Peer Bearing Company-Changshan v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 11
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2011Background
- CPZ challenges the Final Results in the 20th POR of an antidumping duty order on PRC tapered roller bearings, alleging the U.S. prices were determined unlawfully using CEP/facts otherwise available instead of EP and using improper surrogate values.
- Commerce determined CPZ's dumping margin at 92.84% based on CEP starting prices and adjusted them by a method not authorized by the statute, while treating CPZ–Peer importer sales as the relevant U.S. sale.
- The Final Results followed a shift from CEP in preliminaries to an EP-based calculation in the Final Results, relying on the Decision Memorandum's findings that CPZ's prices to the unaffiliated importer were not on the record and using 'facts otherwise available'.
- Surrogate valuation issues focus on steel wire rod, steel bar, and steel scrap inputs valued using Indian HTS data versus Indonesian/Philippine data, with CPZ challenging the choice as not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court concludes Commerce erred in its U.S. price methodology and surrogate-value selections and orders remand to correct these legal errors, including possible reopening for export-price data and reconsideration of surrogate values.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPZ's U.S. price determination complied with the statute | CPZ argues the U.S. prices were EP-based and fell within CEP adjustments, using impermissible facts otherwise available. | Commerce contends it used EP-based methodology with facts otherwise available as permitted by law. | Unlawful as framed; remand required to correct U.S. price methodology. |
| Whether Commerce may reopen the record to obtain export-price data on remand | Record should support EP starting prices and CPZ data must be collected for EP pricing. | Remand can include reopening to obtain export-price information if needed. | Remand permitted; not precluded from reopening to obtain EP data. |
| Whether the surrogate value for alloy steel wire rod is supported by substantial evidence | Indian data are aberrational and not the best available information; Indonesian/Philippine data corroborate better. | Indian data are the best available information under the surrogate-value rules. | Not supported by substantial evidence; remand required to reconsider surrogate value. |
| Whether the surrogate value for alloy steel bar was properly chosen | Indonesian and Philippine data corroborate and Indian data are aberrational; require rational comparison. | Indian data meet best available information criteria and regulatory preference for single surrogate country. | Not supported by substantial evidence; remand required to reconsider surrogate value. |
| Whether the scrap valuations for cages and rollers were properly classified and valued | Data classification under Indian HTS 7204.49 lacks essential findings of fact; misclassification possible. | Indian HTS 7204.49 is appropriate for scrap; rationale provided. | Scrap data insufficiently supported; remand required to address findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (EP vs CEP classification; plain-language EP definition limits when both parties are in the U.S.)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1962) (agency decisions must have a rational basis and explanation.)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence standard for review.)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (deference to agency findings with substantial evidence standard.)