66 FR 57420, November 15, 2001 A-570-601 Administrative Review POR: 6/1/99-5/31/00 PUBLIC DOCUMENT DAS I/1: JG MEMORANDUM TO: Faryar Shirzad Assistant Secretary for Import Administration FROM: Richard W. Moreland Deputy Assistant Secretary Import Administration, Group I SUBJECT: Issues and Decision Memo for the 1999-2000 Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results SUMMARY We have analyzed the briefs and rebuttal briefs of interested parties in the 1999-2000 administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished ("TRBs"), from the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). As a result of our analysis, we have made changes, including corrections of certain inadvertent programming and clerical errors, in margin calculations. We recommend that you approve the positions we have developed in the Discussion of Issues section of this memorandum. Below is a complete list of the issues in this administrative review for which we received comments and rebuttals by parties: Comment 1: Market Economy Steel Values Comment 2: Addition of Inventory Carrying Costs to Market Economy Steel Values Comment 3: Steel Used to Value Cups and Cones Comment 4: Adding Ocean Freight and Marine Insurance to the Japanese Exports to India Data Comment 5: Use of Indonesian Steel Import Statistics for Valuing Rollers Comment 6: Steel Input Used to Value Cages Comment 7: Labor Costs Comment 8: Inflation Adjustment Comment 9: Revocations Comment 10: Rescinding Reviews of Hailin and Weihai Comment 11: CMC's Market Economy Steel Values Comment 12: Use of Adverse Facts Available for Products Sourced from Unaffiliated CMC Suppliers Comment 13: CMC's U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs Comment 14: CMC's U.S. Duty and U.S. Inland Freight Expenses Comment 15: Hailin's Scrap Offset Comment 16: Valuation of Certain Luoyang TRB Components Comment 17: Luoyang Energy Factors Comment 18: Wanxiang's Transport Distances Comment 19: Wanxiang's Energy Factors Comment 20: Weihai SG&A and Labor Comment 21: ZMC's Financial Statements Comment 22: ZMC's Energy Factors BACKGROUND On July 10, 2000, the Department of Commerce ("the Department") published the preliminary results and partial rescission of this administrative review of TRBs from the PRC. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 35937 ("Preliminary Results"). The period of review ("POR") is June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. At the request of The Timken Company ("the petitioner"), we held a public hearing on October 10, 2001. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES Common Issues Comment 1: Market Economy Steel Values Respondents' Argument: China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation ("CMC"), Luoyang Bearing Corportion ("Luoyang"), Wanxiang Group Corporation ("Wanxiang"), Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation ("Hailin"), and Weihai Machinery Holding (Group) Co. ("Weihai") (collectively, "CMC et al.") (1) assert that the purpose of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended ("the Act") is to determine margins as accurately as possible and, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Department to base its findings upon substantial evidence on the record so that its determinations are in accordance with law. However, CMC et al. allege that the Department failed to do so here when it relied on the methodology employed in TRBs XII (2) (3) and improperly rejecting actual market-driven steel prices paid to market economy suppliers. First, CMC et al. contend that, in contrast to TRBs XII, on the record of this review the market economy steel supplier affirmatively and conclusively refuted the allegations of a "reason to believe or suspect" the existence of "general subsidies" by stating that it did not receive any countervailable subsidies or benefits from programs found by the Department to constitute countervailable subsidies in its sales to the PRC. See CMC et al.'s August 28, 2001 submission, at Exhibit 1; Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp.'s ("ZMC") May 29, 2001 response, at 1. Thus, CMC et al. claim that the Department's rejection of the actual input prices is contradicted by evidence on the record of this review. Even in the absence of such statements by the market economy steel supplier, CMC et al. allege that the Department improperly and adversely presumed without substantial evidence that the market economy steel supplier: (1) manufactures the products subject to these countervailing duty ("CVD") orders; (2) would not have received a zero or de minimis CVD margin had it been investigated; and (3) would similarly have received a CVD margin on the hot-rolled steel bar sold to the PRC respondents were there a CVD investigation in the PRC on this product. CMC et al. claim that neither the petitioner nor the Department can point to any evidence on the record that the market economy steel supplier was subject to any CVD order and that the CVD cases identified by the petitioner or relied upon by the Department do not support a continuing "reason to believe or suspect" that market economy steel inputs purchased were subject to subsidization. Furthermore, according to CMC et al., the Department improperly relied upon CVD findings in a third country and on different products than those at issue here. CMC et al. contend that an inference that the material inputs used to produce the subject merchandise were not purchased at market-determined prices, based on the fact that different products and suppliers in the market economy steel industry have been found to receive countervailable subsidies, does not equate to substantial evidence necessary to support the Department's rejection of actual market prices. Moreover, there is inadequate support in case law and Department precedent for rejecting surrogate values based on allegations of "general subsidies" from unrelated CVD proceedings on other products and even much less for rejecting actual prices on that basis. (4) CMC et al. also contend that the Department's decision lacks a "reasoned explanation supported by a stated connection between the facts found and the choice made" as well as "an examination of the relevant data." (5) Specifically, CMC et al. claim that the Department failed to identify the CVD orders upon which it relied for its decision in this review. Presuming that the Department relied on the same "general subsidies" from U.S. CVD investigations on different steel products, but not on the product or supplier in question, to reject actual prices, then the Department has improperly based it decision to reject actual prices on a finding of countervailable subsidies made in the United States, rather than in the PRC. Finally, CMC et al. argue that the Department has failed to apply the preference of the applicable law and the Department's established practice for valuing inputs based on prices paid to market economy suppliers rather than using surrogate values. (6) ZMC argues that the Department should use the actual prices ZMC paid for steel used to produce cups, cones, and cages because ZMC imported the steel from a market economy country and paid for the steel in market economy currencies. Moreover, the record evidence shows no CVD orders in China, the United States, or any other country on the specific steel and there was no evidence any named producer or exporter of the steel had dumped or received a subsidy. ZMC notes that the Department did not request ZMC to provide information regarding whether the steel ZMC purchased was subsidized or dumped and, therefore, the Department denied ZMC the opportunity to address effectively the issue in this review. ZMC requests that it be given an opportunity to present information to rebut any suspicions by the Department that the imported steel was dumped or subsidized. Furthermore, ZMC contends that the Department has asserted authority based on a flawed interpretation of the statute and legislative history and has, in effect, imposed a rule-without the benefit of rule- making- in which it has created a vague and indefinite definition of a "subsidy" that rises to the level of an exclusionary practice. In particular, ZMC claims that, if the Department intends to apply a subsidy standard defined by CVD law, then the Department should similarly require that the alleged subsidy be injurious. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner first contends that the statement provided by the market economy supplier is not a basis for the Department to change its position because the statement is uncertified factual information. Second, the petitioner argues that the Department's decision in the Preliminary Results is consistent with its analysis in TRBs XII, the legislative history, (7) and controlling principles of administrative law. The Department did not apply adverse presumptions against CMC et al. and ZMC ("the respondents"), but rather drew reasonable conclusions-on the basis of substantial record evidence-that the market economy supplier may take advantage of government programs benefitting steel and that a general program would have the effect of benefitting the supplier's production, including the steel in question. Finally, the petitioner argues that there is no controlling preference for actual market prices, as CMC et al. suggest. The petitioner distinguishes Lasko, which did not involve market- economy prices that the Department had affirmative reason to believe or suspect were unfair. Moreover, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1) provides that the Department will normally use public information to calculate NME values, and that using actual market economy rules is an exception to the rule that should not be employed in this case. Department's Position: We agree, in part, with both the petitioner and the respondents. 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1) stipulates that "where a factor is purchased from a market economy supplier and paid for in a market economy currency, the Secretary normally will use the price paid to the market economy supplier" to value the factors of production. The Department has consistently utilized reported market economy input prices and this practice has been affirmed by the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit"). (8) We agree with the respondents that a market economy import price paid by an NME producer will normally be the best available information to value a factor of production. However, the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which provided the current method for determining normal value in nonmarket economy cases, states that "in valuing such (nonmarket economy) factors, Commerce shall avoid using any prices which it has reason to believe or suspect may be dumped or subsidized prices." (9) This legislative history further states that "the conferees do not intend for Commerce to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not dumped or subsidized, but rather intend that Commerce base its decision on information generally available to it at the time." (10) Consistent with this principle, we disregard prices that are distorted or aberrational in order to ensure accuracy. (11) The Department has reason to believe or suspect that input prices may be dumped or subsidized when there exists, based on all the circumstances, particular and objective record evidence that supports such a belief or suspicion. (12) The existence of countervailable subsidies on non-product specific exports of steel may support a Department decision that there exists a reason to believe or suspect that such export prices are not the best available surrogate information. (13) As we noted in TRBs XII, the Department has consistently recognized the congressional intent to avoid using any prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be dumped or subsidized. In that review, we concluded that the "believe or suspect" standard is met when the importing country has a dumping or subsidy finding on the input in question. Moreover, because dumping analyses typically compare the prices of imports in the investigating country with the home market prices in the country being investigated, dumping findings are market specific. Thus, consistent with TRBs XII, we do not agree that U.S. (or other third country) antidumping findings provide a basis to believe or suspect that import prices into the surrogate country are dumped. (14) When ruling out dumped or subsidized prices for purposes of valuing an NME input, we also believe that, consistent with TRBs XII, it is appropriate to apply the "believe or suspect" standard in situations where we are using actual import prices into the NME in question. Thus, where the NME producer is importing an input from a market economy country, if the NME country has a dumping or subsidies finding in place against the input from the surrogate country, that finding would lead us to believe or suspect that the input price was dumped or subsidized. While AD findings by their nature are narrowly focused, CVD findings can provide information beyond the specific conclusion that a particular product shipped to a particular market is subsidized. The Department recognized this in TRBs XII when we referred to "general subsidies." This means that even if the importing surrogate country or NME does not have a subsidies finding, it may be possible to have reason to believe or suspect that the prices of the input in question are subsidized. For example, if a U.S. CVD finding includes subsidies that would appear to be used generally, such as a broadly available export subsidy, then it might be reasonable to infer that exports from the investigated country to all export markets are subsidized. (15) When the facts developed in U.S. or third country CVD findings are sufficient to allow the Department to infer that there are broadly available subsidies, the Department will consider that it has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the input from that country are subsidized. CMC et al. and ZMC both contend that the record lacks substantial evidence that the material inputs used to produce the subject merchandise were dumped or subsidized. However, our analysis in TRBs XII of CVD findings provides reason in the instant review to believe or suspect that certain market economy prices paid by PRC producers of TRBs for their steel inputs are subsidized. See Memorandum to the File, "Market Economy Steel Memo," dated November 7, 2001 (incorporating from TRBs XII the proprietary Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland regarding Allegation of Unfair Steel Prices, dated January 3, 2001) ("Market Economy Steel Memo"). The respondents allege that our reason to believe or suspect input prices are subsidized because of the existence of general subsidies is refuted by the market economy supplier's affirmative statement on the record of this review that, in its sales to the PRC, it did not benefit from any programs previously found by the Department to constitute countervailable subsidies. We disagree with the respondents. We have reviewed this statement and find that it is insufficient to vitiate our reason to believe or suspect that the supplier benefitted from subsidization, particularly with respect to the material inputs sold to the PRC. In TRBs XII, the Department conducted an exhaustive analysis of current CVD orders and found that we could reasonably infer that the particular market economy steel used by PRC TRB producers was subsidized. See Market Economy Steel Memo. In contrast to the Department's thorough examination in the prior review, which is incorporated into the instant review, the respondents placed on this record an unsupported statement that they assert refutes the Department's reason to believe or suspect standard. We disagree with the respondents that the statement from the supplier in the market economy country refutes the Department's reason to believe or suspect subsidization. We find the statement unsupported because it contains no sales, financial, or other empirical economic information demonstrating that the supplier's prices were not subsidized. The statement also lacks any specificity, particularly as it does not indicate the basis upon which the supplier makes its statement. Further, even if the supplier's statement is substantial evidence that it did not benefit from programs previously found by the Department to be countervailable, such evidence would merely conflict with, rather than vitiate, the evidence upon which the Department has relied. The fact that the evidence in the statement conflicts with that relied on by the Department does not require that the Department no longer base its decision upon the evidence of general subsidies. It merely means that the Department must consider all the circumstances and evidence, and base its decision upon that record evidence that it determines is reliable. When conflicting inferences are drawn from the record evidence, the decision as to the credibility of the evidence is well within the province of the Department. (16) Thus, for purposes of these final results, we do not consider this statement as credible as our Market Economy Steel Memo. Accordingly, the Department continues to have reason to believe or suspect that the market economy supplier in fact does benefit from general subsidies available to and used by steel producers in that country. Furthermore, we disagree with the respondents' contention that the Department has improperly based it decision to reject actual prices on a finding of countervailable subsidies made in the United States, rather than in the PRC. As the Federal Circuit held in Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, "In determining the valuation of the factors of production, the critical question is whether the methodology used by Commerce is based on the best available information and establishes antidumping margins as accurately as possible." (17) With regard to the valuation of steel inputs in the instant case, we have examined the available information and find credible, particular, and objective evidence from the Market Economy Steel Memo that supports our reason to believe or suspect that certain market economy steel purchased for use in TRBs benefitted unfairly from subsidization. Thus, we find that the use of surrogate values instead of market economy steel prices will result in the calculation of a more accurate dumping margin. Accordingly, consistent with TRBs XII, we have not used these subsidized prices to value the PRC producers' factors of production and have continued to rely on surrogate values. This is because it would be inappropriate for the Department to use a market economy import price if it has reason to believe or suspect that the import price was dumped or subsidized. Thus, although a market economy price will normally be the best available information to accurately value a factor of production in a nonmarket economy case, if there is reason to believe or suspect that the market economy price is dumped or subsidized, then we will rely instead on surrogate values. Comment 2: Addition of Inventory Carrying Costs to Market Economy Steel Values Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should add inventory carrying costs to the market-economy steel values reported by certain respondents, including CMC. The petitioner notes that certain respondents, including CMC, have reported that they purchase their market- economy steel only once per year. The petitioner argues that there is no information for some respondents indicating whether these infrequent purchases of market economy steel are part of the normal business practice for these respondents, and whether these practices differ from domestic steel purchases. Without this information, the petitioner contends that some companies may have incurred extra costs by using imported steel for exports to the United States beyond those they would have incurred if domestic steel had been used. Further, with respect to CMC, the petitioner also argues that CMC did not respond to the Department's question with respect to its inventory and warehousing practices for steel, and instead answered by stating that any such costs were included in overhead and selling, general, and administrative expenses. The petitioner argues that these inventory carrying costs are imputed expenses which must be accounted for if the Department uses CMC's reported market economy steel. The petitioner contends that an adverse inference must be used in calculating these costs, as CMC did not provide information requested by the Department, and did not represent that it made its best efforts to obtain the information. Respondents' Argument: CMC et al. disagree with the petitioner, and state that additional inventory carrying costs should not be added to the reported market economy values. CMC et al. first point out that the Department's Policy Memorandum No. 94.2 discusses inventory carrying expenses in the context of finished goods inventory only. CMC et al. argue that, if the Department had intended for inventory carrying costs to include anything more than finished goods, the Department would have made mention of this. CMC et al. point out that even the petitioner argued in TRBs XII that inventory carrying costs apply only to finished goods. Furthermore, CMC et al. argue that there is nothing in the relevant statute that calls for an adjustment for inventory carrying costs with respect to raw material inputs. Finally, CMC et al. state that, as is their practice with domestic steel, they purchase steel when the price is most favorable. CMC et al. argue that, although an agreement may be reached to purchase market economy steel, many times the agreement specifies that the steel is to be shipped periodically throughout the year. Thus, CMC et al. report that they make their purchases like any other reasonable purchaser. Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner and are not adding amounts for inventory carrying costs to market economy steel values that are being used for these final results. The petitioner has provided no information other than mere speculation to support its allegation that there are differences in domestic steel versus imported steel purchasing practices. Moreover, the Department has found in past cases that, although a respondent may make an imported steel purchase when the prices are low that will include enough steel for a year's worth of production, in some cases, that steel is generally not shipped all at once, but periodically over the course of a set period of time. See Attachment 3 of the November 7, 2001 Final Results Calculation Memorandum for China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation ("CMC Final Results Calculation Memorandum"), which contains excerpts from CMC's verification report from TRBs XII ("CMC TRBs XII Verification Report"). This document has been placed on the record of this proceeding and also is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit which is located in the main Commerce building in Room B-099. Thus, there is no evidence that this type of delivery of a purchase is any different from domestic steel deliveries. Moreover, with respect to CMC, in its response, CMC reported that the inventory and warehousing practices for CMC and its unaffiliated suppliers and subcontractors do not vary based on whether the steel is purchased from a domestic or market economy supplier. Furthermore, as noted above, the Department verified that steel shipments for market economy steel purchases can be delivered to CMC throughout the course of the year. Thus, CMC did provide a sufficient response to the Department's inquiry, and there is no evidence that there is any difference in domestic and market economy steel deliveries. Finally, it has not been the Department's past practice to include inventory carrying costs in any calculations prior to the time the merchandise is completed and entered into finished goods inventory. As noted by CMC et al., there is nothing in the Act that would call for an adjustment for inventory carrying costs with respect to raw material inputs. Moreover, inventory carrying costs are not separately identifiable (even in market economy cases), but are picked up indirectly in financing interest costs and, therefore, are actually included in the surrogate interest ratio. Therefore, because there is insufficient information to support the petitioner's position with respect to this issue, we are not adding inventory carrying costs to any market economy steel used in the final results. Comment 3: Steel Used to Value Cups and Cones Respondents' Argument: The respondents disagree with the Department's use of data on Japanese exports to India to value steel used to produce cups and cones, claiming that data is aberrant and unreliable. CMC et al. argue that, in the Preliminary Results, the Department rejected Indian import data to value cups and cones as unreliable because the Department found this data to be significantly higher than any price within the U.S. benchmark range. See the Department's June 29, 2001 memorandum, Selection of a Surrogate Country and Steel Value Sources ("Steel Values Memorandum") at 3. Additionally, CMC et al. state that it is well founded that any data that significantly exceeds the U.S. benchmark is aberrant and, therefore, unreliable. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand in Olympia Industrial, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 98-49, (Ct. Int'l Trade, April 17, 1998). In this case, because the Japanese export steel value ($923) as calculated for the Preliminary Results exceeds the U.S. benchmark range ($500 - $789/MT), the respondents argue that the Department should reject this value. CMC et al. argue that the range in the Japanese data between June ($270/MT) and July 1999 ($2,062/MT) further supports its position that this data is aberrant. Instead, the respondents urge the Department to use Indonesian import data to value steel used to produce cups and cones. ZMC argues that: (1) in previous reviews, the Department has determined that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country; (2) the Indonesian trade data covers the same Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") category (7228.30.0000) as the Japanese export category used by the Department for the Preliminary Results; and (3) the Indonesian surrogate value falls within the Department's benchmark range. Therefore, the respondents conclude that the Indonesian data is the best available information and the most appropriate to calculate the steel input value. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner agrees with the Department's use of data on Japanese exports to India to value the steel used to produce cups and cones. The petitioner argues that the respondents failed to provide substantial evidence to justify using Indonesia as a surrogate country or to demonstrate the reliability of the Indonesian import data. According to the petitioner, the record shows that the Indonesian bearing industry is small and, because the Indonesian HTS category is a broad aggregate basket category, the data is unreliable. The petitioner further argues that, although the Japanese HTS number is also a basket category, it is more narrowly defined and more likely to contain bearing quality steel than the Indonesian HTS category. Finally, the petitioner dismisses the respondents' argument that the Indonesian steel prices, unlike the Japanese steel prices, are within the U.S. benchmark price range. Specifically, the petitioner argues that it is not appropriate to compare the narrow U.S. steel category with the broad aggregate Indonesian category because the two categories are not the same product groups. Thus, the petitioner concludes that the Indonesian data is unsuitable on its face and that the respondents failed to show that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country. Department's Position: We disagree with the respondents and continue to find the data on Japanese exports to India to be the most accurate for valuing steel used in the production of cups and cones. In the Preliminary Results, we compared potential surrogate prices from India to data contained in U.S. HTS category 7228.30.20 (Other Bars and Rods, Ball Bearing Steel, Not Further Worked Than Hot-Rolled or Extruded) in order to gauge the reliability of the values. In selecting a surrogate value for steel used in the production of cups and cones, the Department found that data for Indian import HTS category 7228.3019 (Others) to be unreliable. Because we found the Indian import statistics to be unreliable, we next examined data on Japanese exports to India from the Japanese HTS category 7228.30.900 (Other Bars and Rods, Hot-Rolled, of Other Alloy Steel). In comparing this category to the range of values contained in the U.S. benchmark category, we found that the Japanese export prices to India could appropriately serve as the surrogate value for this input. Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, CMC et al. submitted for the record updated Indian import data that was contemporaneous with the POR. In light of this new submission, we repeated the comparison process described above, beginning with the Indian data. As we have repeatedly found in the past (see, e.g., TRBs XII), we were unable to isolate bearing quality steel in Indian import category 7228.30 because none of the eight- digit sub-categories within 7228.30 specifically include bearing quality steel bar. Only the "Others" category, 7228.3019, could contain the type of bearing quality steel used in the production of cups and cones. Thus, we used 7228.3019 and calculated a new Indian surrogate value of $1,345/MT. In comparing these data from 7228.3019 to the range of prices found within U.S. import category 7228.30.20 (the only import category on record that explicitly contains only bearing quality steel), the Indian values continue to be unreliable. Therefore, we continue to find that Indian import prices from category 7228.3019 are less accurate for use in valuing steel used in the manufacture of cups and cones. We next re-examined the data on Japanese exports to India. As we have noted in the past, the Japanese export statistics provide a breakdown of the broad six digit 7228.30 category into several more narrowly defined sub-categories. Japanese category 7228.30.900, "Bars and Rods, of Other Alloy Steel," is a category that would include the type of bearing quality steel bar that would be used to manufacture cups and cones. In examining this data, we discovered that we had made a clerical error in our Preliminary Results calculations. After correcting this error, we determine that the average value of Japanese exports to India are $813.94/MT. (18) Because the Japanese tariff category is the narrowest category which could contain bearing quality steel, because it is consistent with values contained in our U.S. benchmark category, and because we have chosen India as our primary surrogate country, we believe that the Japanese export data provides the best available information for valuing steel used in the production of cups and cones. Comment 4: Adding Ocean Freight and Marine Insurance to the Japanese Exports to India Data Respondents' Argument: The respondents disagree with the adjustment the Department made in the Preliminary Results to the Japanese exports to India data used to value the steel for the production of cups and cones to account for ocean freight and marine insurance. CMC et al. argue that the adjustment itself is unreliable and aberrant when compared with U.S. data on Japanese exports to the United States. Further underscoring this unreliability, CMC et al. argue, is the fact that the Department reported two inconsistent figures for the very same data (see Steel Values Memorandum at Attachment 5). Moreover, CMC et al. contend that the U.S. trade statistics already on the record show imports from Japan to the United States for hot-rolled steel bar (HTS 7228.50.1010) have a customs value of $500.37/MT and a CIF value of $573.06/MT, which demonstrates that the ocean freight and marine insurance adjustment of $226/MT is clearly aberrant. CMC et al. maintain that, based upon the data on the record, the U.S. freight and insurance costs adjustment for shipment from Japan to the United States should be approximately $73.00 ($573.06 - $500.37). ZMC argues that the Department has the resources to find better surrogate values if it were to construct a value rather than "engage in the highly fictional effort of selecting ocean freight and marine insurance values for shipments from Japan to India." ZMC contends that it is unnecessary to adjust the Japanese export prices because steel prices are relatively uniform around the world, and it is reasonable to assume that the domestic Indian prices for bearing quality steel are comparable to Japanese export prices for bearing steel. Furthermore, ZMC believes the Department's use of ocean freight rates based on China to U.S. container rates for subject merchandise and marine insurance rates based on subject merchandise rates to value steel shipments is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, if the Department continues to make an ocean freight and marine insurance adjustment to the Japanese export prices, ZMC argues that the Department must, consistent with the statutory mandate, select surrogate ocean freight and marine insurance rates applicable to steel. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner agrees with the Department's adjustment. The petitioner argues that the cost of shipping the steel from Japan to India is necessarily a part of the input's cost and that the Department recognized this fact in TRBs XII. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that, in TRBs XII, the Department considered using U.S. import data to calculate the cost of ocean freight and insurance by subtracting the FAS values from the CIF values but decided to reject this approach. The petitioner argues that CMC et al. is making this same argument but without explaining why the Department should reconsider its previous position. Therefore, the petitioner believes that the respondents' contentions lack merit and that the Department should accordingly reject them in whole. Department's Position: We disagree, in part, with the respondents. In the Preliminary Results, we calculated two different values for the freight and marine insurance costs, $216.29/MT in Attachment 5 of the Steel Values Memorandum and $225.84/MT in Attachment 2 of the Department's June 29, 2001 memorandum, Factors of Production Values Used for the Preliminary Results. However, both values are correct. The first value was calculated for shipments to the West coast based on 20 foot containers. The second value was also calculated for the West coast, but was an average of the 20 foot and 40 foot container rates. As in TRBs XII, we applied only the latter ocean freight rate to the Japanese export data in our calculation of the surrogate steel value used for cups and cones in the Preliminary Results. The inclusion of the $216.29/MT in the Steel Values Memorandum was unintentional and never applied. As for CMC et al.'s argument that the amount of the adjustment is aberrant when compared with U.S. data on Japanese exports to the United States, we agree with the petitioner that the method applied by the Department is reasonable. In TRBs XII, the Department found serious flaws with using U.S. import data and subtracting the FAS values from the CIF values to arrive at the cost of ocean freight and insurance. See Department's January 3, 2001 memorandum, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 1998-1999 Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results ("TRBs XII Decision Memorandum") at Comment 11. Nevertheless, for these final results, we performed similar comparisons as were done in TRBs XII using data reasonably available to the Department and again found that there was no correlation, as would be expected, between the rate and either distance or time. Therefore, we do not find values generated by this means to be a reasonable source of comparison or a reasonable source for a surrogate value. Furthermore, the Department believes it is necessary to adjust the Japanese export data in order for it to reflect Indian imported steel values, which would assuredly include movement expenses. See TRBs XII Decision Memorandum, Comment 7. To make this adjustment, the Department has used the best available information to value the ocean freight and marine insurance costs. As using surrogate values is, by its nature, an inexact but necessary practice, of the available freight cost data on the record, the PRC to U.S. west coast data most closely approximates the shipping distance between Japan and India. Comment 5: Use of Indonesian Steel Import Statistics for Valuing Rollers Respondent's Argument: ZMC argues that the Department should use Indonesian import data to value steel used for the production of rollers. First, ZMC contends that the Indonesian tariff category 7228.5000 covers the same Indian import category the Department used in the Preliminary Results: tariff category 7228.5009. Second, ZMC argues that, in TRBs XII, the Department used Indonesian import data to value rollers in the preliminary results of that review because the Department found the Indian import date to be unreliable. Finally, ZMC contends that the Indonesian import value for the POR is $732.17/MT (see Venable August 28, 2001 submission at Attachment 2) while the Indian value (using the contemporaneous Indian import data) is $1,869.35/MT. Therefore, as the U.S. benchmark value is $1137/MT, the Indonesian value is the most reliable and should be used to value the steel input used to calculate rollers. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner disagrees with ZMC. As petitioner argues above in Comment 3, Indonesia is not an appropriate surrogate country nor a reliable source of import data. The petitioner states that although 7228.5000 would cover 7228.5009, it would also cover Indian national subheading 7228.5001, which the Department found not to be used in the production of rollers. Additionally, the petitioner argues that ZMC did not make the appropriate adjustments in accordance with Departmental practice to the contemporaneous Indian data. Had ZMC made these adjustments, the petitioner maintains, it would have determined that the Indian value is remarkably close to the U.S. benchmark. The petitioner made the following adjustments to the contemporaneous Indian import data: (1) excluded Australia (not a bearing-quality steel producer), (2) excluded several countries with small quantities under five metric tons with unusually high prices, and (3) disregarded the April 2000 imports from Japan as a relatively small quantity with an unusually high price. The resulting Indian steel price is $1,416/MT, which the petitioner argues is only 25 percent higher than the U.S. benchmark ($1,137/MT), which certainly does not make it aberrant or unreliable. Department's Position: Both the petitioner and ZMC calculated a surrogate value for the steel used in the production of rollers using the contemporaneous Indian import data. ZMC calculated a surrogate value of $1,869.35/MT, unadjusted, and $1,693.848/MT, adjusted, and the petitioner calculated a surrogate value of $1,416/MT, adjusted. We disagree with ZMC's and the petitioner's calculations. According to our calculations, the surrogate value for rollers based on imports to India is $1,564/MT. See Department's November 7, 2001 memorandum, Factors of Production Values Used for the Final Results. We find this value to be reliable when compared to the U.S. benchmark value of $1,137/MT. Additionally, we agree with the petitioner that, unlike the Indonesian data, we are able to more narrowly define the Indian HTS category 7228.5000 into subcategories 7228.5001 and 7228.5009. The petitioner is correct that, based on the descriptions of the two Indian subcategories, the Department has found that steel subcategory, 7228.5001, is not used in the production of rollers. Therefore, as we have done in prior reviews, we identified subcategory 7228.5009 as the only category that could contain bearing quality steel. See Steel Values Memorandum at 4. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we are continuing to use the Indian import statistics to value steel used in the production of rollers. Comment 6: Steel Input Used to Value Cages Respondent's Argument: ZMC recommends that the Department use the contemporaneous Indian import data submitted by CMC et al. to determine the surrogate value for the steel used to manufacture cages. ZMC states that by using HTS category 7209.1600, which is the same HTS category used in the Preliminary Results, the average value for the POR was 17.9456 Rs/kg or $412.47/MT. According to ZMC, this value satisfies all requirements. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner states that if the Department chooses to use the updated Indian import statistics submitted by respondents, as suggested by ZMC, it should exclude imports from Ukraine, as it is a non-market economy. Department's Position: We agree with ZMC and the petitioner. For the final results, we used the updated Indian import data to value the steel used in the production of cages and made adjustments to the data in accordance with the Department's practice. Comment 7: Labor Costs Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that normal value should be adjusted upwards to include additional labor costs. The petitioner contests the Department's use of the Chapter 5 (Wages) data of the International Labor Office's 1999 Yearbook of Labour Statistics to value PRC labor costs. The petitioner argues that the wage data in Chapter 5 do not include all labor costs and suggests that the Department use the Chapter 6 (Labour Cost) data. The petitioner acknowledges that the Department previously ruled against this position in TRBs XII, but preserves the issue because it is currently pending in court. Respondents' Argument: The respondents agree with the Department's valuation of PRC labor costs and contend that the petitioner's argument is vague. According to ZMC, the petitioner is asserting that the Department's regulation is flawed. See section 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). ZMC argues that this methodology was adopted through a formal rule-making process. As such, ZMC contends that the court gives substantial deference to the Department as "'the master of the antidumping laws" and the court must undertake a two-step process to determine whether an agency has acted beyond its authority. See Torrington Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1347.1351 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), respectively. ZMC concludes that based on the petitioner's case brief and the record, there is no evidence that the Department exceeded its rule-making authority. Department's Position: The petitioner correctly states that the Department rejected the petitioner's position on this issue in TRBs XII. As pointed out by the respondent, the petitioner fails to bring any new information or argument to bear on this issue. Therefore, for these final results, the Department maintains the position it took in TRBs XII. See TRBs XII Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. Comment 8: Inflation Adjustment Petitioner's Argument: For the Preliminary Results, the Department adjusted certain factor values to account for inflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index ("WPI") index. At the time this inflation adjuster was calculated, data for the months of April and May 2000 were not available. The petitioner argues that data for these months is now available on the record and that the Department should include these two months in its calculation of the Indian WPI inflator. Respondent's Argument: ZMC agrees that the Department should use the full POR data for deriving the inflation adjustment. Department's Position: The Department agrees with the petitioner and ZMC and has updated the Indian WPI inflator accordingly for the final results. Comment 9: Revocations Respondents' Argument: Assuming, arguendo, that their final dumping margins in the instant review are zero or de minimis, CMC, Weihai, and Wanxiang argue that revocation is appropriate for these companies. They base their argument on the fact that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222, the companies will have: (1) demonstrated three consecutive years of sales above normal value; (2) provided certifications that they will not sell below normal value and have made sales to the United States in commercial quantities; and (3) agreed to the immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that, subsequent to revocation, that the company sold the merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value. CMC also notes that, despite the fact that the Department calculated a positive dumping margin for CMC in TRBs XII, it is confident that it will receive a zero rate following remand in that review. Although ZMC requested revocation at the onset of this review, it did not raise any arguments in its case brief. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should reject all requests for revocation inasmuch as none of the respondents requesting revocation has met the minimum requirement of three full years of sales that are above normal value and made in commercial quantities. Specifically: (1) CMC (and ZMC) were found to have made sales below normal value in the immediately preceding review; (2) Weihai has only two consecutive years of sales above normal value inasmuch as the Department has only reviewed two years of Weihai's shipments; and (3) although Wanxiang has three consecutive years of zero margins, in TRBs XII the Department found that Wanxiang had not been selling to the United States in commercial quantities. Thus, the petitioner asserts that none of these respondents qualifies for revocation. Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. The Department will revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in question has sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) the continued application of the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). As noted in the Preliminary Results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), Weihai, CMC, Wanxiang, and ZMC requested revocation of the antidumping duty order, in part, based on an absence of dumping for each company for at least three consecutive years. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), the companies' requests were accompanied by certifications that they had sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value during the current period of review and would not sell the subject merchandise at less than normal value in the future. They further certified that they sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. The companies also agreed to the immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, the companies sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value. In TRBs XII, CMC and ZMC were found to have made sales below normal value. Moreover, in the instant review, CMC was found to have made sales below normal value. Because CMC and ZMC do not have three consecutive years of sales at not less than normal value, CMC and ZMC do not qualify for revocation of the order on TRBs pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). As noted in the Preliminary Results, Weihai first participated in this proceeding as a new shipper. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 45511 (August 20, 1999) and TRBs XI and NSR. The new shipper review portion of TRBs XI and NSR covered the period June 1, 1998 through November 30, 1998. Subsequently, Weihai participated in TRBs XII, which covered the period June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999. See TRBs XII. Finally, Weihai is participating in the instant review, which covers the period June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000. Since the time period covered by the new shipper review in TRBs XI and NSR is included in the time period covered by TRBs XII, the Department has reviewed only two years of Weihai's shipments. Thus, Weihai has not sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years and, accordingly, does not qualify for revocation in this review. Finally, with respect to Wanxiang, in TRBs XII we determined that Wanxiang did not qualify for revocation because it did not sell the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the three years underlying its request for revocation. Based on our determination that Wanxiang did not make sales in commercial quantities during the PORs of TRBs XII and TRBs XI and NSR, it is not necessary to examine whether Wanxiang made sales in commercial quantities during the instant review. Because Wanxiang did not make sales in commercial quantities in each of the three years cited by the company to support its revocation request, Wanxiang does not qualify for revocation pursuant to19 CFR 351.222(b). Because we have determined that CMC and ZMC are not eligible for revocation, based on the fact that they did not make sales above normal value in the instant review; Weihai is not eligible for revocation because it has not made sales above normal value for three consecutive review periods; and Wanxiang is not eligible for revocation based on the fact that it did not make sales in commercial quantities during the three-year period being analyzed, we do not reach the question of whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Comment 10: Rescinding Reviews of Hailin and Weihai Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should rescind this administrative review with respect to Hailin and Weihai for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the petitioner states that, despite the Department's requests in supplemental questionnaires, neither Hailin nor Weihai provided information establishing that there were entries of subject TRBs for their sales during the POR. The existence of entries is a jurisdictional requirement for the Department to proceed with an administrative review in light of the prospective nature of reviews. See Section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.213(a). Absent record evidence demonstrating that entries were made, the petitioner contends that the Department lacks a statutory basis for proceeding in a review of Hailin and Weihai. Accordingly, the petitioner concludes that the Department should rescind this review so far as Hailin and Weihai are concerned. Respondents' Argument: Hailin and Weihai counter that the Department should not rescind this review insofar as they are concerned. They allege that the Department is not required by statute or regulation to use date of entry in determining which sales are within the POR. Rather, all that is required is that a producer or exporter have "entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise." See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). In this case, both Hailin and Weihai had both sales and exports of TRBs during the POR, thus making rescission of this review with respect to these companies inappropriate. Moreover, the Department's practice in this review is to use date of sale rather than date of entry as determinative of whether a sale is within the POR. To change the methodology at this point would cause timing issues resulting in sales during this POR not being captured in any review. Finally, Hailin and Weihai note that the Department's initial questionnaire requests information on sales, not entries, made during the POR and contemplates that some entries will be made outside the POR. Thus, Hailin and Weihai conclude that the Department does not have a sufficient basis for rescinding the review with respect to them. Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(e), an administrative review normally will cover, as appropriate, sales, exports, or entries of the subject merchandise made during the particular period under review. While it is the Department's normal practice to calculate margins based upon entries made during the POR, the Department's regulations provide some flexibility in this matter, and we may depart from the normal practice when circumstances warrant. See Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), Unpublished Decision Memorandum, at Comment 10 (finding circumstances warranted concluding the review and assessing antidumping duties on entries of merchandise where we had available resources to calculate a margin and would be able to issue entry-specific liquidation instructions to the Customs Service); American Silicon Technologies v. United States, No. 97-02-00267, Slip Op. 99-34, at 15 (CIT 1999) (upholding the use of EP sales rather than entries in the POR to calculate a margin); Ad Hoc Committee of Southern California Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 19 CIT 1398 (1995) (upholding the use of CEP sales rather than entries in the POR to calculate a margin). In this review, Hailin and Weihai sold the subject merchandise during the POR. We have reviewed the record of the instant review, the immediately preceding review, and information from the U.S. Customs Service, and find that there were entries of subject merchandise during this POR. See Memorandum to the File, "Entries of Hailin and Weihai Merchandise," dated November 7, 2001. Thus, we find that there is a sufficient basis to continue the administrative review of these companies. Because we are able to tie with little or no extra expenditure of resources the sales to the entries in this case, we are able to calculate margins and will be able to issue entry-specific liquidation instructions to the U.S. Customs Service. Company-Specific Issues Comment 11: CMC's Market Economy Steel Values Petitioner's Argument: For purposes of the Preliminary Results, the Department relied upon actual prices that CMC paid for imported cage steel. The petitioner argues that the Department should not use these prices because they are likely subsidized or dumped. Instead, for the final results, the petitioner urges the Department to rely on surrogate values. In support of its position that the Department should not use dumped or subsidized prices to value the steel input, the petitioner cites several antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and subsequent sunset reviews demonstrating that the steel purchased from CMC's cage steel supplier was unfairly traded. Based on the Department's prior determinations, the petitioner says that the Department has a "reason to believe or suspect" that using market prices for CMC's cage steel would not provide the necessary remedies for which the antidumping and countervailing duty statutes were designed. Respondents' Argument: CMC et al. argue that the Department's use of market-economy cage steel prices is in accordance with law. They argue that the Department's review should focus only on orders by the importing country (in this case, the PRC) covering the current review period, the particular material input, and the supplier at issue. CMC et al. claim that there are no antidumping or CVD orders on the steel used for CMC's cages that would support the rejection of the actual prices paid. They also assert that, consistent with the Department's findings in TRBs XII, the current CVD orders reported only a de minimis rate for CMC's market- economy steel supplier and, therefore, the Department properly concluded that there was no subsidization. Finally, CMC et al. contend that the cases cited by the petitioner demonstrate that there is no basis to reject CMC's market-economy steel purchase prices because the antidumping and CVD cases cited have already been revoked, covered a non-current review period, and were issued by a country other than China. Moreover, those cases reaffirm that, even if these U.S. orders were applied, the margin or subsidy findings as to CMC's supplier would be de minimis. Also, the petitioner's reliance on the Department's findings in sunset reviews are misplaced because the International Traed Commission found no injury to the domestic industry and, thus, neither an antidumping nor CVD order could issue. Thus, CMC et al. conclude that there is no record evidence that the steel purchased by CMC for the manufacture of cages was unfairly traded. Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner that the Department should not utilize CMC's reported market economy steel values. Based on the record evidence in this review, we have no reason to believe or suspect that the cage steel utilized by CMC was unfairly dumped or subsidized, consistent with the methodology articulated in Comment 1, above. Therefore, because we are satisfied that CMC used market economy steel to manufacture the subject merchandise and paid for this steel in a market economy currency, we are continuing to use CMC's reported market economy steel values for the final results. Comment 12: Use of Adverse Facts Available for Products Sourced from Unaffiliated CMC Suppliers Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should resort to the use of adverse facts available with respect to the information provided by CMC for its unaffiliated suppliers. Specifically, the petitioner argues that CMC did not provide sample documentation that was requested by the Department showing how the factors of production were compiled for CMC's unaffiliated suppliers. Moreover, the petitioner contends that CMC did not provide evidence establishing that it attempted to obtain this information to the best of its ability from the unaffiliated suppliers. Respondent's Argument: CMC disagrees with the petitioner, arguing that it has fully cooperated with the Department and has done so to the best of its ability. CMC notes that most Chinese respondents face many obstacles in participating in these reviews, such as language, technology, and resources. Additionally, if material inputs or components are sourced from an unrelated supplier, the respondent companies are beholding to these unaffiliated suppliers to respond to this information. CMC argues that it has acted to the best of its ability and has used its best efforts to comply with the Department's requests. CMC further argues that, although CMC's information may be imperfect in the eyes of the petitioner, it in no way can be deemed as so insufficient to support a finding of adverse facts available or an adverse inference. According to CMC, the courts have advised the Department not to apply adverse inferences where the respondent overlooked a request or could not obtain the requested information. (See Mannesmann Rohren-Werke AG v. United States, 967 F. Supp 1338 (1997), in which the court stated that "although failing to respond to an information request is a basis for using 'facts available,' once the requirements of 19 U.S.C. Section 1677m(d) and (e) have been met, failing to respond does not have to be read negatively. . .(t)he Court will not infer that a respondent's failure to respond constitutes substantial evidence that it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability.") CMC states that it has provided more than 500 pages of information in response to the Department's information requests. CMC has also consistently been cooperative in past reviews and verifications. Thus, CMC argues that there is no justification to say that CMC has not cooperated to the best of its ability. Department's Position: Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that "if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the (Department) under this title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the (Department) shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title." Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department "shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and that is necessary to the determination, even if that information does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the (Department), if - (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect to the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties." In this instance, as it has in past reviews of this case, CMC provided the Department with complete factors of production ("FOP") information for its unaffiliated suppliers. CMC has indicated in its response that the reporting methodology used by CMC and its unaffiliated manufacturers is similar. As noted above, CMC has been verified by the Department in past reviews, and could have been verified in the instant review had the Department chosen to conduct a verification. The information that was supplied by CMC relating to its suppliers was submitted by the deadline established for its submission, could have been a subject for verification, is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination, and can be used without undue difficulties. Moreover, CMC had not in this or any past review proved to be uncooperative or unresponsive in its proceedings. CMC has generally responded to the Department's requests in a complete and timely manner, and has provided documents requested by the Department throughout the course of this proceeding. CMC has also provided complete factors data for each of its suppliers. Finally, this information was generated in the same manner as has information been presented in past reviews by CMC for these same suppliers which has been utilized without contest. CMC has sufficiently described its suppliers' reporting methodology and has provided complete data with respect to each of the manufacturers. Although the response provided by CMC with respect to the information relating to its suppliers may not meet all of the Department's exact requirements, we find no reason to decline its consideration pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act. Therefore, we are using the FOP data provided by CMC for its suppliers for these final results. Comment 13: CMC's U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that CMC improperly calculated its reported U.S. inventory carrying costs. According to the petitioner, CMC should not have used an estimated arrival date in the United States for its imported products. The petitioner contends that, contrary to what CMC reported (i.e., that it does not keep records on dates of arrival of imports), CMC did, indeed, have records of this information that it could have used to calculate an actual inventory carrying cost, and that it is a matter of customs law that all importers must maintain all records of all customs entries which would include entry date. The petitioner further argues that CMC did not support its contention that it takes an estimated 30 days for a product to be shipped from China to the United States, and that information gathered by the petitioner shows that CMC overstated the time on the water which, in turn, led to an understated inventory carrying cost being reported for U.S. sales. Thus, the petitioner argues that the Department should reject CMC's reported inventory carrying cost and use adverse inferences to calculate an appropriate cost or revise the reported costs using the petitioner's shipping time from China. Respondent's Argument: CMC disagrees with the petitioner and argues that its reported inventory carrying costs should not be recalculated. CMC argues that, although its broker does keep hard-copy records of entries as required by the U.S. Customs Service, CMC does not keep these records electronically. Given the enormous burden that CMC would face if it were to try to manually obtain this information, CMC argues that it was reasonable for it to use this alternative methodology given the time restraints it faced in responding to the Department's questionnaire. CMC notes that its sales have been verified as recently as TRBs XII, and that no deficiencies with this reporting methodology have been noted in the past. Furthermore, although the petitioner argues that the 30 days estimated by CMC should not be used, CMC points out that the petitioner itself noted later in its case brief that Hailin's shipment was entered into the United States five weeks after shipment. Thus, CMC argues that it used a reasonable methodology based on its ordinary business practices and, thus, the Department should not recalculate CMC's reported inventory carrying costs. Department's Position: We agree with CMC and are not recalculating or rejecting CMC's U.S. inventory carrying costs for the final results. As noted by CMC, because CMC does not in the normal course of business keep electronic records of the entry dates, CMC calculated this expense using an alternative methodology because of the undue burden that would have been faced by CMC in calculating an observation-specific cost. The Department has verified this methodology in the past (see, e.g., TRBs XII), and has found it to be reasonable. Moreover, with respect to the 30 days used by CMC as an estimate for the shipping time for the merchandise, although we agree with the petitioner that sometimes this time period may be shorter than 30 days, information on the record pointed out by the petitioner shows that, in actuality, some shipping times may be more than 30 days. Thus, this time period, which CMC claims is derived from knowledge gained in its ordinary business practices, appears to be a reasonable average. Therefore, because CMC has used a reasonable methodology in calculating this expense, we are not revising or rejecting CMC's reported U.S. inventory carrying costs. Comment 14: CMC's U.S. Duty and U.S. Inland Freight Expenses Petitioner's Argument: According to the petitioner, CMC did not properly report its U.S. duty and U.S. inland freight expenses. The petitioner states that, although CMC indicated that it reported both of these expenses in the same field in its database, the documentation supporting this assertion does not appear to show that the U.S. inland freight expenses that should have been reported were included in this single reported field. The petitioner states that, if the Department did not already address this issue in the Preliminary Results, it should do so in the final results and use a facts available amount for CMC's U.S. inland freight expenses. Respondent's Argument: CMC argues that the Department should not double- count its reported expenses for inland freight and U.S. duty, and that the Department properly calculated this expense in the Preliminary Results. CMC argues that the Department has verified in past reviews (see, e.g., TRBs XII) that CMC has properly reported its U.S. inland freight and Customs duty. CMC points out that, in past reviews, the Department has found that the U.S. inland freight expenses is relatively small, and that CMC cannot break out the U.S. inland freight and Customs duty expenses because they are combined in the financial statements and they are charged one fee by their customs broker for both expenses. Thus, the Department should continue to use its Preliminary Results methodology with respect to these two expenses in the final results. Department's Position: We agree with CMC and have not revised our calculations with respect to CMC's reported inland freight and U.S. Customs duties. (An explanation of how these expenses were incorporated in the Department's calculations is included in the CMC Final Results Calculation Memorandum.) In TRBs XII, the Department verified the reporting of CMC's inland freight and U.S. Customs duties expenses and found no discrepancies with the way the expenses in these categories were reported. We found that the methodology used by CMC to report these expenses was reasonable. Moreover, we verified that the portion of the combined fee represented by freight-in expenses is relatively small because it only covers the cost of transporting the freight from the port in Chicago to the warehouse in Chicago, which is roughly ten miles. (See CMC TRBs XII Verification Report.) Therefore, we have no reason to revise our calculations with respect to these two expenses. Comment 15: Hailin's Scrap Offset Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contends that the Department must be fully satisfied that Hailin has reported the appropriate scrap rate. According to the petitioner, Hailin calculated its reported scrap at the broad factory-wide level and failed to justify the use of this methodology. According to the petitioner, the record suggests that the method yields inappropriate results as it assumes proportionality across products, but that the record does not demonstrate proportionality because Hailin produced subject merchandise in "various workshops." Further, scrap is not uniform in all operations because of the many variables that affect efficiency in TRB production. Thus, the petitioner concludes that if the Department does not completely satisfy itself that the claimed scrap offset is fair, then Hailin's entire scrap offset should be rejected. Respondent's Argument: Hailin contends that its methodology for calculating scrap is consistent and accurate. Hailin asserts that the petitioner's argument is unfounded because Hailin's workshops do not constitute different "facilities" or "locations." Moreover, the methodology in the instant review is consistent with its practice in TRBs XII. Finally, Hailin argues that the petitioner has not fulfilled its burden of proof in arguing that the Department should reject Hailin's scrap calculations and, accordingly, the Department should not reject Hailin's normal scrap allocation. Department's Position: We agree with Hailin and are not rejecting its reported scrap amounts. Contrary to the petitioner's argument, Hailin's scrap amounts appear to be calculated on a component-specific basis, as shown in worksheets provided in Hailin's questionnaire responses. The only instance in which Hailin uses an aggregate calculation is in creating a factor, based on the overall production of bearings, for the difference between total scrap generated in the production process and the scrap which is actually resold. This process of computing the scrap that is resold is reasonable as it can only be applied as a resale percentage to the scrap generated for each component. Finally, the record clearly demonstrates that Hailin produces the bearings in one factory location with multiple workshops and does not have multiple locations of production. Therefore, there is no reason to reject Hailin's reported scrap data. Comment 16: Valuation of Certain Luoyang TRB Components Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that, for the final results, the Department should value all components used to make Luoyang TRBs. Specifically, the petitioner notes that, in the Preliminary Results, the Department did not value certain TRBs components for certain Luoyang model numbers because it had insufficient information with respect to those components to be able to value them. However, the petitioner contends that sufficient information is now on the record with which to value these components, and they should be valued for the final results. The petitioner also argues that the Department should ensure that Luoyang has properly reported the appropriate factors of production for these components for one of the models included in the factors of production database, as it is unclear whether they have been reported properly from Luoyang's reported factors of production database. Respondent's Argument: Luoyang argues that the specific factors of production for the particular model to which the petitioner referred was sufficiently clear and that there is no confusion with respect to the reporting of this model. Department's Position: In the Preliminary Results, we noted that we did not have sufficient information with which to value certain TRBs inputs reported by Luoyang and, thus, were not valuing them for the purposes of the Preliminary Results. Following the Preliminary Results, however, we requested further information from Luoyang with respect to these inputs. For these final results, we have selected HS categories as presented in the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II - Imports (April 2000 through January 2001) for purposes of valuing the raw materials used in these unique components, as described in the Factors of Production Values Used for the Final Results. In valuing these inputs, the Department is using the factors of production reported by Luoyang, as there is no information on the record which would indicate any irregularities with respect to the reporting of this information. Comment 17: Luoyang's Energy Factors Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should restate Luoyang's reported energy factors because they inexplicably differ from the energy factors reported by other TRBs manufacturers in the PRC. The petitioner contends that no explanation has been given for these differences. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that certain TRBs companies have reported similar energy consumption amounts. This further proves, according to the petitioner, that there is something amiss with Luoyang's reported energy factors. The petitioner argues that, because there is no explanation for these alleged irregularities, the Department should instead use another producer's energy factor data that has been shown to be similar to others in this or other current reviews, or should require Luoyang to completely revise its energy factor reporting methodology. Respondent's Argument: Luoyang disagrees with the petitioner, arguing that the Department should continue to utilize Luoyang's reported energy factors for the final results. Luoyang first notes that the methodology used by Luoyang to calculate its energy factors has been verified by the Department in the past, and that that methodology has not changed. Luoyang argues that many variables can explain variances in energy usage factors, including different machines, production techniques, personnel efficiencies, and other differences. Moreover, Luoyang points out that even the petitioner itself has pointed out that "many variables impact efficiency in TRB production." Finally, Luoyang argues that to accept one respondent's data as "somehow better than" another respondent's data, as the petitioner has suggested, would be contrary to the purpose of the Act which calls for the Department to calculate margins as fairly and accurately as possible. Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner and are not restating or rejecting Luoyang's reported energy factors. The petitioner argues that, because Luoyang's reported energy factors are different than energy factors reported by other TRBs manufacturers in the PRC, something must, therefore, be wrong with Luoyang's energy factors. To support its argument, the petitioner has provided comparisons of energy factors for a limited number of TRBs parts for a limited number of manufacturers as examples of these differences. The Department has stated repeatedly in this case that there is generally little variation in factor utilization rates among TRB producers (see, e.g., TRBs XII). Thus, we agree with the petitioner that, in general, the factors reported by different TRBs manufacturers don't differ substantially. However, the petitioner itself has argued in past reviews of this case (see, e.g. TRBs XII) that different producers manufacture at different levels of efficiency, which, according to the petitioner, is the very reason why the Department requests FOP data from each supplier of subject merchandise. Thus, although overall factor utilization rates are, in general, similar amongst PRC TRBs manufacturers, if comparisons are made in which limited examples have been provided to show that differences exist between a limited number of manufacturers for a limited number of products, it will inevitably be found that some differences exist. These comparisons would, however, be inconclusive to determine the general similarities amongst producers. If a larger number of manufacturers were used and the comparisons were made on a broader basis, the Department has, as noted above, found rates to be generally similar. Moreover, the Department has verified Luoyang's reported factors of production information in the past and has noted no irregularities with the reporting methodology. Thus, because there is no conclusive evidence in this situation that would show that Luoyang's energy factors were distortive in comparison with a broad range of TRBs producers, and because the Department has a preference to use a company's own data unless sufficient probable cause has been provided to reject this data in favor of other data, we are not revising or rejecting Luoyang's reported energy factors. Comment 18: Wanxiang's Transport Distances Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the record is unclear as to whether Wanxiang has included all freight distances in its reported factors of production analysis. Specifically, the petitioner contends that Wanxiang did not address the Department's supplemental questions pertaining to freight distances in its February 28, 2001 supplemental questionnaire response. Given Wanxiang's omission of information requested by the Department, the petitioner contends that the Department should apply facts available with respect to Wanxiang's freight distances. Otherwise, given that the Department is not using Wanxiang's imported steel values, the Department should recalculate Wanxiang's transport distances based on the presumption that Wanxiang domestically sourced the steel and by accounting for distances to and from subcontractor's sites. Respondent's Argument: Wanxiang disagrees with the petitioner, arguing that the Department should continue to utilize Wanxiang's reported transportation distances for the final results. Wanxiang counters that, in its February 28, 2001 response, it provided all of the necessary information concerning transport distances to and from its subcontractors and suppliers. Therefore, Wanxiang believes that there is no reason to apply adverse inferences to its reported transport distances. Wanxiang further contends that its methodology and calculations, which were verified by the Department in the context of TRBs XII, are clearly demonstrated in worksheets contained in its February 28, 2001 response. Department Position: We disagree with the petitioner. We have reviewed the record evidence contained in Wanxiang's October 27, 2000 and February 28, 2001 submissions, and find that Wanxiang was responsive to the Department's requests for information concerning transport distances. The record contains sufficient information to make determinations about Wanxiang's transport distances and, accordingly, facts available is not warranted. We have reviewed the information on the record of the instant review and find that Wanxiang's methodology and calculations are clear and consistent with its methodology and calculations in TRBs XII, which the Department verified. See Attachment 3 of the November 7, 2001 Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Wanxiang Group Corporation, which contains excerpts from Wanxiang's verification report from TRBs XII. Accordingly, for the final results, the Department is relying upon Wanxiang's reported transport distances. Comment 19: Wanxiang's Energy Factors Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should restate Wanxiang's reported energy factors because Wanxiang's energy factors lack credibility. Specifically, the petitioner argues that Wanxiang has not provided any information that explains whether Wanxiang has any unique features that distinguish its factory from other PRC producers. Further, the record is incomplete with respect to Wanxiang's energy consumption and that of its subcontractors and suppliers. Thus, the petitioner concludes that the Department should request additional information from Wanxiang to allay its concerns or else base Wanxiang's energy factors on facts available. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contends that the petitioner does not have any support for this allegation of unusually low energy factors. The respondent argues that its allocation of energy costs based on the factory-wide total of electricity consumption is the same methodology used in TRBs XII which was thoroughly verified. The fact that Wanxiang's energy factors differ from another respondent does not provide substantial evidence against Wanxiang's reported energy factors. Therefore, the respondent argues that the energy factors are justified and must not be rejected. Department's Position: For the reasons discussed in Comment 17, above, we disagree with the petitioner and are not restating or rejecting Wanxiang's reported energy factors. Comment 20: Weihai SG&A and Labor Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contends that Weihai's reported labor data encompasses only its supplier's labor hours while excluding Weihai's indirect/selling, general, and administrative ("SG&A") labor hours involving the subject merchandise. According to the petitioner, activities performed by the following departments contributed to NV, and as such, should be included in Weihai's total labor factor: the financial department, the investment-planning department, the business operation department, the "Import/Export Branch," and the general manager's office. These activities, argue the petitioner, would not be performed by a "mere" manufacturer/supplier, but by the re-seller itself (i.e., Weihai). Therefore, the petitioner argues that Weihai's indirect/SG&A labor hours must be added to Weihai's already reported labor factor. Respondent's Argument: Weihai argues that the Department's questionnaire asked only that Weihai report indirect labor hours involved in the production of the subject merchandise. As Weihai's workers were not involved in the production of the subject merchandise, argues Weihai, the Department appropriately should not consider the workers' time when calculating the labor factor. Additionally, Weihai cites that the Department found no discrepancies with the reported indirect labor hours and the hours related with SG&A during verification. Department's Position: We agree with Weihai. According to our NME methodology, the factors of production are inputs such as materials, labor, and energy used in producing a product. Moreover, the Department's questionnaire requests information on the quantity of inputs actually used to produce the subject merchandise in the non-market economy. Therefore, as Weihai is a reseller and performs no role in the TRB production process, we do not find it necessary to add Weihai's indirect/SG&A labor hours to those already reported for Weihai's supplier. Comment 21: ZMC's Financial Statements Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should fully satisfy itself that ZMC has submitted the most appropriate financial statements and reported data consistently therewith before it accepts ZMC's submission. The petitioner alleges that the Department requested of ZMC specific information with respect to the availability of audited financial statements, but that ZMC did not respond to such requests. Also, ZMC promised to provide translated versions of its 1999 balance sheets and financial statements, but never did so. See ZMC's March 5, 2001 response, at 4. The petitioner suggests that, given the importance of financial statements in antidumping proceedings, the Department pursue responses to all unanswered questions. If the statements are ultimately unreliable, the Department should resort to adverse facts available. Respondent's Argument: ZMC asserts that it fully responded to the Department's questions regarding financial statements. First, since neither ZMC nor its factory/supplier had available audited financial statements, no such statements could be provided. Second, ZMC notes that its balance sheet and the factory/supplier's financial statements were prepared according to the same format as the 1998 balance sheet and financial statements, which were provided in ZMC's September 29, 2000 submission, at Exhibit 6. Thus, ZMC felt that providing separate translations would be redundant since translations of the Chinese text were already on the record. Moreover, given that the Department did not request separate translations, it implicitly agreed that adequate translations were on the record of this review. Department's Position: As explained above in Comment 12, section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department "shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and that is necessary to the determination, even if that information does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the (Department), if - (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect to the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties." We recognize that ZMC did not directly respond to our request for information as to whether ZMC's and its producer/supplier's financial statements were audited and that ZMC did not provide, as it stated it would do, translated versions of the1999 balance sheet and financial statements for ZMC's producer/supplier. However, in this instance, as it has in past reviews of this case, ZMC provided the Department with its financial statements and financial statements of its producer/supplier. Also, ZMC has been verified by the Department previously, although in the instant review the Department chose not to conduct a verification. Moreover, we find that the information on the record with respect to ZMC's financial statements is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination and can be used without undue difficulties (inasmuch as we have translated versions of ZMC's financial statements from prior years on the record in this review). ZMC has generally responded to the Department's requests in a complete and timely manner, and has provided documents requested by the Department throughout the course of this proceeding. ZMC has also provided complete factors data for its producer/supplier. Finally, the financial statements were generated in the same manner as in past reviews by ZMC, which have been utilized without contest. Although the response provided by ZMC with respect to whether the submitted financial statements were audited and complete translated versions of such financial statements may not meet all of the Department's requirements, pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, because the Department "shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and that is necessary to the determination, even if that information does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the (Department)," noted above, we do not decline to consider ZMC's financial statements for these final results. Accordingly, we find that the application of facts available, pursuant to section 776 of the Act, is unwarranted. Comment 22: ZMC's Energy Factors Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that the Department should restate ZMC's energy factors in response to the company's failure to provide requested information. Specifically, in a second supplemental questionnaire, the Department requested that ZMC provide information illustrating how its energy consumption factors were compiled, and explaining whether the total consumption and total weight used were calculated on a factory-wide basis or refer to subject merchandise only. ZMC responded that it determined the energy factor on a factory-wide basis. The petitioner alleges that ZMC failed to provide comparisons for subject and non-subject goods and, by doing so, prevented the Department from evaluating the appropriateness of calculating energy on a broad indiscriminate factory-wide basis. Thus, ZMC did not provide specifically requested information necessary to evaluate concerns raised by the petitioner during the course of the review. The petitioner concludes that ZMC's failure is demonstrated non-cooperation for which application of facts available is warranted. Respondent's Argument: ZMC contends that it was completely responsive with respect to energy costs. ZMC stated that it noted that its energy factor was determined on a factory-wide basis and provided the factory's complete energy and production data, including the formula used to calculate energy consumption. ZMC also clearly noted that its reported energy consumption was inclusive of production of all products, both subject and nonsubject. Moreover, ZMC notes that the Department's question did not require a breakdown between subject and non-subject merchandise given that the factory's energy consumption factors were not based solely on subject merchandise. Finally, ZMC notes that its calculation of energy in the instant review is consistent with its calculation in the immediately preceding review, which the Department verified. See ZMC's September 29, 2000 response, at Exhibit 2. Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner that ZMC has failed to provide the requested information. As requested, ZMC provided in its supplemental questionnaire response worksheets containing the formulas that ZMC's supplier used to calculate the electricity consumption factors for cups/cones, rollers, and cages. Regarding part {2} of the question posed, ZMC responded that "The factor inputs, including the energy factor were determined on factory-wide basis." Thus, ZMC did in fact "indicate whether the total consumption and total weight used were calculated on a factory-wide basis * * * or refer to subject merchandise only." Given the response to part {2}, it was unnecessary for ZMC to respond to part {3}, which only requested comparisons for subject and non-subject merchandise only "if the energy consumption factors were based solely on subject merchandise." Therefore, ZMC fully complied with our specific information requests in the second supplemental questionnaire. Accordingly, we find that the application of facts available for ZMC's energy consumption factor is unwarranted. RECOMMENDATION Based on our analysis of the comments received, we recommend adopting all of the above positions and adjusting all related margin calculations accordingly. If these recommendations are accepted, we will publish the final results of review and the final weighted-average dumping margins for all reviewed firms in the Federal Register. AGREE _________ DISAGREE _________ Faryar Shirzad Assistant Secretary for Import Administration Date _________________________________________________________________________ footnotes: 1. A single brief was filed by counsel for these companies which includes both general and company-specific sections. 2. Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 11562 (February 26, 2001) (collectively, "TRBs XII"). 3. The Department's rejection of actual market economy steel prices in TRBs XII is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of International Trade based on a suit filed by respondents. See Luoyang Bearing (Group) Corporation v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 01-00036 (Ct. Int'l Trade). 4. See, e.g., Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 66255, 66257 (December 17, 1996) (refusing to reject surrogate values from countries with CVD orders, presumably on different products than those at issue in that review); China Nat'l Arts and Crafts Import and Export Corp., Tianjin Branch v. United States, 771 F. Supp. 407, 413 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991) (finding that the Department's rejection of surrogate countries based on a finding of subsidies in another industry is a "tenuous platform"); Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 985 F. Supp. 133, 138 (1997) (stating that, with respect to the exclusion of possible surrogate countries, "subsidy findings are fact-specific, and circumstances often change"). 5. U.S. Steel Group v. United States, Slip Op. 01-110, at 3. 6. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1) ("where a factor is purchased from a market economy supplier and paid for in a market economy currency, the Secretary normally will use the price paid to the market economy supplier"). See, e.g., Olympia Industrial, Inc. v. United States, 1997 WL 181529, at 2 (Ct. Int'l Trade, April 10, 1997) (stating that the Department has long preferred and consistently valued inputs based on the prices paid to market economy suppliers as more accurate margins are determined through the application of market-based prices and costs); Lasko Metal Products v. U.S., 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("Lasko") (upholding the Department's use of actual import prices when an NME producer purchases an input from a market economy supplier and pays for it in a market economy currency). 7. H. R. Conf. Rep. 100-576, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 514, 590-91 (1998), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.A.A.N. 1547, 1623 (1988) (authorizing the Department to avoid using prices that the Department has reason to "believe or suspect" were unfair in calculating normal value ("NV") in non- market economy ("NME") cases). 8. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 1997- 1998 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 61837 (November 15, 1999) ("TRBs XI and NSR"), Lasko, and the Final Results of Redetermination On Remand Pursuant to Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 97-12-02066 (September 9, 1999); aff'd, 102 F. Supp. 2d 482 (CIT 2000); aff'd, No. 00-1521 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2001). 9. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590-591 (1988). Although this section of the Act has been revised since this 1988 legislative history was written, there were no changes made to Section 773(c) of the Act in the 1995 Uruguay Round Agreement Act ("URAA"). See, e.g., S. Rep. 103-412, 2d Sess. at 73 (whatever the p. number is) (1994) (stating in the Senate Joint Committee report accompanying the URAA that "the Committee . . . intends no substantive changes" to Section 773(c) of the Act). 10. H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590-591. 11. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27366 (May 19, 1997) (responding to comments regarding valuation of FOP in NME cases). 12. See AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States, 6 CIT 245, 247- 48, 575 F. Supp. 1277, 1280 (1983) (applying criminal law "reasonable suspicion" standard to 19 U.S.C. 1677e "reasonable grounds to believe or suspect" standard for initiation of COP investigation). 13. See Technoimportexport v. United States, 16 CIT 13, 17-18, 783 F. Supp. 1401, 1406 (1992) (finding the existence of product-specific antidumping duty orders and non-product specific CVD orders supports reasonable suspicion to believe or suspect surrogate export prices were dumped or subsidized). 14. This analytical framework differs from the position taken in Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China (60 FR 29574) (June 5, 1995), where we rejected certain valuations relying, inter alia, on U.S. AD findings. The inconsistency was acknowledged in Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review; 61 FR 66255, 66257 (December 17, 1996) ("Lockwashers-II"), and we are now following the practice articulated in Lockwashers-II. 15. See, e.g., Technoimportexport. 16. See Usinor Sacilor v. United States, 19 CIT 711, 725, 893 F. Supp. 1112, 1127 (1995). 17. Shakeproof, No. 00-1521, Slip Op. at 13 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2001). 18. We note that this correction only impacted the value used in comparison with the U.S. benchmark. The surrogate value, as adjusted, used in the Preliminary Results, and subsequently for these final results, was not affected by this miscalculation.