Slip Op. 13-67
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
POWER TRAIN COMPONENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
. v.
Before: Gregory W. Carman, Judge
UNITED STATES,
Court No. 11-00153
Defendant,
and
THE TIMKEN COMPANY,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION & ORDER
[Commerce’s Final Scope Ruling is sustained.]
Dated: May 29, 2013
Robert M . Klingon, The Klingon Law Firm, of New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
L. Misha Preheim, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant, and Nathaniel J.
Halvorson, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United
States Department of Commerce, of counsel. With them on the briefs were Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant
Director.
Terence P. Stewart, William A. Fennell, and Stephanie R. Manaker, Stewart and
Stewart, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 2
CARMAN , JUDGE: Plaintiff Power Train Components, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “PTC”)
contests the scope ruling by the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)
that its wheel hub assemblies are within the scope in the antidumping duty order
covering tapered roller bearings (“TRBs”) from the People’s Republic of China
(“China”). Tapered Roller Bearings from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling on
New Trend Engineering Ltd.’s Wheel Hub Assemblies, Memorandum from Wendy Frankel,
Director, Office 8, to Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations (Apr. 18, 2011) (“Final Scope Ruling”), A/R1 48; Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China,
52 Fed. Reg. 22,667 (June 15, 1987) (“TRB Order”). Pursuant to Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the agency record, the Court sustains Commerce’s Final Scope Ruling.
BACKGROUND
The antidumping duty order scope covers tapered roller bearings from China.
See TRB Order, 52 Fed. Reg. at 22,667. The current scope description, as of the last
administrative review, is:
[i]mports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC;
flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered
roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks)
1
A/R refers to Administrative Record.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 3
incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or
not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’)
item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45,
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80,
8708.99.80.15 and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China, 76 Fed. Reg. 3,086, 3,087 (Jan. 19, 2011) (“Final Results”).2
On March 5, 2010, New Trend Engineering Ltd. (“New Trend”) submitted a
request for a scope determination that its imports of certain wheel hub assemblies from
China are outside the scope of the TRB Order. See New Trend Scope Request (Mar. 5,
2010) (“Scope Request”), A/R 1. Defendant-Intervenor The Timken Company (“Timken”)
opposed the scope request as the petitioner in the original antidumping investigation.
See Def.-Int. the Timken Company’s Opp’n to the Mot. for J. on the Agency R. of Pl.
Power Train Components, Inc. (“Def.-Int.’s Opp’n”) at 6, ECF No. 34. On June 15, 2010,
Commerce issued a notice stating that it would open a scope inquiry pursuant to 19
C.F.R. § 351.225(e). Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for J. upon the Agency R. (“Def.’s Opp’n”)
2
In the Final Results, there was a different scope determination discussed
regarding a company called New Torch and its wheel hub units. In contrast to this
determination, Commerce found that New Torch’s wheel hub units were outside the
scope of the order because they do not contain TRBs. Final Results, 76 Fed. Reg. at 3,087.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 4
at 5, ECF No. 36 (citing Notice of Initiation of Scope Inquiry (June 15, 2010) (“Scope
Initiation”), A/R 8). On July 14, 2010, Plaintiff submitted its notice of appearance as an
interested party and importer of like merchandise. Brief of Pl. Power Train
Components, Inc. in Supp. of Its Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (“Pl.’s Mot.”) at 4, ECF No.
28 (referencing PTC Comments to Scope Inquiry)( July 14, 2010), A/R 15).3
New Trend’s wheel hub assemblies include “several varieties of generation
three wheel hub assemblies that incorporate [tapered roller bearings (‘TRBs’)]” which
“are designed for front wheel use.” Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted). All the wheel
hub assemblies
incorporat[e] two non-removable tapered roller bearings in an inner
race and cup that is machined into the unit’s flange, an outer race
machined into the assembly forging, and mounting studs for
attachment of the assembly to an automobile. The two machined
bearing races are characteristic of products known in the industry as
generation three wheel hub assemblies. The generation three wheel
hub assemblies subject to the request including [sic] front wheel
models both with a splined spindle and without; and both with
antilock braking (“ABS”) sensors and without.
Id. at 3 (internal citations omitted).
Commerce divided the subject wheel hub assemblies into two groups—with
and without ABS sensors—and analyzed each group individually. Commerce
3
After New Trend submitted its scope request, PTC filed its own scope request
for a substantially similar product, but Commerce merged PTC’s request into New
Trend’s scope proceeding. See Def.’s Opp’n at 4.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 5
determined that wheel hub assemblies without ABS elements are within the scope
pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) (“(k)(1) Factors”),4 meeting the “description of
wheel hub units and tapered roller housings included in the scope of the Petition, the
ITC Report, and the Order.” Id. at 4 (citing Tapered Roller Bearings from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Scope Ruling on New Trend Engineering Ltd.’s Wheel Hub
Assemblies, Memorandum from Wendy Frankel, Director Office 8, to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations at 12 (Dec. 18,
2010) (“Preliminary Scope Ruling”), A/R 30). Commerce noted that the International
Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) specifically identified “wheel hub units,“
which are the same as wheel hub assemblies,5 as part of the scope. Def.’s Opp’n at 3
(citing Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, and Certain Housings Incorporating Tapered
4
When considering whether a particular product is included within the scope of
an order, first the (k)(1) Factors are considered, and if they are found to be dispositive,
the inquiry is complete. The (k)(1) Factors are:
The descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition, the
initial investigation, and the determinations of the Secretary [of the
Department of Commerce] (including prior scope determinations) and
the [International Trade] Commission.
19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1).
5
The terms “units” and “assemblies” are used interchangeably within the
industry, and Commerce highlighted that “New Trend itself has used the terms
interchangeably during the scope proceeding.” Preliminary Scope Ruling at 6; see Def.-
Int.’s Opp’n at 6, n.3.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 6
Rollers from Hungary, the People’s Republic of China, and Romania, USCIT Publ. 1983, Inv.
Nos. 731-TA-341, 344, and 345 (final) at A-6 (June 1987) (“ITC Report”), A/R 4, Attach. 2.)
Commerce then determined that wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements are within
the scope pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) (“(k)(2) Factors”).6 Pl.’s Mot. at 4.
Plaintiff challenges Commerce’s scope determinations and explains that the
wheel hub assemblies “are not mere tapered roller housings, or tapered roller housed
bearings,” but “they also incorporate enough additional structures and functions that
they do not constitute tapered roller housings or housed bearings” thereby removing
them from the TRB scope. Id. at 12 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Defendant-Intervenor Timken, who was petitioner in the underlying
investigation, supports Commerce’s scope determinations, advancing the argument that
it listed wheel hub assemblies as “part of the scope” in its underlying petition. Def.-
Int.’s Opp’n at 4 (citing Antidumping Duty Petition: Tapered Roller Bearings, Rollers and
6
When considering whether a particular product is included within the scope of
an order, if the (k)(1) Factors are not dispositive, then the (k)(2) Factors are considered:
(2) When the above criteria are not dispositive, the Secretary will further
consider:
(i) The physical characteristics of the product;
(ii) The expectations of the ultimate purchasers;
(iii) The ultimate use of the product;
(iv) The channels of trade in which the product is sold; and
(v) The manner in which the product is advertised and displayed.
19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2).
Court No. 11-00153 Page 7
Other Parts from Japan, Italy, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, The People’s Republic of China
at 9-10 (Aug. 25, 1986) (“Petition”), A/R 4, Attach. 1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2006). For scope
determinations, the Court sustains determinations, findings or conclusions of
Commerce unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The possibility of
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent Commerce’s
finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Consolo v. Fed. Marit. Comm’n,
383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “Substantial evidence” means “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
DISCUSSION
It is well-established that the cornerstone in any scope determination is the
language of the order itself. Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, IL v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 2002)). Commerce may not impermissibly expand the scope of the order. Id. at
1354. Issues regarding scope arise because “the descriptions of subject merchandise
contained in [Commerce’s] determinations must be written in general terms.” 19 C.F.R.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 8
§ 351.225(a). Accordingly, scope inclusions are written in broad terms and then specific
exclusions are carved out from the general terms. Some exclusions are qualified and
some are not.
In considering whether a particular product is within the scope of an order,
Commerce will take into account the descriptions of the merchandise contained in the
petition, the investigation, and the determinations of Commerce and the ITC. Final
Scope Ruling at 3 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1)). If it determines that these
descriptions are dispositive, then Commerce will issue a final scope ruling. Id. But if
the descriptions are not dispositive, then Commerce will consider the factors set forth in
19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). Id. (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(e)).
I. Administrative Review
Commerce noted that “the scope’s language in the [TRB] Order (i.e., tapered
roller housings with spindles for automotive use) is broad and includes multiple
products that have varied applications.” Final Scope Ruling at 7; see Petition at 10 (“In all,
there are over 160 types in approximately 26,000 bearing combinations. . . . This petition
covers all types of TRBs (including self-contained bearing packages).”). While
admitting that “the scope [language] does not explicitly list ‘wheel hub assemblies,’”
Commerce found “that New Trend’s wheel hub assemblies without ABS elements are
tapered roller housings in that the outer flange is a flanged housing that incorporates
Court No. 11-00153 Page 9
TRBs,” which are covered by the scope of the TRB Order. Final Scope Ruling at 5. In
contrast, while admitting that the subject products “incorporate tapered roller housings
and housed bearings,” Plaintiff asserted that its wheel hub assemblies “also incorporate
enough additional structures and functions that they do not constitute tapered roller
housings or housed bearings.” Pl.’s Mot. at 12 (emphasis in original) (internal citations
omitted). Commerce considered Plaintiff’s argument and determined that
wheel hub units with additional features and functions retain the
essential function of wheel hub units covered by the Order; that is,
they continue to reduce friction. Thus, the additional features found
on wheel hub units are engineering and design variations which do
not alter the fundamental nature of the subject TRB.
Preliminary Scope Ruling at 7.
New Trend’s scope inquiry involved various subject wheel hub assemblies, but
Commerce divided the subject wheel hub assemblies into two categories for scope
determination purposes. New Trend’s wheel hub assemblies are described as follows:
Although there are several different types of wheel hub assemblies
that are subject to this scope request, all of them incorporate two non-
removable TRBs in an inner race and cup that are machined into the
unit’s flange, an outer race machined into the assembly forging, wheel
and brake “pilots” for aligning the wheels and brake rotors, and
mounting wheel studs. The majority of the assemblies consist of a
flanged outer hub with two TRBs, into which has been pressed a
flanged spindle having a splined inner surface and mounting studs.
The wheel hub assemblies are “sealed for life,” “greased at factory,”
and “the bearing preload is set at factory.” . . . Certain of the products
do not have a splined spindle and certain of the products include ABS
capability. New Trend’s wheel hub assemblies may be categorized
Court No. 11-00153 Page 10
into the following types of merchandise: (1) splined and non-splined
without ABS elements and (2) splined and non-splined with ABS
elements.
Final Scope Ruling at 4 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, given the broad
language of the scope and the apparently indiscernible characteristics of TRB
incorporation into the subject product, Commerce initiated a formal scope inquiry
pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(e) and received comments from New Trend, Plaintiff
and Defendant-Intervenor. See Def.’s Opp’n at 5. Because there is no objection to
Commerce’s division of the subject products, the Court’s review will follow
Commerce’s trajectory, first looking at wheel hub assemblies without ABS under the
ambit of the (k)(1) Factors, and then looking at the wheel hub assemblies with ABS
under the ambit of the (k)(2) Factors, checking for support on the record for
Commerce’s scope determinations.
II. Administrative Determinations
A. Wheel Hub Assemblies without ABS Pursuant to the (k)(1) Factors
Commerce determined that wheel hub assemblies without ABS are included in
scope based upon the language of the petition and the ITC Report pursuant to the (k)(1)
Factors. Commerce found that “New Trend’s wheel hub units without ABS elements
meet the physical description of subject merchandise as explicitly stated in the Order”
because “New Trend’s wheel hub assemblies without ABS elements are essentially
Court No. 11-00153 Page 11
tapered roller housings with spindles.” Preliminary Scope Ruling at 8 (emphasis in
original); see Final Scope Ruling at 5.
To sustain a (k)(1) determination, the Court reviews the record for support that
Commerce’s determination that wheel hub assemblies without ABS elements are in-
scope. The petition was filed by Defendant-Intervenor, Timken. To illustrate its desired
scope description, Timken attached advertisement sheets to its petition, which included
depictions of wheel hub units identified as being “part of the scope of this petition.”
Def.-Int. Opp’n at 4 (citing Petition at 10). Commerce also considered the ITC Report,
which specifically stated that “wheel hub units are a type of tapered roller housing.”
Final Scope Ruling at 6, 9. Commerce reasoned:
The ITC specifically identified wheel hub units as one category of in-
scope products and described them as “self-contained tapered roller
bearing packages.” According to the ITC, these “self-contained
tapered roller bearing packages include cartridge bearing units and
wheel hub units” and ”the next generation of the self-contained units
will have flanged inner and outer rings as part of the assembly.”
Final Scope Ruling at 7 (citing ITC Report at A-6). The “next generation of the self-
contained units” that “have flanged inner and outer rings as part of the assembly” as
referenced by the ITC describes the wheel hub assemblies imported by New Trend,
which are considered third generation. Final Scope Ruling at 7. Because the “next
generation of wheel hub units with their flanged inner and outer rings as part of the
assembly” are still “a type of self-contained tapered roller bearing package, subject to
Court No. 11-00153 Page 12
the scope,” Commerce determined that the ITC Report supported a finding that wheel
hub units are within the scope of the TRB Order. Id. Upon review of the record, the
Court finds that Commerce’s determination that wheel hub assemblies without ABS are
within the scope based upon a review of TRB Order, petition and ITC Report—the (k)(1)
Factors—is supported by the record and otherwise in accordance with law.
Regarding Plaintiff’s argument that the subject product falls under a different
HTSUS than those listed in the scope, the Court notes that the language of the scope
expressly states “[a]lthough the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive,”
Final Results, 76 Fed. Reg. at 3,087, and agrees with Commerce that “HTSUS items
numbers do not define the scope, rather the scope’s written description is dispositive of
its coverage,” Final Scope Ruling at 15. See also Novosteel SA v. United States, 284 F.3d
1261, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[o]ur precedent has . . . indicated, meanwhile, that a
reference to an HTSUS number is not dispositive about the scope of an antidumping or
countervailing-duty order”) (internal citations omitted).
B. Wheel Hub Assemblies with ABS Pursuant to the (k)(2) Factors
An ABS sensor is “an electronic component that generates a small electric
signal that indicates the speed of revolution of each respective wheel.” Pl.’s Mot. at 17
(citing Awtar Aff. ¶ 11, A/R 15, Ex. B). Plaintiff asserts that “incorporating the ABS
Court No. 11-00153 Page 13
sensor into the wheel hub . . . changes the essential character of the wheel hub.” Id. at
17. Plaintiff argues that Commerce should have found the subject wheel hub assemblies
with ABS elements out of scope pursuant to the (k)(1) Factors and should have never
“resorted to” the (k)2) Factors. Id. Defendant-Intervenor points out, however, that the
scope descriptions do not include “any language that limits scope to mechanical
‘systems’ or that excludes electromechanical ‘systems’ . . . . so there is no factual basis in
the record for [Commerce] to distinguish between products based on this criterion.”
Def.-Int.’s Opp’n at 17.
Commerce acknowledges “ambiguity” over ABS elements, Def.’s Opp’n at 6,
because they were neither “expressly covered by the Order” nor “discussed in the ITC
Report,” Preliminary Scope Ruling at 8. Accordingly, Commerce decided that the (k)(1)
Factors do “not unambiguously address the ABS component of Power Train’s
merchandise.” Def.’s Opp’n at 16. Because the (k)(1) Factors are not dispositive for
wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements, Commerce resorted to the criteria set forth in
19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2).
In reviewing a scope ruling, a court must grant “significant deference to
Commerce’ own interpretation of those orders,” Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1094-95,
because “Commerce’s discretion [is] at the very heart of its expertise,” Walgreen Co., 620
F.3d at 1355. With this in mind, the Court cannot say that Commerce’ decision to
Court No. 11-00153 Page 14
conduct a further, more in-depth analysis regarding a product’s character and function
is unreasonable. The Court reviews Commerce’s analyses of each of the (k)(2) Factors
for wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements for substantial evidence on the record.
Plaintiff relies on Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc. v. United States, 807 F. Supp. 2d
1353, 35 CIT ___ (2011) in support of its challenge. See Pl.’s Reply Br. at 3, ECF No. 42.
That scope case is distinguishable because its subject product—the Heritage Court
Bench— fit ambiguously in the scope description of the order and unambiguously in a
listed exclusion. In the instant case, there is no exclusion for wheel hub assemblies, with
or without ABS elements. This case is more akin to Color Television Receivers from
Taiwan: Notice of Final Scope Ruling Couch Master International Corporation, where the
subject merchandise was “neither specifically included . . . nor excluded,” and
subsequently Commerce determined that “additional features that do not change the
primary nature of an ‘in-scope’ product do not serve to move that product outside of
the scope order.” 63 Fed. Reg. 805, 806 (Jan. 7, 1998).
1. Physical Characteristics of the Product
Regarding the factor of physical characteristics of the product, Commerce
concluded that
[r]ecord evidence demonstrates that New Trend’s wheel hub
assemblies with ABS elements share the same physical characteristics
as TRBs covered by the Order. Specifically, all of New Trend’s wheel
hub assemblies incorporate the cup, cone, cage, and rollers associated
Court No. 11-00153 Page 15
with TRBs. . . . Additionally, record evidence demonstrates that New
Trend’s wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements share the same
physical characteristics of tapered roller housings (considered TRBs
under the scope of the Order) because all of them incorporate two
non-removable tapered roller bearings that are sealed into a cast,
flanged housing, taking the place of the typical tapered roller bearing
cup. The flange houses the TRBs to reduce friction.
Preliminary Scope Ruling at 9; see Def.’s Opp’n at 18-20. Plaintiff argues that the addition
of the ABS sensor changes the fundamentals of this product removing it from the scope,
but Commerce found the ABS sensor “to be an additional design and engineering
element of the wheel hub unit that enhances the product’s functionality but does not
alter the fundamental physical nature of the wheel hub unit as described above.”
Preliminary Scope Ruling at 9. Commerce determined that “the mere addition of a sensor
does not take an otherwise subject product out of the scope of the order.” Def.’s Opp’n
at 19-20.
The Court agrees with Commerce that the essential physical characteristics of
in-scope TRBs and wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements—the cup, cone, cage and
rollers—are the same. The Court notes that an electronic sensor imparts an additional
physical characteristic to wheel hub assemblies with ABS, which is not shared by non-
ABS wheel hub assemblies. While the contrary conclusion—that an electronic
component does indeed change the physical characteristic of a product—could have
been drawn, the Court is mindful of its standard of review and cannot say a reasonable
mind would not accept as adequate Commerce’s determination that the addition of a
Court No. 11-00153 Page 16
sensor does not take an otherwise subject product out of the order. The Court therefore
sustains Commerce as to the physical characteristics of the wheel hub assemblies with
ABS sensors.
2. Expectations of the Ultimate Purchasers
Regarding the factor of customer expectations of the product, Commerce
reasoned that “TRBs are designed and sized for specific applications in a variety of
products and industries, including both industrial applications and automotive
equipment. . . . [T]he ultimate purchasers expect that wheel hub units, with or without
ABS elements, will function as part of a complete wheel hub bearing unit to reduce
friction between moving parts.” Preliminary Scope Ruling at 10 (citing Petition at 8-9; ITC
Report at 5). According to the ITC Report, the US market for TRBs has historically been
the automotive market, with 85% of all TRBs sold to original equipment manufacturers
(“OEMs”), and the remainder going to the aftermarket. Preliminary Scope Ruling at 10-
11 (citing ITC Report at A-24). Commerce posited that “purchasers of wheel hub units,
regardless of whether they contain ABS elements, would install them in an automobile.”
Preliminary Scope Ruling at 10; see Def.-Int.’s Opp’n at 20. Plaintiff argues that “[w]ithout
the ABS sensor, they would not be expected to allow on-board electronic safety systems
to operate.” Pl.’s Mot. at 22.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 17
While recognizing that the expectations of the ultimate purchasers of wheel
hub assemblies with ABS elements may exceed the baseline expectations of the ultimate
purchaser of mere wheel hub units, the Court cannot say a reasonable mind would not
accept as adequate Commerce’s determination that the ultimate purchasers’
expectations, regardless of any bonus features, is to purchase a product that reduces
friction between moving parts.
3. Ultimate Use of the Product
Regarding the factor of ultimate use of the product, as with the above factor,
Commerce again emphasized that “New Trend’s wheel hub assemblies and TRBs
covered under the Order have a similar ultimate use: reduction of friction between
moving parts.” Preliminary Scope Ruling at 10; see Def.-Int.’s Opp’n at 21. While
admitting that “the ABS sensor serves an additional purpose,” Commerce emphasized
that it “does not replace the original fundamental use of the wheel hub units/tapered
roller housings covered by the scope of the Order and as described in the ITC Report.”
Id. In a similar vein with the expectations of the ultimate purchasers, discussed supra,
while the wheel hub assembly with ABS may exceed the ultimate use of a mere TRB, the
Court finds that Commerce’s determination that wheel hub assemblies with ABS
elements and in-scope TRBs have the same ultimate use of reducing friction between
moving parts is supported by record evidence.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 18
4. Channels of Trade in Which the Product Is Sold
Regarding the factor of channels of trade in which the product is sold, Commerce
determined that “New Trend’s wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements are sold in the
same channels of trade as TRBs and other wheel hub units covered under the Order.”
Preliminary Scope Ruling at 11. Plaintiff does not contest Commerce’s finding of this
criterion. See Def.’s Opp’n at 22 (“Power Train does not object to this finding in its brief
before this Court.”).
5. The Manner in Which the Product Is Displayed and
Advertised
Regarding the factor of the manner in which the product is displayed and
advertised, Commerce determined that “integrated wheel hub assemblies, which
includes [sic] ABS elements . . . . are all advertised and displayed similarly to TRBs and
wheel hubs without ABS elements covered by the Order.” Preliminary Scope Ruling at
12. Plaintiff does not contest Commerce’s finding of this criterion. See Def.’s Opp’n at
22 (“Power Train does not object to this finding in its brief before this Court.”).
Upon review of the record, the Court finds that Commerce’s determination that
wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements are within the scope based upon a review of
the (k)(2) Factors is supported by the record and otherwise in accordance with law.
Court No. 11-00153 Page 19
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Commerce’s Final Scope Ruling is sustained; and it is further
ORDERED that the stay entered by the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for oral
argument (ECF No. 45) is hereby lifted; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for oral argument (ECF No. 43) is hereby denied.
Judgment to enter accordingly.
/s/ Gregory W. Carman
Gregory W. Carman, Judge
Dated: May 29, 2013
New York, New York