Torrington Co. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | RIV-SKF,No. 91-1084,91-1084 |
| Citation | 938 F.2d 1278 |
| Parties | The TORRINGTON COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA, Fag Cuscinetti, S.p.A. and Fag Bearings, Corp.; Kippon Seiko, K.K. and NSK Corp.; Caterpillar, Inc.; Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corp. of U.S.A.; Hoesch Rothe Erde Schmiedag AG and Rotek Inc.; and NTN Corp., NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp. and NTN Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd.; SKF USA, Inc., AB SKF, SKF GmbH and SKF Gleitlager GmbH, SKF France,Industries, S.p.A., SKF Sverige AB and SKF (U.K.) Ltd.; ICSA Industria Cuscinneti S.p.A., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Terence P. Stewart, Stewart & Stewart, Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Eugene L. Stewart and James R. Cannon, Jr.
Frances Marshall, Office of the Gen. Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, Washington, D.C., argued for defendants-appellees, The U.S. With her on the brief were Stephen A. McLaughlin, Office of the Gen. Counsel and James A. Toupin, Asst. Gen. Counsel. Herbert C. Shelley, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., argued for defendants-appellees, SKF USA, et al. With him on the brief was Alice A. Kipel.
Louis S. Mastriani and Barbara A. Murphy, Adduci, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenors-appellees, FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer KGaA, FAG Cuscinetti SpA and FAG Bearings Corp.
Peter O. Suchman and Neil R. Ellis, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for defendants-appellees, Caterpillar, Inc.
Walter A. Smith, Jr., Lewis E. Leibowitz and David W. Phillips, Hogan and Hartson, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for defendants-appellees, Hoesch Rothe Erde Schmiedag AG and Rotek, Inc.
Donald J. Unger, Robert E. Burke, Brian F. Walsh and Jesse M. Gerson, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief for defendants-appellees, NTN Corp., NTN Bearing Corp. of America, American NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp. and NTN Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd.
Robert A. Lipstein and Nathan V. Holt, Coudert Brothers, Washington, D.C., represented defendants-appellees, Nippon Seiko.
Pierre F. De Ravel D'Esclapon and Thomas R. Trowbridge, III, New York City, represented defendants-appellees, ISCA Industries Cuscinetti S.p.A.
Before RICH, ARCHER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the September 11, 1990, judgment of the Court of International Trade which held that the International Trade Commission has the authority to determine which domestic products are "like products", even if the determination differs from the like product description in the petition to the Commission, and that the determination was supported by substantial evidence. Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F.Supp. 744 (Ct.Int'l Trade 1990). We affirm.
On March 31, 1988, the Torrington Company filed an antidumping and countervailing duty petition with the International Trade Commission on behalf of the domestic industry that produces antifriction bearings. The petition described one type of product, antifriction bearings.
Based on the petition, the Commission initiated an investigation. In May 1989, the Commission issued final injury determinations for six types of products, viz., (1) ball bearings, (2) spherical roller bearings, (3) cylindrical roller bearings, (4) needle roller bearings, (5) plain bearings, and (6) slewing rings. Subsequently, the Commission rendered affirmative injury determinations only for types 1, 3, and 5.
Torrington appealed the Commission's determination that there were six "like products" to the Court of International Trade. The court did not review the injury determinations, nor do we. It held that the Commission did not err in determining that there were six like products as opposed to the one product alleged in Torrington's petition, and that this determination was supported by substantial evidence. This appeal followed.
The principal issues here are (1) whether the Commission has the discretionary authority to determine the number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Makita Corp. v. U.S.
...of manufacture, and price. See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 14 CIT 648, 652, 747 F.Supp. 744, 749 (1990) aff'd, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.Cir.1991). And Congress did not intend such consideration to be so as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics and uses to lead to the......
-
Nmb Singapore Ltd. v. U.S.
...342, 346 n. 4, 794 F.Supp. 377, 382 n. 4 (1992); Torrington Co. v. United States, 14 CIT 648, 652, 747 F.Supp. 744, 749 (1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1278 (1991)). "The Commission generally disregards minor differences, and looks for clear dividing lines between like products." Nippon Steel Corp.......
-
Hosiden Corp. v. US
... ... The court agrees with the Commission that clearly, both Commerce and the Commission have individual responsibilities. See Torrington Co. v. United States, 14 CIT 648, 747 F.Supp. 744 (1990), aff'd, 10 Fed.Cir. (T) ___, 938 F.2d 1278 (1991). "It is settled law that the Commission's like product determination is separate and distinct from Commerce's determination of the class or kind of merchandise." Id., 14 CIT at 650, 747 ... ...
-
Campbell v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
...887, 74 S.Ct. 139, 98 L.Ed. 391 (1953); accord Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F.Supp. 744, 751 (Ct.Int'l Trade 1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.Cir.1991); see also 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706 (1988) ("[D]ue account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial Campbell observes that the Board menti......