881 F.Supp. 622 (CIT. 1995), 92-07-00483, Torrington Co. v. United States
|Docket Nº:||Court No. 92-07-00483.|
|Citation:||881 F.Supp. 622|
|Party Name:||The TORRINGTON COMPANY, Plaintiff, Federal-Mogul Corporation, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A., SKF GmbH, SKF Industrie, S.p.A., SKF (U.K.) Limited and SKF Sverige AB; RHP Bearings and RHP Bearings Inc.; Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.; GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG; NSK Ltd. and NS|
|Case Date:||March 31, 1995|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Stewart and Stewart (Eugene L. Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, James R. Cannon, Jr., Wesley K. Caine, William A. Fennell,John M. Breen, Margaret E.O. Edozien, Robert A. Weaver, Myron A. Brilliant, Geert De Prest, Lane S. Hurewitz and Margaret L.H. Png), Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
Frederick L. Ikenson, P.C. (Frederick L. Ikenson, Larry Hampel, Joseph A. Perna, V and J. Eric Nissley), Washington, DC, for plaintiff-intervenor.
Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen.; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice (Marc E. Montalbine); of counsel: Stephen J. Claeys, Stacy J. Ettinger, Thomas H. Fine, Craig R. Giesze, Jeffrey M. Telep, Alicia D. Greenidge and Dean A. Pinkert, Attys., Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC, for defendant.
Howrey & Simon (Herbert C. Shelley, Alice A. Kipel, Juliana M. Cofrancesco, Thomas J. Trendl and Anne Talbot), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A., SKF GmbH, SKF Industrie, S.p.A., SKF (U.K.) Ltd. and SKF Sverige AB.
Covington & Burling (Harvey M. Applebaum, David R. Grace and Thomas A. Robertson), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors RHP Bearings and RHP Bearings Inc.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy (Peter O. Suchman, Neil R. Ellis, T. George Davis, Robert A. Calaff and Lee Ann Alexander), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corp. of U.S.A.
Hopkins & Sutter (John G. DeGooyer), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG.
Lipstein, Jaffe and Lawson (Robert A. Lipstein, Matthew P. Jaffe and Grace W. Lawson), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors NSK Ltd. and NSK Corp.
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Donald J. Unger, Robert E. Burke, Kazumune V. Kano, Peter Sultan and Diane A. MacDonald), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors NTN Bearing Corp. of America, American NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp., NTN Corp. and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH.
White & Case (Walter J. Spak, William J. Clinton, David E. Bond and Edmund W. Sim), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors NMB Thai Ltd., Pelmec Thai Ltd.,
NMB Singapore Ltd. and Pelmec Industries Ltd. and NMB Corp.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman (Max F. Schutzman, David L. Simon, Andrew B. Schroth, Matthew L. Pascocello and Mark E. Pardo), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, FAG Cuscinetti SpA, FAG (UK) Ltd., Barden Corp. (UK) Ltd., FAG Bearings Corp. and The Barden Corp.
Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti (John M. Gurley and Lindsay B. Meyer), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Peer Bearing Co.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn (Stephen L. Gibson and Eleanor Pelta), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Co., Inc.
Plaintiff, The Torrington Company ("Torrington"), commenced this action challenging certain aspects of the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration's ("Commerce" or "ITA") final results of its administrative review concerning antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) ("AFBs") and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France; et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews ("Final Results"), 57 Fed.Reg. 28,360 (June 24, 1992).
Specifically, plaintiff contests Commerce's (1) refusing to find that below-cost transfer pricing constituted either reimbursement of antidumping duties or a basis for investigating reimbursement of antidumping duties; (2) including below-cost sales in calculating profit for purposes of determining constructed value; (3) methodology for comparing U.S. and home market sales; (4) methodology for calculating cash deposit rates for estimated antidumping duties; (5) adjusting foreign market value ("FMV") in exporter's sales price ("ESP") comparisons for inventory carrying costs; (6) methodology for adjusting United States price ("USP") and foreign market value for foreign "value added" consumption taxes ("VAT") that are rebated or not collected by reason of the exportation of the merchandise to the United States; (7) adjusting foreign market value for pre-sale inland freight costs; (8) determining not to deduct resale profit in exporter's sales price transactions; (9) adjusting foreign market value for rebates and billing adjustments; (10) determining not to verify FAG Germany's cost of production ("COP") data; (11) accepting the cost of producing the inputs in its constructed value calculations with respect to FAG-Italy's related party suppliers of certain inputs; (12) calculation of NTN's adjustment for inventory carrying costs; (13) deciding to exclude Koyo's "Roller Chain" sales from its antidumping analysis; (14) accepting the use of quantity rather than weight for NMB Singapore and NMB Thailand as a measure of home market viability; (15) determining that antifriction bearings imported into foreign trade zones ("FTZs") but not entered into the customs territory of the United States were not subject to antidumping duties; (16) treatment of NMB Thailand's Route B sales as home market sales; (17) treatment of NMB's bonded warehouse-to-bonded warehouse sales as home market sales; and (18) adjusting USP for the amount of uncollected or rebated duties and taxes payable by NMB Thailand.
On May 15, 1989, Commerce published antidumping duty orders on ball bearings, cylindrical roller bearings and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof. Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings, and Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, 54 Fed.Reg. 20,900 (May 15, 1989). On June 28, 1991, July 19, 1991 and August 14, 1991, Commerce initiated administrative reviews with respect to various manufacturers and exporters from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom for the period May 1, 1990 through April 30, 1991. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom; Initiation of Antidumping Administrative Reviews , 56 Fed.Reg. 29,618 (June 28, 1991); Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 Fed.Reg. 33,251 (July 19, 1991); Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 Fed.Reg. 40,305 (August 14, 1991).
On March 31, 1992, Commerce published the preliminary results of its second administrative reviews. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 57 Fed.Reg. 10,859 (March 31, 1992).
On June 24, 1992, Commerce published one joint final determination for the nine administrative reviews. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France; et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 Fed.Reg. 28,360 (June 24, 1992).
On July 21, 1992, Torrington filed its summons in this case, challenging the final results with respect to France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom.
This Court must uphold final results of an ITA administrative review unless the ITA determination is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B) (1988). Substantial evidence is defined as "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938); Alhambra Foundry Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 343, 345, 685 F.Supp. 1252, 1255 (1988). It is "not within the Court's domain either to weigh the adequate quality or quantity of the evidence for sufficiency or to reject a finding on grounds of a differing interpretation of the record." Timken Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 955, 962, 699 F.Supp. 300, 306 (1988), aff'd, 894 F.2d 385 (Fed.Cir. 1990).
1. Reimbursement of Antidumping Duties
Torrington contends that whenever a foreign manufacturer sells merchandise to a related U.S. importer at prices below cost plus profit or...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP