Peer Bearing Company - Changsh v. United States
766 F.3d 1396
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- CPZ imported tapered roller bearings into the U.S. via an unaffiliated importer and sold through Peer, its U.S. affiliate, to unaffiliated customers, raising EP/CEP classification questions.
- Commerce initially asked CPZ to classify its sales as EP or CEP; CPZ claimed CEP and provided CEP data but not EP data.
- Timken urged Commerce to require EP data to compute CPZ’s antidumping margin on an EP basis, but Commerce used CEP data in the Preliminary Results.
- In Final Results Commerce switched to EP-based pricing for margin calculation, using limited EP data on the record, yielding a 92.84% margin, which the Court remanded for lawfulness.
- On remand, CPZ could not provide EP data; Commerce concluded CPZ had a duty to maintain access to EP data, applied adverse facts available (AFA), and calculated a 60.95% margin.
- The Court of International Trade held that applying AFA for failure to maintain EP data was unlawful; on remand, Commerce again could not locate sufficient data and the record ultimately led to a Second Remand Redetermination using CEP data with a 6.52% margin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AFA was properly applied for CPZ’s failure to retain EP data | Timken argues CPZ should face AFA because it failed to maintain EP data as requested. | CPZ contends AFA should not apply since EP data was not requested until remand and CPZ had no duty to preserve it. | Yes; substantial evidence supports AFA for CPZ’s failure to maintain EP data. |
| Whether CPZ had a duty to maintain EP data during the proceeding | Timken asserts CPZ should have preserved EP data as potentially necessary for EP-based pricing. | CPZ argues there was no ongoing obligation to maintain data not requested until remand. | CPZ had a duty to maintain access to EP data; failure supports AFA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (best of its ability requires maintaining records anticipated to be needed)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Ltd. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (information may be requested on remand; maintainability considerations)
- Peer Bearing Co. - Changshan v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012) (court rejects using AFA where EP data was not preserved before remand)
- Peer Bearing Co. - Changshan v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011) (remand issues on EP vs CEP data; preservation obligations discussed)