2011 WL 1741966
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- JTEKT and Koyo USA challenge Commerce's Final Results in the seventeenth administrative reviews of ball bearings from six countries.
- Seven plaintiffs, including JTEKT, Asahi, Aisin, Nachi, NPB, NSK, and NTN, are consolidated with Timken intervening; multiple Rule 56.2 motions are before the court.
- Commerce applied its zeroing methodology in AFBS 17, which the plaintiffs argue violates the antidumping statute and WTO obligations; a related WTO context is discussed.
- Commerce replaced the prior family model-match methodology with a new model-match methodology in AFBS 17; plaintiffs contest various aspects of this change.
- The court remanded for reconsideration of the zeroing issue and certain model-match determinations, while affirming parts of the First Remand Redetermination related to Aisin CEP.
- Timken seeks to vacate a preliminary injunction regarding Nachi; NTN seeks a stay or briefing on the zeroing issue; other motions address specific matches and remand procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeroing in AFBS 17 be unlawful under statute/WTO obligations? | JTEKT/NPB/NTN urge remand or elimination for WTO compliance. | Commerce's zeroing consistent with precedent; orderly as applied. | Remand for explanation/adjustment of zeroing; not finally resolved. |
| Use of the new model-match methodology vs. the old family method? | Plaintiffs argue the change lacks sufficient justification and undermines prior practice. | Court-approved discretion to adopt more accurate matching; SKF line of authority supports change. | Sustained the use of the new methodology; no remand required for the overall change. |
| Differences in commercial value and use in matches under the new methodology? | Matches allowed dissimilar merchandise or inaccurate value differences. | DIFMER and 20% cap provide reasonable alignment with statute. | Court upholds the DIFMER framework and 40% cap as within statutory discretion. |
| Challenged individual matches of bearing models (JTEKT, NPB, NSK)? | Contends specific matches were inappropriate under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16). | Matches are lawful under the new methodology; disputes are addressed by remand where necessary. | Generally upheld; remand ordered to examine third match identified by JTEKT (information in record raises factual questions). |
| CEP calculation for Aisin and the First Remand Redetermination? | Aisin argues the CEP method yields absurd results and seeks remand. | Remand consistent with correcting methodology for complex value-added scenarios. | First Remand Redetermination affirmed; further remand aspects addressed in the Second Remand Redetermination. |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (upholds broad discretion to modify model-match methodology; remand may be ordered for explanation)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (upholds Commerce's discretion to change methodology in model matching)
- Koyo II, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (early affirmation of the model-match approach in bearing cases)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand required for explanation of statutory interpretation of zeroing)
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (cases relied on Commerce’s discretion in model-matching methodology)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 33 CIT _, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (2009) (earlier CIT decision addressing model-match and related issues)