Jtekt Corp. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13252
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Ball bearings from Japan subject to anti-dumping margins in Commerce's eighteenth administrative review.
- Dispute centers on Commerce's model-match methodology for determining like merchandise (sum of deviations vs family).
- Eight characteristics used to define similar merchandise; DIFMER used to adjust price when matching.
- NTN challenges lubrication as a ninth characteristic and seeks different tie-breaking rules; Commerce defends current approach.
- Commerce ultimately used zeroing in administrative reviews and cites WTO pressure to limit zeroing in investigations; court vacates and remands on zeroing issue.
- Court affirms use of sum of deviations and related tie-breaking methods, but vacates and remands to address Commerce's zeroing explanation across proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model-match methodology reasonableness | NTN argues sum of deviations not supported by substantial evidence | Commerce shows reasonableness; SKF II forecloses challenge | Reasonable; sum of deviations upheld |
| Bearing design type granularity | Koyo III required more granular insert bearing design types | Single category reasonable given price/cost/design similarities | Reasonable to group insert bearings into one design type |
| Ninth characteristic (lubrication) inclusion | Lubrication should be a separate characteristic | Lubrication accounted for via DIFMER; not a separate characteristic | No ninth characteristic; eight are sufficient |
| Tie-breaker methodology for multiple matches | Level of trade/contemporaneity inferior to DIFMER | Discretion to use level of trade/contemporaneity before DIFMER | Permissible to use level of trade and contemporaneity before DIFMER |
| Zeroing in administrative reviews vs investigations | Need vacatur/remand for disparate zeroing treatment | Commerce justified explaining differences; not necessarily vacatur | Vacated and remanded to justify difference in zeroing approach |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approved sum of deviations methodology; reasonableness of agency choice)
- SKF II, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (recognizes agency may change model-match methods when reasonable)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Koyo III; upheld Commerce's design-type determination as reasonable)
- Dongbu Steel Co. Ltd. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addressed zeroing; required explanation of disparate treatment across phases)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (zeroing as a reasonable statutory interpretation)