Federal-Mogul Corp. v. US, Slip Op. 94-198
| Decision Date | 20 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 94-198,92-06-00422. |
| Citation | 872 F. Supp. 1011,18 CIT 1168 |
| Parties | FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, The Torrington Company, 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; Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, FAG Cuscinetti SpA, FAG (UK) Limited, Barden Corporation (UK) Limited, FAG Bearings Corporation, The Barden Corporation and Barden Precision Bearings Corporation; RHP Bearings and RHP Bearings Inc.; Peer Bearing Company; Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.; NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation; SNR Roulements; NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation, NTN Corporation and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH, Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Frederick L. Ikenson, P.C., Frederick L. Ikenson, J. Eric Nissley, Joseph A. Perna, V and Larry Hampe, Washington, DC, for plaintiff, Federal-Mogul Corp.
Stewart and Stewart, Eugene L. Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, Wesley K. Caine and Robert A. Weaver, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-intervenor The Torrington Co.
Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Marc E. Montalbine, of counsel: Stephen J. Claeys, Craig R. Giesze, Dean A. Pinkert, Thomas H. Fine and Alicia Greenidge, Attorney-Advisors, 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 and Thomas J. Trendl, 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.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, Max F. Schutzman, Andrew B. Schroth, David L. Simon and Matthew L. Pascocello, New York City, for defendant-intervenors FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, FAG Cuscinetti SpA, FAG (UK) Limited, Barden Corp. (UK) Ltd., FAG Bearings Corp., The Barden Corp. and Barden Precision Bearings Corp.
Covington & Burling, Harvey M. Applebaum, David R. Grace and Thomas A. Robertson, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors RHP Bearings and RHP Bearings Inc.
Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, John M. Gurley and Lindsay B. Meyer, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Peer Bearing Co.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Peter O. Suchman, Neil R. Ellis, T. George Davis and Niall P. Meagher, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corp. of U.S.A.
Lipstein, Jaffe & Lawson, Robert A. Lipstein, Matthew P. Jaffe and Grace W. Lawson, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors NSK Ltd. and NSK Corp.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, Bruce M. Mitchell, David L. Simon, Philip S. Gallas, Jeffrey S. Grimson, Andrew B. Schroth and Matthew L. Pascocello, New York City, for defendant-intervenor SNR Roulements.
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, Robert E. Burke, Donald J. Unger, Kazumune V. Kano and Diane A. MacDonald, Chicago, IL, for defendant-intervenors NTN Bearing Corp. of America, American NTN Bearing Mfg Corp., NTN Corp. and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH.
Plaintiff, Federal-Mogul Corporation ("Federal-Mogul"), challenges the affirmative determination of the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration ("Commerce"), in 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 (1992).
This action comes before the Court on plaintiff's second motion for partial judgment upon the agency record pursuant to Rule 56.1 of the Rules of this Court.
On May 15, 1989, Commerce published antidumping duty orders covering the unfairly traded subject merchandise. 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 (1989); 54 Fed.Reg. 20,902 (1989) (France); 54 Fed.Reg. 20,903 (1989) (Italy); 54 Fed. Reg. 20,904 (1989) (Japan); 54 Fed.Reg. 20,906 (1989) (Romania); 54 Fed.Reg. 20,907 (1989) (Singapore and Sweden); 54 Fed.Reg. 20,909 (1989) (Thailand); Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to the Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ball Bearings, and Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From the United Kingdom, Fed.Reg. 20,910 (1989); 54 Fed. Reg. 20,911 (1989) (Thailand).
On June 28, July 19 and August 14, 1991, Commerce initiated administrative reviews of these orders with respect to various manufacturers and exporters 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 (1991); Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 Fed.Reg. 33,251 (1991); Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 Fed.Reg. 40,305 (1991).
On March 31, 1992, Commerce published its preliminary determinations in these 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 (1992); 57 Fed.Reg. 10,862 (1992) (Federal Republic of Germany); 57 Fed.Reg. 10,865 (1992) (Italy); 57 Fed.Reg. 10,868 (1992) (Japan); 57 Fed.Reg. 10,875 (1992) (Sweden); 57 Fed.Reg. 10,878 (1992) (United Kingdom).
On June 24, 1992, Commerce published its consolidated Final Results. Final Results, 57 Fed.Reg. at 28,360. Amendments to the Final Results did not alter the results in any respect relevant to the issues discussed herein. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom; Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 Fed.Reg. 32,969 (1992); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 Fed.Reg. 59,080 (1992).
Against this background, Federal-Mogul now moves pursuant to Rule 56.1 of the Rules of this Court for partial judgment upon the agency record alleging that Commerce made various ministerial errors in its Final Results.1 Specifically, Federal-Mogul claims that Commerce: (1) failed to deduct direct warranty expenses in calculating United States price ("USP") for SNR Roulements ("SNR"); (2) failed to deduct U.S. repacking costs in calculating USP for INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG ("INA"); (3) improperly calculated adjusted price for comparison with cost of production ("COP") for SKF GmbH ("SKF-Germany"); (4) improperly calculated foreign market value ("FMV") for Showa Pillow Block Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ("Showa Pillow Block"); (5) improperly calculated constructed value for Inoue Jikuuke Kogyo Co., Ltd. ("IJK"); (6) improperly calculated exporter's sales prices for Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd. ("Seiko"); (7) improperly calculated adjusted home market prices for comparison with COP for Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. ("Nachi"); and (8) improperly calculated FMV for FAG (U.K.) Ltd. ("FAG U.K."). Brief of Federal-Mogul Corporation in Support of its Second Motion for Partial Judgment Upon the Agency Record ("Plaintiff's Brief") at 1-13.
Federal-Mogul alleges that due to the above-enumerated ministerial errors, Commerce's Final Results are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record and are not otherwise in accordance with law. Plaintiff's Brief at 3.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2) (1988) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1988).
This Court must uphold Commerce's final determination unless it 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 Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 459, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). "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).
Federal-Mogul alleges that, due to various ministerial errors, various cash deposit rates established by the Final Results are understated.
Federal-Mogul first asserts that, although Commerce intended to calculate a specific percentage of the unit price to account for SNR's direct warranty expenses ("DWARRE") on U.S. sales and to deduct this amount from USP, Commerce failed to do so. Specifically, Federal-Mogul asserts that Commerce excluded DWARRE from total U.S. direct selling expenses ("USDRCT") and, consequently, also excluded DWARRE from total U.S. selling expenses ("USSELL") which were deducted from unit price in the USP calculation. Federal-Mogul seeks a remand so that Commerce may adjust its computer program to include DWARRE. Plaintiff's Brief at 6-7.
Commerce points out that it calculated the value for the variable DWARRE, but concedes that it inadvertently excluded DWARRE from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-82.
...at 683, 746 F.Supp. at 1111 (citing Timken Co. v. United States, 7 CIT 319, 320 (1984)). See also Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 18 CIT 1168, 1171-72, 872 F.Supp. 1011, 1014 (1994) (granting Commerce's request for remand to correct "inadvertent" factual As stated above, indirect sell......
-
Alloy Piping Products, Inc. v. U.S.
...636 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 853 F.Supp. 446 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994); Federal Mogul Corp. v. United States, 872 F.Supp. 1011 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994).) Kanzen concedes the three cases cited involved situations in which the errors committed were in Commerce's own......
-
Koenig & Bauer-Albert Ag v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-83.
...at 683, 746 F.Supp. at 1111 (citing Timken Co. v. United States, 7 CIT 319, 320 (1984)). See also Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 18 CIT 1168, 1171-72, 872 F.Supp. 1011, 1014 (1994) (granting Commerce's request for remand to correct "inadvertent" factual errors). As in Koyo Seiko and ......
-
Peer Bearing Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 99-66.
...The Court has often remanded in cases such as these to correct ministerial errors of this type. See Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 18 CIT 1168, 1172, 872 F.Supp. 1011, 1014 (1994). Consequently, the Court grants Commerce's request for a remand to correct the inadvertent reversal of t......