Ntn Corp. v. United States, 34 C.I.T. 1532

NTN challenged Commerce's Final Results in antidumping duty reviews for ball bearings from five countries for May 1, 2008–April 30, 2009.
NTN claimed Commerce used the zeroing methodology to compute Japan dumping margins (Count One).
NTN claimed the Department’s fifteen-day liquidation-Instructions policy (Count Two).
NTN alleged possible other programming, clerical, or methodological errors in the administrative record (Count Three).
JTEKT and Koyo intervened for Counts One and Three; they sought a preliminary injunction against liquidation.
Court granted a preliminary injunction against liquidation for earlier related NSK litigation; now weighs likelihood of success on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood NTN will succeed on Count One (zeroing).	NTN contend zeroing violates law and WTO obligations.	Court precedent sustains zeroing in prior Circuits.	No likelihood of success; zeroing upheld by binding precedent.
Likelihood NTN will succeed on Count Three (confidential-record errors).	NTN alleges possible undisclosed errors in the record.	Claim is speculative and not pled with factual detail.	No likelihood of success; claim speculative and insufficient under pleading standards.
Intervention and standing to challenge Count Two (fifteen-day policy).	JTEKT seeks intervention to protect interests affected by liquidation policy.	Count Two falls under APA and 1581(i); intervenors lack standing to relate to Count Two.	JTEKT has no standing to intervene for Count Two; intervention denied for that count.

Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (supports zeroing methodology generally.)
SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (upholds zeroing in administrative reviews.)
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (confirms zeroing precedent in reviews.)