The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Import Administration, has completed its preliminary review of antidumping duties levied on tapered roller bearings from China. The period of imports under review is June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007.

The final result of this extended review has been that Commerce has hit tapered roller bearings from China, regardless of their source, with a 92.84% antidumping duty, up more than 50% from the initial finding, which would have kept the duty at 60.95%.

This increase is a critical development in the industry, not only because so many tapered roller bearings in the U.S. market are from China, but also because the U.S. "all other" rate for tapered roller bearings from China had been held at 60.95% since it was first levied back in 1993.

producer / exporter	old duty	new duty
Peer Bearing Company Changshan (CPZ)	59.41%	92.84%
PRC-wide "all other" including Yantai Timken	60.95%	92.84%

In the administrative review (AD), Commerce found that Peer Bearing Company Changshan (CPZ) sold bearings into the United States "at prices below normal value." The initial results are dated July 17, 2008, and invited response at that time

eBearing article: Commerce Conducts 20th China TRB Review
The above article also includes detailed information about how the various duties were calculated.

Federal Register notice : 73 FR 41033 : [PDF format]
NOTE: Peer is now an operating division of SKF AB. During the period under review, Peer was a privately-held U.S. Corporation.

Responses and comments were received from Timken and CPZ in August and September; Commerce then extended its own deadline from November until now. A hearing was held on December 9, 2008. Issues raised by Timken and CPZ were reviewed in a January 13 Decision Memorandum, and the final findings were then placed in the Federal Register.

Decision Memorandum : Jan. 13, 2009 : [PDF format]
Federal Register notice : 74 FR 3987 : Jan. 22, 2009 [PDF format]
The TRBs under review include finished bearings, bearing components and assemblies, including flange, take-up, cartridge and hangar units, and pillow blocks, with or without hubs and spindles (clarifying a question surrounding automotive wheel bearing hub units).

Key to the final results is that Commerce has dramatically increased the punitive "all other" rate to reflect the higher rate now applied to CPZ.

Although it did not seem meaningful at the time, Timken made a move in 2007 which later turned the entire China TRB antidumping duty situation on its head.

In September 2007, Timken withdrew its participation in Commerce's review of Yantai Timken, saying it was not worthwhile: "Yantai Timken reported that its U.S. sales of subject merchandise (from pre-existing U.S. inventory) were few in number and small in value. Moreover, Yantai Timken stated that given the small volume of exports and sales it made during the period of review, it has determined to forgo the expense of preparing and filing a questionnaire response."

By failing to respond to Commerce, Yantai Timken did lose its separate tariff treatment and was thrown back into the pool of "all other" Chinese tapered roller bearing manufacturers, all subject to the same industry-wide antidumping duties.

Dropping out of the analysis changed the makeup of the data pool, and in a domino effect, Commerce had to recalculate China's entire antidumping duty program for tapered bearings.

The review process took a haircut because other Chinese producers also failed to cooperate in previous antidumping reviews. Failing to cooperate allows Commerce to apply the concept of adverse facts available (AFA). Commerce, "found the PRC-wide entity, which includes Yantai Timken, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information and thereby impeded the Department's proceeding, the Department assigned the PRC-wide entity a rate base on adverse facts available (AFA)."

Essentially, Commerce assumes companies refuse to cooperate because they know that doing so would result in even higher duties. So Commerce calculates and sets a rate that is, "sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated." Setting the 92.84% rate, commerce "used the highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding."

Because Timken was successful putting forth arguments that pushed CPZ's rate to 92.84%, it necessarily followed that Commerce had to raise the "all other" rate because it was lower than 92.84%. Lacking any secondary information, Commerce said the "all other" rate could not go higher than 92.84%.