Federal-Mogul Corp. v. US
| Decision Date | 13 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 96-37. Court No. 93-08-00461. |
| Citation | 918 F. Supp. 386,20 CIT 234 |
| Parties | FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor, The Torrington Company, Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A., SKF GmbH, SKF Industrie, S.p.A. and SKF Sverige AB; SNR Roulements; Meter S.p.A.; NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., NTN Corporation and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH; NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation; Emerson Power Transmission Corporation; INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc.; Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.; RHP Bearings and RHP Bearings Inc.; NMB Singapore Ltd., Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd., NMB Thai Ltd. and Pelmec Thai Ltd.; FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, FAG Italia, S.p.A., FAG (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, FAG Bearings Corporation and The Barden Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Frederick L. Ikenson, P.C., Washington, DC (Frederick L. Ikenson, Washington, DC, Larry Hampel, Silver Springs, MD and Joseph A. Perna, V, Springfield, PA) for plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor Federal-Mogul Corporation.
Stewart and Stewart (Terence P. Stewart, James R. Cannon, Jr., Wesley K. Caine, William A. Fennell, Geert de Prest, John M. Breen, Lane S. Hurewitz, Myron A. Brilliant, Patrick J. McDonough and Amy S. Dwyer) for plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor The Torrington Company.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Jeffrey M. Telep, of counsel: Michelle Behaylo, Stacy J. Ettinger, Thomas H. Fine, Anna Park, Alexandra Levinson and David Ross), Washington, DC, for defendant.
Howrey & Simon (Herbert C. Shelley, Alice A. Kipel, Anne Talbot and Patricia M. Steele), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A., SKF GmbH, SKF Industrie, S.p.A. and SKF Sverige AB.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, New York City (Bruce M. Mitchell) for defendant-intervenor SNR Roulements.
Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC (W. George Grandison and Maury D. Shenk) for defendant-intervenor Meter S.p.A.
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, Chicago, IL (Donald J. Unger, Kazumune V. Kano and Lawrence M. Friedman) for defendant-intervenors NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., NTN Corporation and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH.
Lipstein, Jaffe & Lawson, L.L.P., Washington, DC (Robert A. Lipstein, Matthew P. Jaffe and Grace W. Lawson) for defendant-intervenors NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation.
Baker & McKenzie, Washington, DC (Kevin M. O'Brien, Michael A. Lawrence and Sandra E. Chavez) for defendant-intervenor Emerson Power Transmission Corporation.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC (Stephen L. Gibson and Peter L. Sultan) for defendant-intervenors INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Washington, DC (Peter O. Suchman, Neil R. Ellis, Robert A. Calaff and Susan M. Mathews) for defendant-intervenors Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.
Covington & Burling, Washington, DC (Harvey M. Applebaum, David R. Grace and Mark F. Kightlinger) for defendant-intervenors RHP Bearings and RHP Bearings Inc.
White & Case, Washington, DC (Walter J. Spak, William J. Clinton, David E. Bond and Edmund W. Sim) for defendant-intervenors NMB Singapore Ltd., Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd., NMB Thai Ltd. and Pelmec Thai Ltd.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, New York City (Max F. Schutzman, Andrew B. Schroth and Mark E. Pardo) for defendant-intervenors FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, FAG Italia, S.p.A., FAG (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, FAG Bearings Corporation and The Barden Corporation.
Plaintiffs, Federal-Mogul Corporation ("Federal-Mogul") and 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 administrative review entitled Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order ("Final Results"), 58 Fed.Reg. 39,729 (1993), as amended, 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, 58 Fed.Reg. 42,288 (1993), Antifriction Bearings) (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France and the United Kingdom; Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 58 Fed.Reg. 51,055 (1993), and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Japan; Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 59 Fed.Reg. 9,469 (1994).
On April 27, 1993, Commerce published the preliminary results of its administrative review of antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings ("AFBs") (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty, Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 58 Fed.Reg. 25,616 (1993).
On July 26, 1993, Commerce published the Final Results at issue. See Final Results, 58 Fed.Reg. at 39,729. Federal-Mogul and Torrington now move pursuant to Rule 56.2 of the Rules of this Court for judgment on the agency record alleging the following actions by Commerce were unsupported by substantial evidence on the agency record and not in accordance with law: (1) adjusting United States price ("USP") by adding an amount for taxes incurred on sales in the home market; (2) refusing to find that below-cost transfer pricing constituted reimbursement of antidumping duties to be subtracted from exporter's sales price ("ESP"); (3) using constructed value to calculate foreign market value ("FMV") for certain bearings; (4) calculating inventory carrying costs for ESP sales based upon transfer prices; (5) refusing to recognize certain home market sales as being "similar" to U.S. models; (6) failing to reallocate Meter S.p.A.'s ("Meter") claimed U.S. warranty expenses which were not tied to specific sales; (7) allocating NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation's (collectively "NSK") indirect expenses over sales to all U.S. customers; (8) including below-cost sales in calculating profit for purposes of determining constructed value; (9) using two different methodologies for the assessment of antidumping duties and for the establishment of future cash deposit rates; (10) adjusting FMV for pre-sale inland freight expenses; (11) refusing to deduct resale profit from ESP; (12) treating home market rebates, discounts and billing adjustments as indirect selling expenses; (13) including certain below-cost sales in its calculation of FMV; (14) using weighted-average entered value data to determine whether to exclude the sales of Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (collectively "Koyo") pursuant to the "Roller Chain" rule; (15) accepting selling expenses reported on the basis of transfer prices by NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., NTN Corporation and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH (collectively "NTN"); (16) adjusting NTN's USP for interest paid on cash deposits of antidumping duties; (17) refusing to deduct liaison expenses from ESP; (18) treating NTN's aftermarket sales as a separate level of trade; (19) using quantity rather than weight as a measure of home market viability; (20) treating "Route B," bonded warehouse, and dollar-denominated sales of NMB Singapore Ltd., Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd., NMB Thai Ltd. and Pelmec Thai Ltd. (collectively "NMB/Pelmec") as home market sales; (21) including NMB/Pelmec's Thailand sales to related parties in the calculation of profit for constructed value; and (22) committing various clerical errors.
The Court's jurisdiction in this action is derived from 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2) (1988) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1988).
The Court must uphold Commerce's final determination unless it is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with the 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 the 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 and Torrington object to Commerce's attempt to achieve tax neutrality by adding to USP the amount of tax paid on home market sales rather than the actual tax forgiven on export sales. Brief of Federal-Mogul Corporation in Support of its Motion for Judgment Upon the Agency Record ("Federal-Mogul's Brief") at 5-7; Memorandum in Support of The Torrington Company's Motion for Judgment Upon the Administrative Record ("Torrington's Brief") at 102-05. Federal-Mogul and Torrington contend that Commerce's approach is inconsistent with 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Makita Corp. v. U.S.
...19 CIT ___, 874 F.Supp. 1395 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 19 CIT ___, 881 F.Supp. 622 (1995); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT ___, 918 F.Supp. 386 (1996); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 20 CIT ___, 919 F.Supp. 442 9. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief [ITA], p. 52. 10. The agency ......
-
Coal. for Pres. of Amer Brake Drum & Rotor v. U.S., Slip Op. 99-20.
...20 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed.Cir.1994) (granting discretion to Commerce in deciding when to average prices); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 918 F.Supp. 386, 403-04 (CIT 1996) (granting broad discretion in sample selection In such cases, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) (1994) specifies t......
-
Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. U.S.
...samples as long as the samples are "representative of the transactions under investigation." See Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 918 F.Supp. 386, 20 CIT 234, 253 (1996). In addition, the Court has consistently recognized that Commerce has been given broad discretion in its sample sele......
-
Timken Co. v. U.S.
...duties. See also Torrington Co. v. United States, 20 CIT ___, ___, 944 F.Supp. 930, 933-34 (1996); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT ___, ___, 918 F.Supp. 386, 393-94 (1996). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") recently affirmed Torrington, 19 CIT ___, 881 F.Sup......