Jtekt Corp. v. United States

JTEKT CORPORATION and KOYO CORPORATION OF U.S.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant and THE TIMKEN COMPANY, Defendant-Intervenor.

Consol. Court No. 07-00377

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Dated: July 20, 2011

Slip Op. 11-86

Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

[Denying defendant's motion for expedited reconsideration of court's prior decision and allowing additional time for submission of a remand redetermination in litigation contesting the final results of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order]

Sidley Austin, LLP (Neil R. Ellis and Jill Caiazzo) for plaintiffs JTEKT Corporation and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.

Baker & McKenzie, LLP (Washington, District of Columbia) (Kevin J. Sullivan and Kevin M. O'Brien) for plaintiffs FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. and Nippon Pillow Block Company Ltd.

Crowell & Moring, LLP (Matthew P. Jaffe) for plaintiffs NSK Corporation, NSK Ltd., and NSK Precision America, Inc.

Baker & McKenzie, LLP (Kevin M. O'Brien, Christine M. Streatfeild, and Diane A. MacDonald) for plaintiffs American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., NTN Bearing Corporation of America, NTN Bower Corporation, NTN Corporation, NTN Driveshaft, Inc., and NTN-BCA Corporation.

Crowell & Moring, LLP (Daniel J. Cannistra and Alexander H. Schaefer) for plaintiffs Aisin Seiki Company, Ltd. and Aisin Holdings of America, Inc.

Riggle & Craven (David A. Riggle and Shitao Zhu) for plaintiff Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd.

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP (Nausheen Hassan and Greyson L. Bryan) for plaintiffs Nachi Technology, Inc., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation, and Nachi America, Inc.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (L. Misha Preheim and Claudia Burke); Joanna Theiss, Aaron Kleiner, Thomas Beline, Brian Soiset, and Deborah R. King, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for defendant.

Stewart and Stewart (Geert M. De Prest, Terence P. Stewart, William A. Fennell, and Lane S. Hurewitz) for plaintiffs and defendant-intervenor The Timken Company.

Stanceu, Judge:

JTEKT Corporation and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (collectively, "JTEKT") brought an action under section 201 of the Customs Court Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2006), to contest a final determination (the "Final Results") issued by the International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce" or the "Department") in the seventeenth administrative reviews ("AFBs 17") of antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof ("subject merchandise") from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. Summons 1; Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, & the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews & Rescission of Review in Part, 72 Fed. Reg. 58,053, 58,053 (Oct. 12, 2007) ("Final Results"). Upon the motion of defendant-intervenor The Timken Company ("Timken"), the court consolidated JTEKT's action with six other cases. Timken US Corporation's Mot. to Consolidate 1.

In JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 35 CIT __, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (2011) ("'JTEKT"), the court ruled on claims contesting various decisions in the Final Results pertaining to the antidumping duty order involving Japan asserted by plaintiffs Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. ("Asahi"); Aisin Seiki Company, Ltd. and Aisin Holdings of America, Inc. (collectively "Aisin"); Nachi Technology, Inc., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation, and Nachi America, Inc. (collectively "Nachi"); FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. and Nippon Pillow Block Company Ltd. (collectively, "NPB"); American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., NTN Bearing Corporation of America, NTN Bower Corporation, NTN Corporation, NTN Driveshaft, Inc., and NTN-BCA Corporation (collectively, "NTN"); and NSK Corporation, NSK Ltd., and NSK Precision America, Inc. (collectively, "NSK"). Five plaintiffs Aisin, JTEKT, Nachi, NPB, and NTN asserted claims challenging the Department's use of "zeroing" methodology, under which Commerce assigned to U.S. sales made above normal value a dumping margin of zero rather than a negative margin when calculating weighted-average dumping margins. In response to these claims, the court ordered Commerce on remand to reconsider its decision to apply the zeroing methodology in the Final Results "and change that decision or, alternatively, provide an explanation for its express or implied construing of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) inconsistently with respect to antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews." JTEKT, 35 CIT at ___, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1364.

Before the court is defendant's motion for expedited reconsideration of the court's decision in JTEKT to order a remand on the zeroing claims. Def.'s Mot. for Expedited Reconsideration or Relief from J. ("Def.'s Mot."). JTEKT and NTN filed a joint memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion for reconsideration. Pls.' Joint Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. for Expedited Reconsideration or Relief from J. ("Pls.' Joint Mem."). Defendant-intervenor Timkensupports defendant's motion for reconsideration. The Timken Company's Resp. in Supp. of the Def. United States' Mot. for Expedited Reconsideration or Relief from J. Also before the court are defendant's motions for leave to file a reply in support of the motion for expedited reconsideration and for enlargement of time to file the remand redetermination in response to the court's order in JTEKT. Def.'s Mot. for Leave to File Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Expedited Reconsideration or Relief from J. ("Def.'s Mot. to File Reply"); Def.'s Mot. for Enlargement of Time to File Remand Redetermination ("Def.'s Mot. for Time Extension").

The court grants defendant's motion for leave to file a reply in support of the motion for reconsideration and grants defendant's motion for an extension of the date for filing of the Department's remand redetermination. The court denies defendant's motion for reconsideration, concluding that it did not err in ordering the Department to reconsider, and to modify or further explain, its decision to apply zeroing in the Final Results.

I. BACKGROUND

JTEKT, 35 CIT at ___, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1339-41, recounts the procedural history of the administrative and judicial proceedings in general terms common to all plaintiffs and provides additional background information specific to the individual claims.

On May 5, 2011, the court issued its Opinion and Order in JTEKT. On June 2, 2011, defendant filed its motion for expedited reconsideration. Def.'s Mot. On June 16, 2011, plaintiffs JTEKT and NTN filed their joint memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion. Pls.' Joint Mem. On July 5, 2011, defendant filed its motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion for expedited reconsideration. Def.'s Mot. to File Reply. On July 11, 2011, defendant filed its motion for enlargement of time to file a remand redetermination. Def.'s Mot. for TimeExtension. On July 18, 2011, NTN, although having earlier declined to consent to defendant's motion for enlargement of time, informed the court that in view of the Department's recent notice announcing revocation of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and the United Kingdom pursuant to remand determinations of the U.S. International Trade Commission in the second sunset reviews of those orders, "NTN now takes no position on the Government's motion." Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Enlargement of Time to File Remand Determination 2 (citing Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan and the United Kingdom: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 Fed. Reg. 41,761 (July 15, 2011)).¹ On July 19, 2011, NPB, citing the recent notice, although also having earlier declined to consent to defendant's motion for enlargement of time, similarly informed the court that "NPB now takes no position on Defendant's motion." Pls.' Nippon Pillow Block Co. Ltd. and FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for an Enlargement of Time to File the Remand Redetermination 2.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Expedited Reconsideration

USCIT Rule 59 authorizes a rehearing after a nonjury trial "for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court." USCIT Rule 59(a)(1)(B). A decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration lies within "the sound discretion of the court." United States v. Gold Mountain Coffee, Ltd., 8 CIT 336, 336, 601 F. Supp. 212, 214 (1984). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening changeof controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 30 CIT 1072, 1074, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1354 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The purpose of reconsideration is "to direct the Court's attention to some material matter of law or fact which it has overlooked in deciding a case, and which, had it been given consideration, would probably have brought about a different result." Target Stores, Div. of Target Corp. v. United States, 31 CIT 154, 159, 471 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1349 (2007) (quoting Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 29 CIT 250, 254 (2005)).

Commerce applied its zeroing methodology in AFBs 17, assigning to U.S. sales made above normal value a dumping margin of zero, rather than a negative margin, when calculating weighted-average dumping margins. Issues & Decision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, & the United Kingdom for the Period of Review May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006, at 8 (Oct. 4, 2007) ("Decision Mem."). Aisin, JTEKT, Nachi, NPB, and NTN challenged the use of this zeroing methodology, arguing that use of the zeroing methodology in an...