Timken Co. v. US, Court No. 87-06-00738.
Decision Date | 22 March 1989 |
Docket Number | Court No. 87-06-00738. |
Citation | 714 F. Supp. 535 |
Parties | The TIMKEN COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, China National Machinery & Equipment Import and Export Corporation (CMEC), Defendant-Intervenor. |
Court | U.S. 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 ___, 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.
Presuming familiarity with the decision in Timken Co., the Court does not reiterate plaintiff's concerns regarding calculation of net raw material cost and factory overhead. Suffice to state that in its remand determination, Commerce relied on the adjusted raw material prices and scrap value quoted in the telexes from the United States Consulate in Bombay. In accordance with the Court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UCF America Inc. v. US, Slip Op. 96-42. Court No. 92-01-00049.
...rate of 0.97% and set a new "all others" rate of 2.96%. The Court affirmed Commerce's redetermination in Timken Co. v. United States, 13 CIT 238, 714 F.Supp. 535 (1989), aff'd, 894 F.2d 385 (Fed. Cir.1990). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld CMEC's margin and on Febr......
-
Tehnoimportexport v. US, Court No. 89-06-00337.
...19 C.F.R. § 353.8(b); see The Timken Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 955, 958-59, 699 F.Supp. 300, 303 (1988), after remand, 13 CIT ___, ___, 714 F.Supp. 535 (1989), aff'd, 894 F.2d 385 (Fed.Cir.1990); Chemical Prods. Corp. v. United States, 10 CIT 626, 630, 645 F.Supp. 289, 293 (1986). Of cou......
-
Alaska v. Haaland
...... No. 3:21-cv-0158-HRH United States District Court, D. Alaska March 14, 2022 . . . ORDER MOTION TO DISMISS . . . ... of those times. For instance, in Timken" Company v. United. States , 715 F.Supp. 373, 374, 460 (CIT 1989), the court. held that \xE2"......
-
Timken Co. v. US, Court No. 87-06-00738.
...Trade Administration (Commerce) to publish in the Federal Register notice of this Court's opinion in Timken Co. v. United States, 13 CIT ___, 714 F.Supp. 535 (1989), notice of appeal filed (Fed.Cir. May 22, 1989), within ten days of entry of such decision. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e), an age......