Slip Op. 02-72
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
___________________________________
:
CONSOLIDATED BEARINGS COMPANY, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: Court No. 98-09-02799
v. :
:
THE UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant. :
___________________________________:
ORDER
Upon receipt and consideration of the defendant’s motion for
clarification dated July 18, 2002, and the plaintiff’s comments to
the aforesaid motion dated July 22, 2002, this Court recognizes
that there was an error committed in handling of the United States
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s
(“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand: Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
from the People’s Republic of China (“Remand Results II”) (April
17, 2002), issued pursuant to the Court’s order in Consolidated
Bearing Co. v. United States, 26 CIT ___, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1380
(2002).
Commenting on the Remand Results II, the plaintiff raises the
following points: (a) in its pursuit of the course of action
Consol. Court No. 97-02-00216 Page 2
designated in the Remand Results II, “Commerce hopes to avoid
[Commerce’s] inevitable day of reckoning [of dumping margins
specifically for the merchandise entered by the plaintiff during
the period of review (“POR”) at issue] as well as [Commerce’s]
responsibility as an agency to issue appropriate instructions”; (b)
in the Remand Results II, Commerce “chose a result that ha[s] no
relevance to [the plaintiff’s] imports of [the merchandise at issue
during [the POR]”; and (c) the course of actions chosen by Commerce
in the Remand Results II would “divulge proprietary data [of
another entity] to [the plaintiff, and this wrongful act by
Commerce is feasible since that proprietary data] is not subject to
[a] judicial protective order in this proceedings.” Pl.’s Comments
Concerning Def.’s Mot. Clarification (“Pl.’s Comments”) at 2-3
(emphasis supplied).
The Court is not convinced by these arguments. There could be
no “inevitable day of reckoning” for Commerce, same as there is no
Commerce’s “responsibility . . . to issue appropriate instructions”
under the holdings of Consolidated Bearing Co. v. United States
(“Consolidated I”), 25 CIT ___, 166 F. Supp. 2d 580 (2001), and
Consolidated Bearing Co. v. United States (“Consolidated II”), 26
CIT ___, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (2002), since both cases required
Commerce to liquidate all plaintiff’s imports of the subject
merchandise imported during the POR “in accordance with the
Consol. Court No. 97-02-00216 Page 3
September 9, 1997, liquidation instructions.” Consolidated II, 26
CIT at ___, 182 F. Supp. 2d at 1384. Thus, the only “appropriate
instructions” are the September 9, 1997, liquidation instructions,
and the only “reckoning” that Commerce was obligated to execute was
the reckoning included in the text of the September 9, 1997,
liquidation instructions.
Furthermore, since, under the September 9, 1997, liquidation
instructions, “the merchandise [which was] produced by [a
particular manufacturer] and imported by certain designated
importers, the list of which did not include [the plaintiff, had to
be liquidated] at certain rates,” Consolidated I, 25 CIT at ___,
166 F. Supp. 2d at 582, these very rates, the ones determined under
the September 9, 1997, liquidation instructions, are the only rates
applicable to the plaintiff’s merchandise. Therefore, Commerce’s
decision to “instruct [the United States Customs Service
(“Customs”)] to use ad valorem rates [for] each class or kind of
[the plaintiff’s merchandise that would be equal to the rates
Commerce] calculated” under the September 9, 1997, liquidation
instructions for corresponding classes or kinds of merchandise
imported by another entity, would not create “a result that ha[s]
no relevance to [the plaintiff’s] imports of [the merchandise at
issue during” the POR. Compare (“Pl.’s Comments”)
at 2.
Court No. 98-09-02799 Page 4
Therefore, having re-reviewed the Remand Results II, it is
hereby
ORDERED that the Remand Results II are affirmed in their
entirety,1 the Court’s order of July 9, 2002, is vacated; and it is
further
ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this
case is dismissed.
___________________________
NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
SENIOR JUDGE
Dated: July 24, 2002
New York, New York
1
This reconsideration of the Remand Results II is given on the
merits of the Remand Results II, as read in light of Consolidated
I, 25 CIT ___, 166 F. Supp. 2d 580, and Consolidated II, 26 CIT
___, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1380. While the Court appreciates Commerce’s
reminders that: (a) Commerce is not equipt with the power to
actually liquidate the plaintiff’s entries (versus instructing
Customs to do so); and (b) Commerce is prohibited from instructing
Customs to liquidate the plaintiff’s entries prior to the issuance
of a final Court’s decision, these issues are irrelevant either to
the merits of this case or to the grounds for the Court’s
reconsideration.
ERRATUM
Consolidated Bearing Co. v. United States,
Court No.98-09-02799, Slip-Op. 02-72, dated July 24, 2002.
The headings on pp. 2 and 3 should read as Court No. 98-09-02799.
July 25, 2002.