Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 1443

Asahi challenged Commerce's Final Results for the eighteenth antidumping reviews on ball bearings and parts from five countries, arguing Asahi was unlawfully excluded from mandatory respondent status.
Commerce selected three mandatory respondents (JTEKT, NSK, NTN) due to workload constraints, potentially depriving Asahi of an individual margin.
Asahi withdrew its review request after Commerce rejected an extension, and Commerce rescinded the review as to Asahi, leaving Asahi with no assigned rate.
Asahi contends the withdrawal was compelled by the unlawful respondent selection and seeks relief to obtain an individual margin or revocation options.
The court previously dismissed most claims for lack of standing but retained jurisdiction over the challenge to the respondent selection and whether exhaustion or exceptions allowed relief.
The court ultimately held Asahi did not exhaust administrative remedies and that exhaustion exceptions did not apply, denying the motion for judgment on the agency record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce unlawfully limited mandatory respondents.	Asahi argues selection of only three respondents was unlawful.	Commerce limited respondents due to workload and practicability under statute.	Unlawful limit on mandatory respondents; statutorily improper exclusion.
Whether Asahi exhausted administrative remedies.	Asahi raised respondent-selection objections during admin process.	Rescission due to withdrawal meant no remedy remained; exhaustion satisfied.	Asahi failed to exhaust remedies; exhaustion requirement applied.
Whether futility excused exhaustion.	Continued participation would have been futile; all-others rate harmed Asahi.	Futility not established; voluntary respondent status could have affected outcome.	Futility exception does not apply; relief denied.
Whether pure legal-question exception applies to permit judicial review.	Case presents a pure legal question about review denial.	Commerce decision not a final refusal to review; no exception applies.	Pure legal-question exception does not apply; relief denied.
Appropriateness of remand or other remedy if claim meritorious.	Remand for reconsideration of method to revoke non-mandatory respondent.	Remand not appropriate given exhaustion and withdrawal dynamics.	Remand not ordered; judgment entered for defendant.

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 515 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (exhaustion may be required despite challenges to agency action)
Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (mere possibility of adverse agency decision does not excuse exhaustion)
Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. United States, 662 F.Supp.2d 1337 (CIT 2009) (statutory limits on reviewing agency actions and interpretation of 'large number')
Timken Co. v. United States, 630 F.Supp.1327 (CIT 1986) (ability to challenge agency action under exhaustion framework)