NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States
2015 WL 427205
Ct. Intl. Trade2015Background
- NTN challenges Final Results of Commerce's twentieth antidumping administrative reviews on ball bearings from multiple countries, including Japan.
- NTN and JTEKT contest the use of zeroing to compute dumping margins in the Japan portion of the reviews.
- NTN challenges the Department's fifteen-day rule for issuing liquidation instructions after final results publication as applied to NTN.
- NTN seeks correction of NTN's credit expenses calculation (the CREDITU vs CREDITU-1 issue) via a voluntary remand.
- Court previously stayed proceedings pending related appellate decisions; Union Steel II upheld zeroing; SKF decisions addressed the fifteen-day rule.
- Court affirms zeroing, grants remand for NTN’s credit expense issue, and finds the fifteen-day rule unlawful as applied to NTN, directing remand for further redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether zeroing is lawful in the final results. | NTN argues zeroing is unlawful for Japan review. | Commerce's zeroing is permissible; Union Steel II supports it. | Zeroing affirmed as lawful. |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars NTN's fifteen-day-rule challenge. | NTN argues the rule is unlawful as applied to NTN. | Government relies on prior decisions; collateral estoppel applies. | Collateral estoppel bars the government’s defense; NTN's claim proceeds for declaratory relief. |
| Is remand appropriate to correct NTN's credit expense calculation? | NTN seeks correction of the CREDITU variable error via remand. | Remand is appropriate to correct inadvertent error. | Voluntary remand granted to correct NTN’s credit expenses; remand redetermination required. |
| What relief is available for NTN regarding the fifteen-day rule as applied to NTN? | NTN seeks broader relief beyond declaratory judgment. | Only declaratory relief is available due to standing/estoppel limitations. | Declaratory relief awarded; further relief deferred to remand process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (upholds zeroing in administrative reviews)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT 405 (2007) (early rulings on 15-day liquidation rule; standing)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 33 CIT 370 (2009) (reaffirmed 15-day rule discussions; collateral estoppel context)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 33 CIT 1613 (2009) (discussion of 15-day rule reasoning)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 33 CIT 1884 (2010) (additional 15-day rule considerations)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (declaratory relief on 15-day rule; court opinions)
- Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (statutory framework for liquidation period)