Skf USA Inc. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 324
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- SKF sued after Commerce's 17th administrative review of antidumping duties used an unaffiliated supplier's actual costs to calculate CV for ball bearings.
- Commerce justified using unaffiliated supplier data based on the statutory language allowing COP/CV to reflect actual costs and to include costs of both exporter and producer where appropriate.
- SKF argued the statute does not permit unaffiliated data, that the change in methodology lacked adequate explanation, and that due process rights were implicated by data access and adverse inferences.
- Trade Court affirmed Commerce's authority and held the explanation adequate, including the zeroing method for dumping margins.
- SKF challenged the change in methodology under State Farm standards, arguing Commerce failed to address significant concerns and to justify the shift after sixteen prior reviews.
- This court reviews for substantial evidence and law, and ultimately affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for a more adequate explanation on the change in methodology.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to use unaffiliated data for CV | SKF: unaffiliated data not permitted | United States/Timken: statute permits using actual costs from unaffiliated suppliers | Authority recognized; but require adequate explanation for change |
| State Farm adequacy of the change in methodology explanation | SKF: explanation insufficient; two concerns ignored | Commerce: change serves legitimate objectives and aligns with practice | Explanation inadequate; remand to provide fuller response |
| Zeroing in dumping margin during reviews | SKF: zeroing violates WTO and is improper after prior reforms | Commerce may continue zeroing in reviews | Zeroing remains permissible in administrative reviews |
| Due process concerns about data access and adverse inferences | SKF: cannot access supplier data; risk of adverse inferences | APO access and no adverse inference in this case; no due process violation | No due process violation; concerns not dispositive in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence and state-law/alleged procedural compliance standards)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States, 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court, 1983) (agency must provide adequate explanations for significant policy changes)
- Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (agency procedure and consideration of comments in rulemaking/antidumping)
- NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (WTO decisions and domestic law implementation)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 659 F.Supp.2d 1338 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009) (discourses on zeroing and dumping margins in prior proceedings)
- Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (agency responses to comments and reasonableness of decisions)