Nsk Corp. v. United States
34 Ct. Int'l Trade 1501
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2010Background
- Sunset review of antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom before the United States Court of International Trade.
- Third Remand Determination addresses (i) potential discernible adverse impact from UK bearings absent the order, (ii) whether cumulated subject imports would likely cause material injury, and (iii) whether cumulated subject imports would constitute more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury given non-subject imports.
- Court has previously remanded to the agency in NSK I–IV, with holdings on substantial evidence, remand compliance, and required consideration of non-subject imports.
- Commission declined to reopen the record in the UK-specific issue but ultimately refused to cumulate UK imports with other subject countries after Third Remand Determination.
- Court sustains the UK-specific determinations but remands the issues of likely significant adverse impact and causation to account for the tripartite market structure and the role of non-subject imports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discernible adverse impact from UK bearings absent order | NSK contends no discernible adverse impact. | Timken/Commission maintain potential impact even without UK cumulation. | Court sustains UK determinations; no discernible adverse impact found. |
| Likely significant adverse impact of cumulated subject imports absent order | NSK argues record insufficient to prove significant impact. | Commission finds likely significant adverse impact. | Record insufficient to affirm; remand to account for non-subject imports and market structure. |
| Causation: whether cumulated subject imports are more than minimal or tangential | NSK challenges causation reliance on limited grounds. | Commission presents seven grounds supporting causation. | Causation not affirmatively supported; remand to reassess with non-subject imports. |
| Accountability for tripartite market (subject, non-subject, domestic) on remand | Record fails to address non-subject imports adequately. | Agency assertions rely on subject import dynamics. | Remand required to address tripartite market and ensure rational connection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (non-subject imports must be analyzed to assess causation)
- Bratsk Aluminium Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (agency must consider market structure in causation analysis)
- Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (need for rational accounting of market players in injury analysis)