The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission, has issued its ruling regarding duties on tapered roller bearings and components from China. Commerce Case number is A-570-601 [original A-570-601 Review].

Commerce's Period of Review (POR) for the duty determination is June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006.

Following its initial determination in March, Commerce requested comments and received responses which it used to make some modifications to that determination.

Case briefs were presented by Timken and Peer Bearing-Changshan (CPZ); both later submitted rebuttal briefs. The other companies, Yantai Timken, Chin Jun Industrial and Heibei Longsheng did not submit case or rebuttal briefs.

While Yantai Timken rescinded its review request last September 2006, Koyo Corp. of USA requested a review of Yantai, so Commerce did not rescind Yantai's review. Chin Jun had no shipments, so was removed from the review. Heibei was removed due to lack of review request.

Products covered by the order are tapered roller bearings and components from the Peoples Republic of China: flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings, and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. HTSUS: 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45[2], 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80. (although HUSUS numbers are provided, Commerce considers the written description as what is dispotive)

[2] - for 8482.99.45, Timken successfully argued that the previous HTSUS had separated cups and cones from "other" TRB parts, so commerce now uses 8482.99.15 for cups and cones, and 8482.99.45 for "other" TRB components.

In its Preliminary Results, Commerce found the rate for all TRBs from China should continue to be 60.95%.

In the review period, Commerce said it did not find any reason to change that review number, that it is "reliable because it was calculated for a respondent company in the final results of redetermination on remand from the Court of International Trade, for the seventh administrative review of TRBs covering June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994."

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce found the 60.95% rate was, "relevant because no record evidence called it into question." And for the Final Results, "we continue to find that the 60.95% rate is reliable and relevant and therefore corroborated."

So the Final Results of Review are:

TRBs from the PRC - June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006

All PRC entities . . . . . . . 60.95% weighted average margin


Note that different rates exist for Chinese manufacturers who requested and received separate reviews. Those individually determined rates remain in effect.

Adverse Facts Applied

CPZ and Yantai did not submit responses to the Department's questionnaires issued in this segment of the proceeding. In the Preliminary Results, the Department stated that because CPZ and Yantai failed to submit questionnaire responses, they had not demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate and were therefore subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR 14079. Furthermore, we found in the Preliminary Results that because the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld or failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested by the Department, or otherwise impeded the proceeding, it was appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using facts otherwise available on the record and that an adverse inference was appropriate. See Preliminary Results 72 FR at 14079. We continue to find that the application of the country-wide rate of 60.95%, as total adverse facts available (AFA), is appropriate.

Reference the original text of this decision as 72 FR 56724 [PDF format].