Nippon Pillow Block Sales Co., Ltd. v. US, Court No. 91-08-00555.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1993
• Docket Number: Court No. 91-08-00555.
• Citation: 837 F. Supp. 434
• Parties: NIPPON PILLOW BLOCK SALES CO., LTD. and FYH Bearing Units U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, The Torrington Company; Federal-Mogul Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

837 F. Supp. 434

NIPPON PILLOW BLOCK SALES CO., LTD. and FYH Bearing Units U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, The Torrington Company; Federal-Mogul Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors.

Court No. 91-08-00555.

United States Court of International Trade.

November 3, 1993.

Michael J. Brown, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs Nippon Pillow Block Sales Co., Ltd. and FYH Bearing Units U.S.A., Inc. Baker & McKenzie, Kevin M. O'Brien, Richard G. King and Joseph E. Downey, Washington, DC, Emerson Power Transmission Corp., amicus curiae, in support of plaintiffs.

Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Velta A. Melnbrencis and Jane E. Meehan, of counsel: Stephen J. Claeys and Dean A. Pinkert, Attorney-Advisors, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC, for defendant.

Stewart and Stewart, Eugene L. Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, James R. Cannon, Jr., Geert De Prest, John M. Breen, Patrick J. McDonough, Margaret L.H. Png, William A. Fennell and Amy S. Dwyer, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Torrington Co.

Frederick L. Ikenson, P.C., Frederick L. Ikenson, J. Eric Nissley, Larry Hampel and Joseph A. Perna, V, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Federal-Mogul Corp.

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Judge:

Plaintiffs, Nippon Pillow Block Sales Co., Ltd. and FYH Bearing Units U.S.A., Inc. ("NPB"), challenge the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration's ("ITA") Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Nippon Pillow Block Sales Co., Ltd. and FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.Supp. 1444 (1993) ("Remand Results"). Plaintiffs' Response to the Final Remand Results of the International Trade Administration ("Plaintiffs' Response").

In Nippon Pillow Block Sales Co. v. United States, 17 CIT ___, ___, 820 F.Supp. 1444, 1456 (1993), this Court remanded this case "to the ITA to further explain why the ITA chose to ignore its past administrative practice of supplying its own allocation methodology in similar situations, or of using the allocation methodology of another respondent whose method of record keeping was similar to NPB's, as partial best information available for NPB's model-specific in-house labor and overhead."

A detailed discussion of the background of this case is provided in Nippon Pillow Block, 17 CIT at ____, 820 F.Supp. at 1446-49.

ITA has now provided this Court with a further explanation as to why the ITA was unable to supply an alternative allocation methodology for NPB and was, therefore, justified in using total best information available ("BIA") for NPB's dumping margin. Pursuant to its current administrative practice for the use of BIA, the ITA assigned NPB the "all others" rate from the less than fair value investigation as NPB's dumping margin for this administrative review. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 Fed.Reg. 31,692, 31,707-08 (1991).

In its Remand Results, the ITA stated that it was unable to use partial BIA for NPB because insufficient evidence existed on the administrative record for the ITA to develop an allocation method which would allow for the use of previously verified information. Remand Results at 3-4. The ITA also stated that it was unable to use another respondent's allocation methodology because, based on information on the administrative record, the ITA was unable to determine if other respondents used the same production processes or incurred the same types of costs as NPB. Id. at 6-7.

NPB challenges the ITA's Remand Results arguing that this Court had ordered the ITA to develop an allocation methodology for NPB's in-house labor, factory overhead and general administrative and selling expenses and that the ITA has failed to do so. NPB also argues that the ITA has failed to adequately explain why the ITA was unable to use another respondent's allocation methodology. Plaintiffs' Response at 1-5, 8-9. NPB proposes a new allocation methodology which it alleges will remedy the problems that the ITA had with the original methodology. Id. at 5-7. NPB alleges that this new methodology is similar to allocation methodologies the ITA accepted from other respondents during the course of this administrative review. Id. at 7-8.

Defendant argues that this Court did not order the ITA to develop a methodology to allocate NPB's in-house labor, overhead and general selling and administrative expenses. Defendant argues that this Court only ordered the ITA to explain why it was unable to develop an allocation methodology for NPB or use another respondent's allocation methodology. Defendant states that this is exactly what the ITA has done. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Second Remand and Response to Comments of Amicus Curiae ("Defendant's Response") at 5-11.

Defendant also argues that the alternative allocation methodology proposed by NPB in its comments on the Remand Results is unreasonable because a relationship must exist between the two aggregate costs being allocated. The defendant states that in this case:

Such a relationship, however, does not exist between the cost of materials contained in a model and the cost of labor and factory overhead needed to manufacture the

...