293 F.Supp.2d 1334 (CIT. 2003), 01-01114, China Nat'l. Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States
|Docket Nº:||Court No. 01-01114.|
|Citation:||293 F.Supp.2d 1334|
|Party Name:||CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and The Timken Company, Defendant-Intervenor. Slip Op. 03-133.|
|Case Date:||October 15, 2003|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Crowell & Moring L.L.P., (Jeffrey L. Snyder), Alexander H. Schaefer, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, (Ada E. Bosque), Trial Attorney; Amanda L. Blaurock, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States
Department of Commerce, for Defendant, of counsel.
Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, (Wesley K. Caine), Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor.
This case is before the court following remand to the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce" or "Defendant" or "Department"). In China National Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 27 CIT ----, 264 F.Supp.2d 1229 (2003) ( " CMC I" ), familiarity with which is presumed, the court sustained in part and remanded in part the Department's determination with respect to Plaintiff China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation ("CMC" or "Plaintiff") in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 Fed.Reg. 57,420 (Nov. 15, 2001) ( "Final Results" ).
Plaintiff CMC is an exporter of the subject merchandise, tapered roller bearings ("TRBs"), from the People's Republic of China, a non-market economy ("NME") country. The dispute involves the prices of a steel input, hot-rolled alloy steel bar, which CMC purchased from its supplier in [[ ]], a market economy country, and used in the production of TRBs sold to the United States. 1 In CMC I, the court held that, if Commerce had "reason to believe or suspect" that the supplier's prices were subsidized, Commerce could employ surrogate values instead of actual prices in normal value ("NV") calculations of dumping margins where it determines that such prices are best information available under the statute. See CMC I, at 1238; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) (2000) (providing the use of "the best available information" concerning the values for factors of production of an exporter in an NME country); H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623 ( "House Report" ) (instructing Commerce to avoid using any price "which it has reason to believe or suspect may be dumped or subsidized") (emphasis supplied). In CMC I, the court stated that it will "affirm Commerce's actions if, given the entire record as a whole, there is substantial, specific, and objective evidence which could reasonably be interpreted to support a suspicion that the prices CMC paid to its market economy supplier were distorted." CMC I, at 1240. Applying the standard to the facts of the case, the court found that Commerce did not sufficiently explain and highlight evidence in support of its determinations in the Final Results. Id. Consequently, the court remanded the case to Commerce to review and augment the administrative record and explain its determinations further. See id. at 1243.
Pursuant to the court's order, Commerce issued its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (May 13, 2003) ( "Remand Results" ). Plaintiff CMC and Defendant-Intervenor The Timken Company ("Timken") timely responded to the Remand Results. In this matter the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The court must uphold Commerce's determination if it is supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). After reviewing the parties' submissions, the administrative record, and all other papers and proceedings,
the court is satisfied that the Remand Results are in adequate compliance with the court's order. Accordingly, the court sustains the Remand Results.
Commerce has a duty to calculate dumping margins as accurately as possible and should typically refrain from using surrogate values (which in themselves are imperfect substitutes) in dumping margin calculations where market-determined values are available. See Lasko Metal Prods., Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed.Cir.1994). Consistent with this mandate, the applicable regulation advises Commerce to employ actual market values, where available, for NV calculations of an NME exporter, under normal circumstances. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1) (2000). On the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP