Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 24

Asahi challenged the ITA final results of the nineteenth administrative review of ball bearings from five countries.
Asahi requested review of its Japanese sales but withdrew before the four mandatory Japanese respondents were selected.
The Respondent Selection Memorandum identified four mandatory respondents (JTEKT, Nachi, NSK, NTN) and indicated no individual rates would be calculated for others.
Commerce later rescinded the review as to Asahi; Final Results assigned margins only to the three remaining respondents.
Asahi asserted multiple claims, but the court held only the challenge to the respondent-selection decision for jurisdiction.
The court must determine whether Asahi exhausted administrative remedies for its surviving challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction over Asahi’s surviving claim	Asahi contends it is harmed by unlawful respondent selection.	Defendant asserts lack of jurisdiction due to mootness and withdrawal.	Yes, there is jurisdiction over the respondent-selection challenge.
Whether Asahi exhausted administrative remedies for its surviving claim	Asahi exhausted remedies by challenging selection during administrative proceedings.	Asahi failed to pursue voluntary respondent status after withdrawal.	Asahi did not exhaust remedies.
Whether an exhaustion exception applies (futility, irreparable harm, intervening decision, pure legal question)	Exceptions should excuse exhaustion given unfair exclusion and potential for revocation.	No exception applies; withdrawal removed avenues for relief.	No exhaustion exception applies.
Whether the case is moot and can be dismissed on mootness	Liquidation of entries moots claims about margins.	Live potential for relief remains if Asahi could obtain its own margin.	Not moot; merits review remains viable.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires an injury in fact; not mootness-based here)
Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. United States, 519 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (injury in fact persists even after withdrawal; jurisdictional facts matter)
Hylsa, S.A. v. United States, 469 F.Supp.2d 1341 (2007) (exhaustion and jurisdiction considerations in ITA review)
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 33 CIT _, 637 F.Supp.2d 1260 (2009) (statutory interpretation of § 1677f-1(c)(2) and practicality of margins)