NSK Corp. v. United States International Trade Commission
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9800
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Second sunset review of antidumping orders on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and U.K. culminates in challenge to cumulation and injury determinations.
- Court of International Trade decisions repeatedly remanded Commission to address non-subject imports and U.K. mentored cumulation issues, and to reassess causation and vulnerability.
- Commission's Second Remand Determination cumulated Japan/U.K./France/Germany/Italy and found likely continuation of material injury upon revocation.
- NSK I–IV and related rulings directed more explicit analysis of non-subject imports, restructuring effects, and cumulation.
- Court of International Trade sustained some remands and later affirmed negative determinations for U.K. and Japan; this court reverses.
- Appellants seek reinstatement of the Commission’s affirmative determinations and reversal of the ITC’s remand-based conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cumulation of U.K. imports with other subject countries was supported by substantial evidence | Appellants: cumulation supported by record. | Commission: cumulation appropriate under §1675a(a)(7) where markets and competition overlap. | Yes; substantial evidence supports cumulation of U.K. with other subject countries. |
| Whether the Commission’s injury determinations for Japan and the U.K. should be reinstated when cumulated with other subject imports | Affirmative injury supported by evidence of capacity, price effects, and substitution. | Remand decisions were necessary; evidence insufficient for affirmative injury. | Yes; reinstate affirmative material injury determinations for Japan and U.K. when cumulated. |
| What standard of review applies to ITC remand determinations in sunset reviews | De novo review for substantial evidence in remand context. | Defer to ITC findings if supported by substantial evidence. | De novo review with substantial-evidence standard applied to ITC determinations. |
| Whether non-subject imports undermine causation or the sufficiency of the record to support subject-import injury | Non-subject imports could negate causation; remand needed. | Record supports subject-import injury despite non-subjects. | Substantial evidence supports subject-import injury; non-subjects do not defeat it. |
| Whether the Court of International Trade erred in remanding or misapplying Bratsk/Mittal Steel in sunset context | Mittal Steel clarifies Bratsk causation focus in sunset reviews. | Remand decisions properly followed Bratsk/MittalSteel guidance. | Court properly applied Bratsk/Mittal Steel in evaluating causation/remand guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (establishes deference to ITC evidentiary weight under substantial evidence review)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 494 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (controls standard when ITC is remanded or affirmative determinations are reviewed de novo)
- Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (clarifies Bratsk causation focus in sunset reviews)
- Bratsk Aluminium Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requires analysis of non-subject imports if commodity product and significant non-subject presence)
- Atlantic Sugar Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (illustrates role of evidentiary weight in substantial evidence review)
- NSK Corp. v. United States, 577 F.Supp.2d 1322 (Ct.Int’l Trade 2008) (remand instructions and Bratsk/Mittal Steel context in first ITC sunset review)
- NSK Corp. v. United States, 712 F.Supp.2d 1356 (Ct.Int’l Trade 2010) (NSK IV remand concerning U.K. cumulation and evidence sufficiency)
- NSK Corp. v. United States, 637 F.Supp.2d 1311 (Ct.Int’l Trade 2009) (NSK III remand focusing on causation and non-subject imports)
- NSK Corp. v. United States, 774 F.Supp.2d 1296 (Ct.Int’l Trade 2011) (final affirmations of ITC decisions on Japan and U.K.; subsequent appellate reversal)