations.Comment 13Petitioner states that the Departmentdid not include interest expenses SKFincurred in the constructed value (CV)calculations. Petitioner recommendsthat the Department include theseexpenses in the calculation of SG&A.Petitioner states that, according to theDepartment’s Antidumping Manual andDepartment practice, interest expensesshould be included in the CV.East Sea responds that, althoughPetitioner points to the AntidumpingManual as support that SKF’s interestexpenses are SG&A expenses, theinterest expenses to which the manualrefers are selling expenses and there isno evidence that any of SKF’s interestexpenses pertain to sales. Accordingly,East Sea asserts that the Departmentshould not include interest expenses inits CV calculations.Department’s PositionWe agree with Petitioner that,consistent with our practice, the interestexpenses in question are ordinarybusiness expenses relating to SG&A.Therefore, we have included, in theSG&A expense for these final results,interest expenses as reported in the SKFReport.Comment 14Petitioner states that, for thepreliminary results, the Departmentcalculated profit on an after-tax basis.This methodology, Petitioner contends,is contrary to the Department’s policy toachieve an ‘‘apples-to-applescomparison’’ (citing the Department’sAntidumping Manual). Petitioner statesthat, because the export prices andconstructed export prices used in themargin calculations include all profits,i.e., are pre-tax values, the Departmentmust calculate the profit used inestablishing NV on the same basis.East Sea responds that Petitioner citesno case law to support its assertion andthe Department should continue tocalculate SKF’s profit net of expenses.Department’s PositionWe agree with Petitioner that weshould use a pre-tax amount to calculatethe profit ratio, for the reasons thatPetitioner provided in its comment.Therefore, for the final results, we havecalculated a profit rate for NV on a pretaxbasis.Comment 15East Sea argues that the Departmentimproperly designated the line item‘‘goodwill,’’ as listed in the SKF Report,as an SG&A expense. East Sea states thatgoodwill expenses are related to fixedassets and are listed as such in the SKFReport. East Sea adds that there is noDepartmental precedent for includinggoodwill as part of SG&A and, therefore,the Department should remove thisexpense from the SG&A calculation.Petitioner responds that the fact thatthe SKF Report states that theseexpenses are related to fixed assets isnot a sufficient reason to disregard themin calculating the SG&A expense.Petitioner states that, using the samereasoning, the Department would haveto eliminate depreciation from theoverhead expense, which would clearlybe incorrect. Petitioner adds that EastSea provided no evidence that SKF, thesurrogate producer, did not comply withIndian Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples (GAAP) or that its accountingpractices should otherwise bedisregarded and the goodwill expensedisallowed.Department’s PositionWe agree with Petitioner that the factthat the SKF Report states that thegoodwill expense line item is related tofixed assets does not render it a materialcost. However, the evidence on therecord does not allow us to determinethe extent to which SKF’s goodwillexpense is attributable to overhead orSG&A. For these final results, we haveallocated 50 percent of SKF’s goodwillexpense to overhead and 50 percent toSG&A.Comment 16East Sea argues that the Departmentimproperly designated the line item‘‘rates and taxes’’ in the SKF Report asan overhead expense instead ofincluding it in SG&A. East Sea statesthat this expense is an SG&A expensebecause taxes are traditionallyconsidered an administrative expense,not a manufacturing expense.Petitioner responds that shiftingallocations from overhead to SG&A orvise versa should not affect the bottomline of the NV calculation. Petitionerstates, however, that it is morereasonable to assign the ‘‘rates andtaxes’’ line item to overhead becauseSKF is a manufacturing company and,presumably, most of its rates and taxeswould relate to its plant and equipmentand other aspects of its manufacturingoperations.Department’s PositionWe agree with East Sea that weshould allocate the ‘‘rates and taxes’’line item to SG&A and not to overhead.This allocation methodology isconsistent with our practice in previousadministrative reviews of thisproceeding. See TRBs IV–VI at 65540.Comment 17East Sea contends that the Departmentshould not include the line item ‘‘profit(loss) on fixed assets sold’’ as part ofoverhead. East Sea states that SKFincurred this expense independent ofany manufacturing or selling activities;rather, as its title suggests, it is relatedto the value of fixed assets.Petitioner responds that selling fixedassets that were used in manufacturing
6184 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Noticesis not a manufacturing activity, anymore than an accounting entry to reflectdepreciation is a manufacturing activity.Petitioner contends, however, that thisline item does identify the relevantcapital cost of the assets used inmanufacturing and therefore, as withdepreciation, the loss on the sale offixed assets should be included inoverhead.Department PositionWe agree with Petitioner that the lossSKF India incurred in selling fixedassets used to manufacture merchandiseclearly is related to manufacturingactivities. Therefore, we have includedthis loss as an overhead item.Comment 18East Sea argues that the Departmentimproperly allocated all of SKF’s lineitem ‘‘repairs to buildings’’ to overheadin the preliminary results. East Seasuggests that Department allocate thisitem partially to SG&A as there is noproof that repairs were made solely tomanufacturing buildings.Department’s PositionWe agree with East Sea that it isimproper to include all of SKF’sbuilding-repair expenses in overheadbecause depreciation associated withoffice buildings and office equipmentshould be included in SG&A. Therefore,for the final results, we allocated repaircosts to overhead and SG&A accordingto the function and value of the assets;that is, we included in overhead onlythe depreciation expenses allocated tomanufacturing. We obtained theinformation pertaining to the functionand value of SKF’s assets from the SKFReport.Comment 19East Sea claims that the Departmentshould allocate insurance to bothoverhead and SG&A on a 75-percent/25-percent basis as there is no proof thatinsurance costs are related to overheadalone.Petitioner contends that it does notmake a difference in the CV calculationwhether the insurance is allocated toSG&A or overhead. Petitioner adds,however, that SKF is a manufacturingcompany and most of its insurance costswould relate to its plant and equipmentand similar items related to itsmanufacturing operations, i.e.,overhead. Petitioner also asserts thatcertain PRC companies have includedinsurance as part of factory overhead.Moreover, Petitioner argues that EastSea’s recommended 75-percent/25-percent ratio is totally arbitrary.Department’s PositionWe agree with East Sea that weshould allocate insurance expenses toboth overhead and SG&A. However,because East Sea did not provide anysupport for the 75-percent/25-percentallocation ratio, we are not using thisratio for the final results. Furthermore,even though, as Petitioner notes, SKFIndia is a manufacturing company, wehave no information which will allowus to allocate insurance expensesprecisely. For the final results, weallocated insurance expenses equally toSG&A and overhead (i.e., 50 percent toSG&A and 50 percent to overhead), dueto the fact that the SKF Report does notidentify the nature of these expenses.Comment 20East Sea contends that the Departmentshould continue its past practice ofusing an eight-percent profit rate for thefinal results. East Sea emphasizes thatSKF India is related to SKF Swedenand, therefore, the transfer price andother related-party transactions betweenparent and subsidiary could radicallyaffect SKF’s profit margins.Petitioner argues that the formereight-percent rate was an arbitrary rateand is contrary to the new law.Petitioner adds that East Sea does notprovide any evidence that such relatedpartytransactions actually occurred orthat, if they occurred, they had anyactual impact upon SKF India’s profits.Department’s PositionWe agree with Petitioner. Consistentwith section 773(c) of the Act, wecalculated a profit rate using surrogatedata, in this case the SKF Report.Regarding the appropriateness of thisreport for the profit calculation, we notethat East Sea did not provide anyevidence to support its claim that theprofit rate is inappropriate because thecompany had affiliated-partytransactions.Comment 21Petitioner contends that theDepartment improperly accepted CMC’sclaim that it incurred no U.S. sellingexpenses on constructed export pricesales made during the POR. Petitionerrecommends that the Departmentcalculate these expenses on the basis ofthe facts available and use the highestSG&A expense of any respondent in thisreview.Department’s PositionWe disagree with Petitioner. Weacknowledge that, aside from our initialquestionnaire, we did not pursue theissue of CMC’s U.S. selling expenses ineither the supplemental questionnaireor by conducting a verification of CMC’sU.S. facility. Because we did notprovide CMC an opportunity to cure anyperceived deficiency in its responseconcerning such expenses and becausewe do not have information on therecord contradicting the informationthat CMC provided, we have acceptedthis information for the final results.3. FreightComment 22Petitioner claims that the Departmentcalculated freight expenses incorrectlyby multiplying the surrogate freight rateby the net weight of each bearing ratherthan by the gross weight of the bearingas packaged for shipment. Petitionerstates that a reasonable allowance forthe weight of packaging materialsshould be made in calculating bothocean-freight and inland-freight rates,arguing that packaging does not travelfree of charge. Petitioner suggests thatthe Department could use, as a PI sourceon the record for this review, a packinglist of CMC Guizhou, submitted byDistribution Services, Ltd. (DSL), onSeptember 27, 1995. Petitioner statesthat the packing list shows both grossand net weights of pallets of severalcommon TRB models and that theaverage weight difference is about eightpercent. Therefore, Petitioner asserts,the Department should multiply the netweights by 1.08 to reflect the weight ofpackaging.Department’s PositionWe agree with Petitioner that a cost isincurred with respect to shipment ofpacking materials. Upon reviewing thepacking list of CMC Guizhou, we havedetermined that the packing documentDSL submitted in this review is anindependent and reliable source forsuch information. Accordingly, for thefinal results, we have derived the grossweight used in calculating the oceanfreightexpense by multiplying the netweight by 1.08.Comment 23Petitioner states that the Departmenterroneously used the Indian wholesalepriceindex (WPI) to adjust for inflationof ocean-freight cost. Petitionercontends that, because the Departmentused the U.S. dollar rates quoted byMaersk, Inc., a U.S. company, anyadjustment for inflation should be basedon dollar inflation. Petitioner suggeststhat the Department adjust ocean freightcosts using the U.S. producer-priceindex for finished goods, the U.S.equivalent of the Indian WPI.
Page 2 and 3:
IIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 4 and 5:
IVFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 6 and 7:
VIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 8 and 9:
6099Rules and RegulationsFederal Re
Page 12 and 13:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
6308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
iiFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 352:
ivFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
show all

federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?