714 F.Supp. 535 (CIT. 1989), 87-06-00738, Timken Co. v. United States
|Docket Nº:||Court No. 87-06-00738.|
|Citation:||714 F.Supp. 535|
|Party Name:||The TIMKEN COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, China National Machinery & Equipment Import and Export Corporation (CMEC), Defendant-Intervenor.|
|Case Date:||March 22, 1989|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Stewart and Stewart, Eugene L. Stewart and Terence P. Stewart, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Civ. Div., Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Dept. of Justice, and Platte B. Moring, III, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
Graham & James, Lawrence R. Walders and Brian E. McGill, Washington, D.C., for defendant-intervenor.
Plaintiff, a domestic manufacturer of tapered roller bearings (TRBs), commenced the above-captioned action in order to challenge the final affirmative determination of the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (Commerce) in Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 Fed.Reg. 19,748 (May 27, 1987), which found no dumping margin for defendant-intervenor. In Timken Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 955, 699 F.Supp. 300 (1988), this Court affirmed that determination in part and remanded in part. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiff received adequate procedural rights and approved Commerce's use of the constructed value methodology and the "best information available rule." The Court also sustained Commerce's appraisal of the foreign market value, except with regard to computation of the net raw material cost and excise tax. Id. at ----, 699 F.Supp. at 309. The Court remanded to Commerce to recalculate the net cost of raw materials using consistent sources of evidence in the record, namely, the telexes from the United States Consulate in Bombay, India. The Court also directed Commerce to correct 2.98 percent undervaluation of the Chinese factory overhead rate. The Court has received the final results of the remand. Neither plaintiff nor defendant-intervenor challenges the remand determination.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP