Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantappealwillcorporationinternational lawdumping
plaintiffdefendantappealinternational lawdumping

Related Cases

Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116, 2000-1 Trade Cases P 72,780, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609
View Case »
Federal-Mogul Corp. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 17 C.I.T. 871, 1993 WL 816911, 15 ITRD 2223
View Case »
Diggs v. Richardson, 555 F.2d 848, 42 A.L.R. Fed. 571, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 376
View Case »
U.S. v. Mead Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1986 WL 955, 1986-1 Trade Cases P 67,096
View Case »
Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116, 2000-1 Trade Cases P 72,780, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

JTEKT Corp. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 503595, 35 ITRD 2637

Facts

The case is a consolidation of several plaintiffs contesting the final antidumping determination issued by the International Trade Administration regarding ball bearings and parts from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs, including JTEKT Corporation and NTN, challenged the Department's use of zeroing in calculating antidumping margins, arguing that it violates domestic laws and international obligations. The court had previously ordered Commerce to reconsider its methodology, but the plaintiffs continued to seek relief based on changes in the law following a decision by the Court of Appeals.

The case is a consolidation of several plaintiffs contesting the final antidumping determination issued by the International Trade Administration regarding ball bearings and parts from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Issue

Whether the U.S. Department of Commerce's use of the 'zeroing' methodology in calculating antidumping margins during the sixteenth administrative reviews is permissible under domestic and international law.

Whether the U.S. Department of Commerce's use of the 'zeroing' methodology in calculating antidumping margins during the sixteenth administrative reviews is permissible under domestic and international law.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles surrounding the use of zeroing in antidumping margin calculations, particularly in light of recent decisions from the Court of Appeals that questioned the Department's methodology.

The court applied the legal principles surrounding the use of zeroing in antidumping margin calculations, particularly in light of recent decisions from the Court of Appeals that questioned the Department's methodology.

Analysis

The court analyzed the implications of the Court of Appeals' decision in Union Steel, which affirmed the Department's use of zeroing in administrative reviews. The court found that the intervening decision constituted a change in controlling law, which warranted relief from the previous directive concerning zeroing. However, the court also recognized the need for further briefing on whether the Union Steel decision was dispositive of the plaintiffs' claims regarding zeroing.

The court analyzed the implications of the Court of Appeals' decision in Union Steel, which affirmed the Department's use of zeroing in administrative reviews.

Conclusion

The court relieved the Department of Commerce from the directive concerning zeroing in the Second Remand Order but maintained the requirement for Commerce to reconsider NTN's proposal regarding additional design types in the model-match methodology. The court will allow parties to submit supplemental briefs on the zeroing claims.

The court relieved the Department of Commerce from the directive concerning zeroing in the Second Remand Order but maintained the requirement for Commerce to reconsider NTN's proposal regarding additional design types in the model-match methodology.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the defendant, the U.S. Department of Commerce, as the court granted relief from the directive concerning zeroing based on the intervening decision in Union Steel.

The prevailing party is the defendant, the U.S. Department of Commerce, as the court granted relief from the directive concerning zeroing based on the intervening decision in Union Steel.

You must be