Peer Bearing Company-Changshan v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 142
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2011Background
- CPZ and Timken challenge the Final Results of the 2007-2008 admin review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC.
- CPZ contests Commerce's country-of-origin determination for bearings further manufactured in Thailand (China-origin) and its surrogate value for bearing-quality steel bar.
- Timken challenges Commerce's surrogate value for bearing-quality steel bar as not based on the best available information.
- Court granted CPZ remand on the country-of-origin issue and steel-bar surrogate value; Timken advocates voluntary remand on steel-bar surrogate value.
- Court denied CPZ relief on the assessment-rate methodology and ordered remand for redetermination of steel bar and steel wire rod surrogates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the country of origin determination is supported by substantial evidence | CPZ asserts Thailand-processing constitutes substantial transformation. | Commerce found finishing in Thailand did not substantially transform; bearings are China-origin. | Remand required for origin determination. |
| Whether surrogate value for bearing-quality steel bar is supported by substantial evidence | CPZ argues Indian WTA data are aberrational and Thai data are better. | Commerce chose Indian data as best available information over Thai data. | Remand required to redetermine bearing-quality steel bar surrogate value. |
| Whether surrogate value for bearing-quality steel wire rod is supported by substantial evidence | Timken contends Thai data should be used for circular cross-section rods. | Commerce selected Thai HTS 7228.50.90 data for non-circular rods. | Remand required to reconsider wire-rod surrogate value. |
| Whether the assessment-rate methodology entitles CPZ to relief | Normal method yields over-assessment and CPZ proposes alternative method. | Regulation permits the normal method; CPZ has not shown legal error. | No remand; CPZ not entitled to relief on assessment-rate claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 35 CIT _, 752 F. Supp.2d 1353 (2011) (substantial-evidence review of surrogate-values; court cites previous CIT decision)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 258 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (normal method permitted; discretion to use other methods)
- Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed.Cir. 1994) (substantial transformation and country-of-origin considerations)