Jtekt Corporation v. United States
780 F. Supp. 2d 1357
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- This action reviews the Commerce Remand Redetermination in the antidumping duty case on ball bearings from Japan, with remand partial compliance and partial remand for reconsideration.
- Commerce narrowed five remand issues; three were left as originally determined while two were altered: NTN's freight recalculation and Nachi’s narrowed use of adverse inferences for specific reporting errors.
- Plaintiffs Nippon Pillow Block Co. Ltd. (NPB) and NTN challenge the Remand Redetermination, as do NTN affiliates; Timken also participates as plaintiff and defendant-intervenor.
- NTN seeks a stay pending finalization of a new antidumping margin methodology and alternatively briefed on zeroing; the court treats NTN’s request as reconsideration of prior zeroing rulings under Dongbu and JTEKT jurisprudence.
- The court affirms several Remand Redetermination aspects (sample-month limitation, use of Japanese interest rates for imputing inventory carrying costs, NTN freight by weight, Nachi data treatment) and remands for reconsideration of (i) NTN’s proposed additional bearing-design types and (ii) the application of zeroing to margins for JTEKT, Nachi, NPB, and NTN.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Commerce's zeroing methodology lawful in the remand context? | NTN contends zeroing departs from law and WTO obligations. | Commerce and Timken defend zeroing as consistent with precedent. | Remand required; court to reconsider zeroing and provide adequate explanation. |
| Did NPB validly request an expanded sample-month window for normal-value matching? | NPB argues the 30/30-day window is too narrow and should be expanded. | Commerce justified continuing the 30/30-day window as reasonable and consistent with practice. | Remand upheld: Commerce's 30/30-day window affirmed. |
| Was NTN's freight expense properly recalculated by weight rather than value? | NTN challenges selective reallocation and Weight-based reassignment as inconsistent with others. | Remand results align NTN freight with others' treatment and reflect weight data. | Remand affirmed: NTN freight recalculated by weight; margin revised accordingly. |
| Should Nachi's errors in reporting physical bearing characteristics be treated with limited use of facts otherwise available? | NTB argues broader use of facts otherwise available is improper. | Remand narrows data usage to corrected items found in verification. | Remand affirmed: only corrected Nachi data addressed; otherwise, facts available not applied. |
| Should NTN's proposal to add bearing-design types be adopted to fix model-match issues? | NTN seeks additional design-type categories to capture overlaps and variations. | Commerce found no need for added design types beyond existing categories. | Remand ordered: Commerce must reconsider design-type additions and address potential NTN mismatches. |
Key Cases Cited
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand required for inadequate zeroing explanation)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Chevron step-two requires explanation of differing zeroing interpretations)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (zeroing jurisprudence in antidumping)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (upholds zeroing in investigations; context-dependent)
- NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (zeroing in administrative reviews; variance across contexts)