Slip Op. 02-07
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
________________________________________
:
NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, :
AMERICAN NTN BEARING MANUFACTURING :
CORPORATION and NTN CORPORATION; :
NSK LTD. and NSK CORPORATION; :
KOYO SEIKO CO., LTD. and KOYO :
CORPORATION OF U.S.A., :
:
Plaintiffs and :
Defendant-Intervenors, :
:
v. : Consol. Court No.
: 98-01-00146
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant, :
:
and :
:
THE TIMKEN COMPANY, :
:
Defendant-Intervenor :
and Plaintiff. :
_______________________________________ :
Plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors, NTN Bearing Corporation
of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation and NTN
Corporation (collectively “NTN”), NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation
(collectively “NSK”), and Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation
of U.S.A. (collectively “Koyo”), move pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for
judgment upon the agency record challenging various aspects of the
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s
(“Commerce”) final determination, entitled Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, From Japan (“Final Results”), 63 Fed. Reg. 2558
(Jan. 15, 1998), as amended, Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan (“Amended Final Results”), 63 Fed. Reg. 13,391
(Mar. 19, 1998). Defendant-intervenor and plaintiff, The Timken
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 2
Company (“Timken”), also moves pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for
judgment upon the agency record challenging certain determinations
of Commerce’s Final Results.
Specifically, NTN contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1)
conducted a duty absorption inquiry under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4)
(1994) for the 1976 antidumping duty order; (2) denied a price-
based level of trade (“LOT”) adjustment for NTN’s constructed
export price (“CEP”) sales; (3) rejected NTN’s allocation of United
States and home market selling expenses on an LOT-specific basis;
(4) refused to calculate CEP profit on an LOT-specific basis; (5)
included export price (“EP”) sales in the calculation of CEP
profit; (6) recalculated NTN’s credit expenses on a transaction-
specific basis; (7) denied a downward adjustment to NTN’s reported
United States indirect selling expenses for imputed interests
incurred in financing cash deposits for antidumping duties; (8)
adjusted NTN’s cost of production (“COP”) and constructed value
(“CV”) for affiliated party inputs; (9) applied a 99.5% test to
determine whether sales to NTN’s affiliated parties were made at
arm’s length; (10) double-counted NTN’s depreciation of idle
equipment; (11) included NTN’s zero-priced United States
transactions in the margin calculations and failed to exclude NTN’s
sample sales and other sales from its margin calculation; and (12)
used facts available to adjust NTN’s reported billing adjustment.
NSK contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1) conducted a duty
absorption inquiry under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4) for the 1976 and
1987 antidumping duty orders; (2) used NSK’s affiliated supplier
cost data to run its model match methodology under 19 U.S.C. §
1677(16) (1994), to calculate the difmer adjustment under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(a)(6) (1994) and to recalculate NSK’s reported U.S.
inventory carrying costs (“ICC”) prior to deducting this expense
from CEP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) (1994); and (3) denied a
partial LOT adjustment.
Koyo contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1) conducted a duty
absorption inquiry under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4) for the 1976 and
1987 antidumping duty orders; (2) applied adverse facts available
to Koyo’s sales of further manufactured tapered roller bearings
(“TRBs”); (3) used entered value to calculate the assessment rate
under 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b) (1998); and (4) treated Koyo’s
imported forged rings as in-scope merchandise subject to the TRB
antidumping duty order.
Timken contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1) applied adverse
facts available to Koyo’s entered value; (2) failed to adjust CEP
for indirect selling expenses reported by NTN, NSK and Koyo; (3)
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 3
permitted NTN to exclude certain warehousing expenses attributable
to non-scope merchandise from its reported United States indirect
selling expenses; (4) accepted Koyo’s home market support rebates;
(5) accepted Koyo’s home market “billing adjustment two”; (6)
accepted NSK’s home market lump-sum rebates; and (7)accepted Koyo’s
home market average short-term interest rate.
Held: NTN’s 56.2 motion is granted in part and denied in
part. NSK’s 56.2 motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Koyo’s 56.2 motion is granted in part and denied in part. Timken’s
56.2 motion is denied. This case is remanded to Commerce to: (1)
annul all findings and conclusions made pursuant to the duty-
absorption inquiry conducted for the subject review in accordance
with this opinion; and (2) exclude any transactions that were not
supported by consideration from NTN’s United States sales database
and to adjust the dumping margins accordingly.
[NTN’s, NSK’s and Koyo’s 56.2 motions are granted in part and
denied in part. Timken’s 56.2 motion is denied. Case remanded.]
Dated: January 24, 2002
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Donald J. Unger, Kazumune V.
Kano, David G. Forgue and Clarice K. M. McCauley) for NTN.
Lipstein, Jaffe & Lawson, L.L.P. (Robert A. Lipstein, Matthew
P. Jaffe and Grace W. Lawson) for NSK.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP (Peter O. Suchman, Neil
R. Ellis, Elizabeth C. Hafner and Ronald E. Minsk) for Koyo.
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; David M.
Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice (Velta A. Melnbrencis,
Assistant Director, and Michele D. Lynch); of counsel: Joan L.
Mackenzie and Barbara Campbell Potter, Office of the Chief Counsel
for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce,
for the United States.
Stewart and Stewart (Terence P. Stewart, William A. Fennell
and Patrick J. McDonough) for Timken.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 4
OPINION
TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: Plaintiffs and defendant-
intervenors, NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN
Bearing Manufacturing Corporation and NTN Corporation (collectively
“NTN”), NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation (collectively “NSK”), and Koyo
Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (collectively
“Koyo”), move pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for judgment upon the
agency record challenging various aspects of the Department of
Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) final
determination, entitled Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan (“Final Results”), 63 Fed. Reg. 2558 (Jan. 15,
1998), as amended, Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan (“Amended Final Results”), 63 Fed. Reg. 13,391
(Mar. 19, 1998). Defendant-intervenor and plaintiff, The Timken
Company (“Timken”), also moves pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for
judgment upon the agency record challenging certain determinations
of Commerce’s Final Results.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 5
Specifically, NTN contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1)
conducted a duty absorption inquiry under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4)
(1994) for the 1976 antidumping duty order; (2) denied a price-
based level of trade (“LOT”) adjustment for NTN’s constructed
export price (“CEP”) sales; (3) rejected NTN’s allocation of United
States and home market selling expenses on an LOT-specific basis;
(4) refused to calculate CEP profit on an LOT-specific basis; (5)
included export price (“EP”) sales in the calculation of CEP
profit; (6) recalculated NTN’s credit expenses on a transaction-
specific basis; (7) denied a downward adjustment to NTN’s reported
United States indirect selling expenses for imputed interests
incurred in financing cash deposits for antidumping duties; (8)
adjusted NTN’s cost of production (“COP”) and constructed value
(“CV”) for affiliated party inputs; (9) applied a 99.5% test to
determine whether sales to NTN’s affiliated parties were made at
arm’s length; (10) double-counted NTN’s depreciation of idle
equipment; (11) included its zero-priced United States transactions
in the margin calculations and failed to exclude NTN’s sample sales
and other sales from its margin calculation; and (12) used facts
available to adjust NTN’s reported billing adjustment.
NSK contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1) conducted a duty
absorption inquiry under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4) for the 1976 and
1987 antidumping duty orders; (2) used NSK’s affiliated supplier
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 6
cost data to run its model match methodology under 19 U.S.C. §
1677(16) (1994), to calculate the difmer adjustment under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(a)(6) (1994) and to recalculate NSK’s reported U.S.
inventory carrying costs (“ICC”) prior to deducting this expense
from CEP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) (1994); and (3) denied a
partial LOT adjustment.
Koyo contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1) conducted a duty
absorption inquiry under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4) for the 1976 and
1987 antidumping duty orders; (2) applied adverse facts available
to Koyo’s sales of further manufactured tapered roller bearings
(“TRBs”); (3) used entered value to calculate the assessment rate
under 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b) (1998); and (4) treated Koyo’s
imported forged rings as in-scope merchandise subject to the TRB
antidumping duty order.
Timken contends that Commerce unlawfully: (1) applied adverse
facts available to Koyo’s entered value; (2) failed to adjust CEP
for indirect selling expenses reported by NTN, NSK and Koyo; (3)
permitted NTN to exclude certain warehousing expenses attributable
to non-scope merchandise from its reported United States indirect
selling expenses; (4) accepted Koyo’s home market support rebates;
(5) accepted Koyo’s home market “billing adjustment two”; (6)
accepted NSK’s home market lump-sum rebates; and (7)accepted Koyo’s
home market average short-term interest rate.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 7
BACKGROUND
This case concerns the 1976 and 1987 antidumping duty orders
on TRBs from Japan for the period of review (“POR”) covering
October 1, 1995, through September 30, 1996. On September 9, 1997,
Commerce published the preliminary results of administrative
reviews of the 1976 and 1987 antidumping duty orders. See
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in
Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, (“Preliminary
Results”) 62 Fed. Reg. 47,452. Commerce published the Final
Results on January 15, 1998, see 63 Fed. Reg. at 2558, and the
Amended Final Results on March 19, 1998, see 63 Fed. Reg. 13,391.1
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 19
U.S.C. § 1516a(a) (1994) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1994).
1
Since the administrative reviews at issue were initiated
after December 31, 1994, the applicable law is the antidumping
statute as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”),
Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994) (effective January 1,
1995). See Torrington Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1347, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing URAA § 291(a)(2), (b) (noting effective
date of URAA amendments)).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 8
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will uphold Commerce’s final determination in an
antidumping administrative review unless it is “unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (1994); see NTN Bearing
Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN Bearing”), 24 CIT ___, ___, 104
F. Supp. 2d 110, 115-16 (2000) (detailing Court’s standard of
review for antidumping proceedings).
DISCUSSION
I. Commerce’s Duty Absorption Inquiry
A. Background
Title 19, United States Code, § 1675(a)(4) provides that
during an administrative review initiated two or four years after
the publication of an antidumping duty order, Commerce, if
requested by a domestic interested party, “shall determine whether
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or
exporter subject to the order if the subject merchandise is sold in
the United States through an importer who is affiliated with such
foreign producer or exporter.” Section 1675(a)(4) further provides
that Commerce shall notify the International Trade Commission
(“ITC”) of its findings regarding such duty absorption for the ITC
to consider in conducting a five-year (“sunset”) review under 19
U.S.C. § 1675(c) (1994), and the ITC will take such findings into
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 9
account in determining whether material injury is likely to
continue or recur if an order were revoked under § 1675(c). See 19
U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(D) (1994).
On December 11, 1996, Timken requested Commerce to conduct a
duty absorption inquiry pursuant to § 1675(a)(4) with respect to
various respondents, including NTN, NSK and Koyo, to ascertain
whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the
administrative reviews of the 1976 and 1987 antidumping duty
orders. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2558.
In the Final Results, Commerce found that duty absorption had
occurred for the POR. See id. at 2559. In asserting authority to
conduct a duty absorption inquiry under § 1675(a)(4), Commerce
first explained that for “transition orders,” as defined in 19
U.S.C. § 1675(c)(6)(C) (antidumping duty orders, inter alia, orders
issued on or after January 1, 1995), regulation 19 C.F.R. §
351.213(j) (1998) provides that Commerce “will make a duty-
absorption determination, if requested, for any administrative
review initiated in 1996 or 1998.” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at
2558. Commerce concluded that: (1) because the antidumping duty
orders on TRBs in this case have been in effect since 1976 and
1987, respectively, the orders are transition orders pursuant to §
1675(c)(6)(C); and (2) since these reviews were initiated in 1996
and a request was made, Commerce had the authority to make duty
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 10
absorption inquiries for the administrative reviews of the 1976 and
1987 antidumping duty orders. See id. at 2558-59.
B. Contentions of the Parties
NTN, NSK and Koyo contend that Commerce lacked authority under
§ 1675(a)(4) to conduct a duty absorption inquiry for the POR of
the outstanding 1976 and 1987 antidumping duty orders.2 See NTN’s
Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s Mem.”) at 27-32; NTN’s Reply
Br. Jan. 22, 1999 Resp. Brs. United States and Timken (“NTN’s
Reply”) at 2; NSK’s Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“NSK’s
Mem.”) at 12-16; NSK’s Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“NSK’s
Reply”) at 6-8; Koyo’s Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R.
(“Koyo’s Mem.”) at 9-14; Koyo’s Reply Br. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R.
(“Koyo’s Reply”) at 2-18. In the alternative, the parties assert
that even if Commerce possessed the authority to conduct such an
inquiry, Commerce’s methodology for determining duty absorption was
contrary to law and, accordingly, the case should be remanded to
Commerce to annul its duty absorption findings and conclusions.
See NTN’s Mem. at 32-36; NSK’s Mem. at 12-16; Koyo’s Mem. at 15-16;
Koyo’s Reply at 16-18.
2
The Court assumes that NTN only contests the POR of the 1976
antidumping duty order because that is the only POR that is
mentioned in its brief and for which Commerce determined that duty
absorption had occurred. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. 2559;
NTN’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s Mem.) at 27-28.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 11
Commerce argues that it: (1) properly construed § 1675
subsections (a)(4) and (c) as authorizing it to make a duty
absorption inquiry for antidumping duty orders that were issued and
published prior to January 1, 1995; and (2) devised and applied a
reasonable methodology for determining duty absorption. See Def.’s
Mem. Opp’n Pls.’ Mots. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 13-31.
Timken supports Commerce’s contentions. See Timken’s Resp. Pls.’
Mots. J. Agency R. (“Timken’s Resp.”) at 34-47.
C. Analysis
In SKF USA Inc. v. United States (“SKF USA Inc.”), 24 CIT ___,
94 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (2000), this Court determined that Commerce
lacked statutory authority under § 1675(a)(4) to conduct a duty
absorption inquiry for antidumping duty orders issued prior to the
January 1, 1995 effective date of the URAA. See id. 24 CIT at ___,
94 F. Supp. 2d at 1357-59. The Court noted that Congress expressly
prescribed in the URAA that § 1675(a)(4) “must be applied
prospectively on or after January 1, 1995 for 19 U.S.C. § 1675
reviews.” Id. 24 CIT at ___, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 1359 (citing § 291
of the URAA).
Because Commerce’s duty absorption inquiry, its methodology
and the parties’ arguments are practically identical to those
presented in SKF USA Inc., the Court adheres to its reasoning in
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 12
SKF USA Inc. The statutory scheme clearly provides that the
inquiry must occur in the second or fourth administrative review
after the publication of the antidumping duty order, not in any
other review, and upon the request of a domestic interested party.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Commerce did not have statutory
authority to undertake a duty absorption investigation for the
antidumping duty orders in dispute here. The Court remands this
case to Commerce with instructions to annul all findings and
conclusions made pursuant to the duty absorption inquiry conducted
for the subject review in accordance with this opinion.
II. Denial of Price-Based LOT Adjustment for CEP Sales
NTN contends that Commerce improperly denied a price-based LOT
adjustment for CEP sales made in the United States market at an LOT
different from the home market sales.3 See NTN’s Mem. at 37-39;
NTN’s Reply at 3. In particular, NTN argues, inter alia, that
Commerce incorrectly determined NTN’s CEP LOT because Commerce
failed to use the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States to determine NTN’s CEP LOT. See NTN’s Mem. at 38;
NTN’s Reply at 4. NTN requests that the Court remand the LOT issue
to Commerce to grant NTN a price-based LOT adjustment for its CEP
3
For a complete discussion of background information and the
statutory provisions at issue, the reader is referred to this
Court’s decision in NTN Bearing, 24 CIT at ___, 104 F. Supp. 2d at
125-128.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 13
sales. See NTN’s Mem. at 39; NTN’s Reply at 4.
Commerce, in turn, argues that it properly determined the LOT
for NTN’s CEP sales based upon the CEP. See Def.’s Mem. at 37.
Commerce deducted expenses and profit from the price to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States pursuant to § 1677a(d)
since § 1677b(a)(7)(A) (1994) provides for an LOT adjustment and
requires Commerce to compare normal value (“NV”) to CEP rather than
to the unadjusted starting price of CEP. See id. (citing Final
Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2577). Commerce points out that CEP is
defined in § 1677a(b) (1994) as the price to the “unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States as adjusted” under § 1677a(d).
Def.’s Mem. at 40. According to Commerce, the adjusted CEP price
is to be compared to prices in the home market based on the same
LOT whenever it is practicable; when it is not practicable and the
LOT difference affects price comparability, Commerce makes an LOT
adjustment. See id. at 34, 36. Commerce makes a CEP offset when
Commerce is not able to quantify price differences between the CEP
LOT and the LOT of the comparison sales, and if NV is established
at a more advanced state of distribution than the CEP LOT. See id.
at 36.
Therefore, Commerce claims that it properly denied an LOT
adjustment for NTN’s CEP sales because NTN did not have a home-
market LOT equivalent to the CEP LOT, making it impossible for
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 14
Commerce to quantify the difference in price between the CEP LOT
and the home market LOT. See id. Because the home market LOT was
at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, Commerce
made a CEP offset pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(B). See id.
Timken generally agrees with Commerce’s positions. See
Timken’s Resp. at 67-69.
In Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States (“Micron”), 243 F.3d
1301 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(“CAFC”) held that the plain text of the antidumping statute and
the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”)4 require Commerce to
deduct the expenses enumerated under § 1677a(d) before making the
LOT comparison.5 The court examined § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i) (1994),
which provides that Commerce must establish NV “to the extent
4
The SAA represents “an authoritative expression by the
Administration concerning its views regarding the interpretation
and application of the Uruguay Round agreements.” H.R. Doc. 103-
316, at 656 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040. “It is
the expectation of the Congress that future Administrations will
observe and apply the interpretations and commitments set out in
this Statement.” Id.; see also 19 U.S.C. § 3512(d) (1994) (“The
statement of administrative action approved by the Congress . . .
shall be regarded as an authoritative expression by the United
States concerning the interpretation and application of the Uruguay
Round Agreements and this Act in any judicial proceeding in which
a question arises concerning such interpretation or application”).
5
The CAFC’s decision effectively overturned the Court of
International Trade’s determination with respect to this issue in
Borden, Inc. v. United States (“Borden”), 22 CIT 233, 4 F. Supp. 2d
1221 (1998), rev’d 2001 WL 312232 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2001), a case
discussed by the parties in the instant matter.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 15
practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or
[CEP],” and § 1677a(b), which defines CEP as “the price at which
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the
United States . . . as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d) of
this section.” (Emphasis supplied). The court concluded that,
“[as] [r]ead together, these two provisions show that Commerce is
required to deduct the subsection (d) expenses from the starting
price in the United States before making the level of trade
comparison.” Micron, 243 F.3d at 1315. The court further stated
that this conclusion is mandated by the SAA, which states that “‘to
the extent practicable, [Commerce should] establish normal value
based on home market (or third country) sales at the same level of
trade as the constructed export price or the starting price for the
export price.’” Id. (citing SAA at 829).
Thus, the Court finds that Commerce properly made § 1677a(d)
adjustments to NTN’s starting price in order to arrive at CEP and
make its LOT determination. The Court also finds that Commerce’s
decision to deny NTN an LOT adjustment is supported by substantial
evidence. Section 1677b(a)(7)(A) permits Commerce to make an LOT
adjustment “if the difference in level of trade . . . involves the
performance of different selling activities[] and . . . is
demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of
consistent price differences between sales at different levels of
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 16
trade in the country in which normal value is determined.” With
respect to CEP sales, Commerce found that the same LOT as that of
the CEP for merchandise under review did not exist for any
respondent in the home market; therefore, Commerce was unable to
“determine whether there was a pattern of consistent price
differences between the LOTs based upon the respondent’s home
market sales of merchandise under review.” See Def.’s Mem. at 36.
Commerce recognized that the SAA provides alternative methods
for calculating LOT adjustments, but it determined “that it would
have been inappropriate to apply a LOT adjustment to any
respondent.” See id. Consequently, with respect to the CEP sales
where Commerce was unable to quantify an LOT adjustment, Commerce,
in accordance with § 1677b(a)(7)(B) granted a CEP offset to
respondents, including NTN, because the home market sales were at
a more advanced LOT than the sales to the United States. See id.
The Court finds that Commerce acted within the directive of the
statute in denying the LOT adjustment and granting a CEP offset
instead. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7).
III. Commerce’s Reallocation of NTN’s Home Market and United
States Selling Expenses Without Regard to LOT
A. Background
In its preliminary calculations, Commerce calculated NTN’s
United States and home market selling expenses without regard to
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 17
LOT. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2579. NTN argued that
Commerce should have relied on NTN’s reported United States and
home market selling expenses based on LOT instead of recalculating
these selling expenses without regard to LOT. See id. Timken, in
turn, contended that Commerce should reject NTN’s selling expense
allocations based on LOT because such allocations bear no
relationship to the way in which NTN incurs the expenses. See id.
Commerce responded that for a majority of the expenses under
this POR, it determined that NTN’s methodology for allocating its
selling expenses based on LOTs did not bear any relationship to the
manner in which NTN incurred these United States and home- market
selling expenses and its methodology led to distorted allocations.
See id. Commerce asserts that in Timken Co. v. United States
(“Timken I”), 20 CIT 645, 930 F. Supp. 621 (1996), Commerce was to
accept “NTN’s LOT-specific allocations and per-unit LOT expense
adjustment amounts only if NTN’s expenses demonstrably varied
according to LOT.” Id. (citing Timken I, 20 CIT at 653, 930 F.
Supp. at 629). Acting in accordance with Timken I, Commerce in its
remand results did not allow NTN’s LOT-specific allocations “due to
the lack of quantitative and narrative evidence on the record
demonstrating that the expenses in question demonstrably varied
according to LOT.” Final Resutls, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2579. Since
Commerce found during this POR that except for certain United
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 18
States and home market packing material and packing labor expenses
NTN did not provide “quantitative and narrative evidence” that its
selling expenses are attributable to levels of trade, Commerce
recalculated NTN’s United States and home market selling expenses
without regard to LOT.6 See id. at 2579-80.
B. Contentions of the Parties
NTN contends that Commerce’s decision to reallocate NTN’s
selling expenses violates Commerce’s mandate to administer the
antidumping laws. See NTN’s Mem. at 40. NTN notes that Commerce:
(1) has accepted NTN’s methodology of allocating its selling
expenses based on LOT in previous reviews; and (2) even stated that
NTN’s “detailed and often complex U.S. expense reporting
methodologies result in reasonable allocations.” Id. at 40-41
(quoting Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Finding on Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
6
In support of its methodology, Commerce points out that the
Court in NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN”), 19 CIT
1221, 905 F. Supp. 1083 (1995), stated that “‘[a]lthough NTN
purports to show that it incurred different selling expenses at
different trade levels, the record demonstrates that NTN’s
allocation methodology does not reasonably quantify the expenses
incurred at each level of trade.’” See Def.’s Mem. at 46 (quoting
NTN, 19 CIT at 1234, 905 F. Supp. at 1094-95).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 19
and Components Thereof, From Japan, 61 Fed. Reg. 57,629, 57,636
(Nov. 7, 1996)). Moreover, NTN argues that Commerce’s rejection of
NTN’s reporting methodology on the basis of complexity is not a
reasonable rationale for reallocating NTN’s selling expenses.7
NTN’s Mem. at 39, 40. NTN contends that such reallocation has the
effect of voiding Commerce’s LOT determination that different LOTs
exist in the United States and Japan. See id. at 41.
Commerce responds that there is no evidence of narrative or
quantitative analysis tying the allocation method to the expenses.
See Def.’s Mem. at 45. Commerce asserts that NTN only quantified
the allocation itself and, therefore, the Court should sustain the
agency’s recalculation of NTN’s United States and home market
selling expenses. See id. at 46.
Timken supports Commerce and argues that Commerce was correct
in rejecting NTN’s allocation of United States and home- market
selling expenses on an LOT-specific basis because “the record did
not contain ‘quantitative and narrative evidence demonstrating’
that sales at different levels incurred different amounts of the
expenses.” See Timken’s Resp. at 69 (quoting Final Results, 63
Fed. Reg. at 2580).
7
The Court does not entertain NTN’s argument regarding
Commerce’s rejection of NTN’s reporting methodology on the basis of
complexity. Commerce corrected this statement in a memorandum to
the file. See Def.’s Mem. at 46 (citing Def.’s Mem. Ex. 2).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 20
C. Analysis
The Court disagrees with NTN that it adequately supported its
LOT adjustment claim for its reported United States and home-
market selling expenses. Although NTN purports to show that it
incurred different selling expenses at different trade levels, the
evidence to which it points does not show that its allocation
methodology reasonably quantifies the United States and home-
market selling expenses incurred at different LOTs. See NTN
Bearing, 24 CIT at ___, 104 F. Supp. 2d at 131-33; NTN, 19 CIT at
1234, 905 F. Supp. at 1095. Given that NTN had the burden before
Commerce to establish its entitlement to an LOT adjustment, its
failure to provide the requisite evidence compels the Court to
conclude that it has not met its burden of demonstrating that
Commerce’s denial of the LOT adjustment was not supported by
substantial evidence and was not in accordance with law. See NSK
Ltd. v. United States (“NSK Ltd.”), 21 CIT 617, 635-36, 969 F.
Supp. 34, 55 (1997), aff’d, NSK Ltd. v. Koyo Seiko Co.,
Ltd. (“NSK”), 190 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the Court sustains Commerce’s recalculation of
NTN’s United States and home market selling expenses without regard
to levels of trade.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 21
IV. NTN’s Constructed Export Price Calculation
A. NTN’s Constructed Export Price Calculation Without
Regard to LOT
1. Background
In calculating CEP, Commerce must reduce the starting price
used to establish CEP by “the profit allocated to the expenses
described in paragraphs (1) and (2)” of § 1677a(d). 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(d)(3). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f) (1994), the “profit” that
is deducted from this starting price is “determined by multiplying
the total actual profit by [a] percentage” calculated “by dividing
the total United States expenses by the total expenses.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677a(f)(1) and (2)(A). Section 1677a(f)(2)(B) defines “total
United States expenses” as the total expenses deducted under §
1677a(d)(1) and (2), that is, commissions, direct and indirect
selling expenses, assumptions, and the cost of any further
manufacture or assembly in the United States. Section
1677a(f)(2)(C) establishes a tripartite hierarchy of methods for
calculating “total expenses.” First, “total expenses” could be the
“expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in
the United States and the foreign like product sold in the
exporting country” if Commerce requested such expenses for the
purpose of determining NV and CEP. Id. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i). If
Commerce did not request these expenses, then “total expenses” are
the “expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 22
merchandise sold in the United States and the exporting country
which includes the subject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(f)(2)(C)(ii). If the data necessary to determine “total
expenses” under either of these methods is not available, then
“total expenses” are the “expenses incurred with respect to the
narrowest category of merchandise sold in all countries which
includes the subject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(f)(2)(C)(iii). “Total actual profit” is based on whichever
category of merchandise is used to calculate “total expenses” under
§ 1677a(f)(2)(C). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D).
During this POR, NTN argued that profit levels differed by LOT
and had an effect on prices and CEP profit and, therefore, Commerce
should calculate CEP profit on an LOT-specific basis rather than
for each class or kind of merchandise. See Final Results, 63 Fed.
Reg. at 2570. NTN reasoned that § 1677a(f)(2)(C) “expresses a
preference for the [CEP] profit calculations to be performed as
specifically as possible and on the narrowest basis as possible.”
Id.
Commerce rejected NTN’s argument, concluding that: (1)
“[n]either the statute nor the SAA require[s] [Commerce] to
calculate CEP profit on a basis more specific than the subject
merchandise as a whole”; (2) basing the CEP-profit calculation on
an LOT-specific basis would “add a layer of complexity to an
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 23
already complicated exercise with no increase in accuracy”; and (3)
a subdivision “of the CEP-profit calculation would be more
susceptible to manipulation.” Id. (Commerce also relied on its
detailed explanation made in the sixth review of the antifriction
bearings (“AFBs”).8
2. Contention of the Parties
NTN contends that Commerce erred by refusing to calculate CEP
profit on an LOT-specific basis. See NTN’s Mem. at 16.
Highlighting the “narrowest category of merchandise” language of §
8
In the sixth AFB review, Commerce reasoned as follows:
Neither the statute nor the SAA require[s] [Commerce] to
calculate CEP profit on bases more specific than the
subject merchandise as a whole. Indeed, while [Commerce]
cannot at this time rule out the possibility that the
facts of a particular case may require division of CEP
profit, the statute and SAA, by referring to “the”
profit, “total actual profit,” and “total expenses” imply
that [Commerce] should prefer calculating a single profit
figure. NTN’s suggested approach would also add a layer
of complexity to an already complicated exercise with no
guarantee that the result will provide any increase in
accuracy. [Commerce] need not undertake such a
calculation[.] [S]ee Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. International
Union, 6 F.3d 1511, 1518-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993)[]. Finally,
subdivision of the CEP-profit calculation would be more
susceptible to manipulation. Congress has specifically
warned us to be wary of such manipulation of the profit
allocation[.] [S]ee S. Rep. 103-412, 103d Cong., 2d Sess
at 66-67).
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and
the United Kingdom, 62 Fed. Reg. 2081, 2125 (Jan. 15, 1997).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 24
1677a(f)(2)(C)(ii) and (iii), NTN argues that there is a clear
statutory preference that profit be calculated on the narrowest
possible basis. See id. at 17. Moreover, NTN claims that since CV
profit is calculated by LOT and matching is by LOT, CEP profit
should be calculated to account for differences in LOT. See id.
NTN asserts that the mere fact that a calculation is difficult is
not a valid reason to sacrifice accuracy. See id. NTN further
asserts that Commerce’s speculation that an adjustment is
susceptible to manipulation provides no grounds for rejecting an
adjustment. See id. at 16.
Commerce responds that it properly determined CEP profit
without regard to LOT. See Def.’s Mem. at 50. Commerce notes that
§ 1677a(f) does not refer to LOT, that is, the statute does not
require that CEP profit be calculated on an LOT-specific basis.
See id. at 51. In addition, Commerce asserts that even assuming
that a narrower basis for the CEP-profit calculation is warranted
in some circumstances, NTN has not provided any factual support for
such a deviation from Commerce’s standard methodology for
calculating CEP profit. See id. at 52. Timken generally agrees
with Commerce’s CEP-profit calculation. See Timken’s Resp. at 59-
60.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 25
3. Analysis
Section 1677a(f), as Commerce correctly notes, does not make
any reference to LOT. Accordingly, the Court’s duty under Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (“Chevron”),
467 U.S. 837 (1984), is to review the reasonableness of Commerce’s
statutory interpretation. See IPSCO, Inc. v. United States
(“IPSCO”), 965 F.2d 1056, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Chevron,
467 U.S. at 844).
Commerce’s refusal to calculate CEP profit on an LOT-specific
basis is reasonable and in accordance with law. See NTN Bearing,
24 CIT at ___, 104 F. Supp. 2d at 133-35. The language of the
statute clearly contemplates that, in general, the “narrowest
category” will include the class or kind of merchandise that is
within the scope of an investigation or review. See id.
Subsections (ii) and (iii) of § 1677a(f)(C)’s “total expense”
definition lead to such conclusion because both subsections refer
to “expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of
merchandise . . . which includes the subject merchandise.” See id.
at 135. The term “subject merchandise” is defined as “the class or
kind of merchandise that is within the scope of an investigation,
a review, a suspension agreement, an order under this subtitle or
section 1303 of this title, or a finding under the Antidumping Act,
1921.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25) (1994). Accordingly, the Court finds
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 26
that Commerce reasonably interpreted § 1677a(f) in refusing to
apply a narrower subcategory of merchandise such as one based on
LOT. The Court, moreover, agrees with Commerce’s conclusion that
a subdivision of the “CEP-profit calculation would be more
susceptible to manipulation,” a result that Congress specifically
warned Commerce to prevent. Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2570.
Finally, the Court agrees with Commerce that NTN failed to provide
adequate factual support of how the CEP-profit calculation was
distorted by Commerce’s standard methodology.
B. Inclusion of EP Sales in Calculation of NTN’s
Constructed Export Price Profit
1. Background
Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(3), Commerce must, in order to
calculate CEP, deduct “the profit allocated to the expenses
described in” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l) and (2) from the price
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.
“Profit” is defined as “an amount determined by multiplying the
total actual profit by the applicable percentage,” 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(f)(1), and “actual profit” is defined as the “total profit
earned . . . with respect to the sale of the same merchandise for
which total expenses are determined . . . .” 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(f)(2)(D). The term “total expenses” means “all expenses in
the first of [three] categories which applies and which are
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 27
incurred by or on behalf of the foreign producer and foreign
exporter of the subject merchandise and by or on behalf of the
United States seller affiliated with the producer or exporter with
respect to the production and sale of such merchandise . . . .” 19
U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). The first category covers “expenses
incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United
States and the foreign like product sold in the exporting country
. . . .” 19 U.S.C. 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i). “Subject merchandise,” in
turn, is defined as “the class or kind of merchandise that is
within the scope of . . . a review . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25).
In the Final Results, Commerce included EP sales in the
calculation of CEP profit. See generally, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2570.
2. Contentions of the Parties
NTN contends that the statute clearly states that the
adjustment of profit to the CEP is to be based on expenses incurred
in the United States as a percentage of total expenses and that
there is no provision in the statute for the inclusion of EP
expenses or profit in this calculation. See NTN’s Mem. at 17-19.
NTN deduces, therefore, that Commerce erred by including EP sales
in the calculation of CEP profit. Id. at 19.
Specifically, NTN relies on the definition of the
term “total expenses.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). NTN
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 28
maintains that the specific reference to CEP within the definition
precludes Commerce from the inclusion of EP expenses in the
calculation of CEP profit. See NTN’s Mem. at 17-18. NTN further
states that “just as EP expenses cannot be considered, it follows
logically that sales revenue for EP sales also cannot be included
[in the calculation of CEP profit]” since the definition of “total
actual profit,” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D), “directly references
the definition of ‘total expenses.’” Id. at 19. NTN, therefore,
requests that EP sales be removed from NTN’s CEP profit adjustment
calculation. See id.
Commerce contends that the inclusion of revenues and expenses
resulting from NTN’s EP sales in the calculation of CEP profit was
in accordance with the law because it was a reasonable
interpretation of the statutory mandates of sections 1677a(f)(2)(C)
and (D) and 1677(25) of Title 19. See Def.’s Mem. at 49.
Specifically, Commerce points out that the term “subject
merchandise” is defined as “‘the class or kind of merchandise that
is within the scope of . . . a review . . . .’” Id. (quoting 19
U.S.C. § 1677(25)). Commerce notes that the term “subject
merchandise” is referred to in the statute that defines “total
expenses,” see 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i), and therefore, “total
expenses” encompasses NTN’s EP and CEP sales. See Def.’s Mem. at
49. Commerce further articulates that:
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 29
[t]he basis for total actual profit is the same as the
basis for total expenses . . . [see 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(f)(2)(C)(1994)]. The first alternative under [19
U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)] states that, for purposes of
determining profit, the term “total expenses” refers to
all expenses incurred with respect to the subject
merchandise sold in the United States (as well as home
market expenses). Thus, where the respondent makes both
EP and CEP sales to the United States, sales of the
subject merchandise would encompass all such
transactions. Therefore, because NTN had EP sales,
[Commerce] . . . included these sales in the calculation
of CEP profit.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2570.
Commerce also points out that its September 4, 1997 policy
bulletin explains that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D) “provides that
the calculation of ‘total actual profit’ is to include all revenues
and expenses resulting from the respondent’s EP sales as well as
from its CEP and home market sales.” Def.’s Mem. at 49 (citing
Commerce’s Policy Bulletin 97.1 of September 4, 1997).
Timken agrees with Commerce and contends that Commerce
reasonably calculated CEP profit on the basis of all United States
sales, including EP sales. See Timken’s Resp. at 60-61. In
addition, Timken argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
issue of the inclusion of EP sales in the calculation of NTN’s CEP
profit because Commerce did not ultimately make a CEP profit
adjustment.9 See Timken’s Resp. at 59 (proprietary version).
9
The Court is bewildered by Timken’s argument that the Court
would be rendering an opinion on a moot issue had the Court decided
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 30
3. Analysis
Based upon the above-defined statutory scheme, Commerce
concluded that where a respondent made both EP and CEP sales,
“sales of the subject merchandise” encompassed all such
transactions and, therefore, Commerce could reasonably interpret
the statutory scheme as providing that the calculation of total
actual profit is to include all revenues and expenses resulting
from the respondent’s EP sales as well as from its CEP and home-
market sales. See Def.’s Mem. at 49. Commerce’s September 4, 1997
policy bulletin provides:
The calculation of total actual profit under [19 U.S.C.
§ 1677a(f)(2)(D)] includes all revenues and expenses
resulting from the respondent’s [EP] sales as well as
from its constructed export price and home market sales
. . . . The basis for total actual profit is the same as
the basis for total expenses under [19 U.S.C. §
1677a(f)(2)(C)]. The first alternative under this
section . . . states that, for purposes of determining
profit, the term “total expenses” refers to all expenses
to rule on the inclusion of EP sales in the calculation of NTN’s
CEP profit. See Timken’s Resp. at 59 (proprietary version).
Timken’s reliance on Rose Bearings Ltd. v. United States (“Rose
Bearings”), 14 CIT 801, 751 F. Supp. 1545 (1990), is misplaced
since in that case, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction
after determining that the plaintiff did not have standing, that
is, that the plaintiff was not a party to a “live case or
controversy” since the plaintiff “was not subject to the
antidumping duty order that it ha[d] appealed . . . .” Rose
Bearings, 14 CIT at 802, 751 F. Supp. at 1546. Unlike the
plaintiff in Rose Bearings, NTN could be affected by the challenge
to Commerce’s inclusion of EP sales in Commerce’s calculation of
CEP profit. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. 2570. Therefore, this
Court is correct in rendering a decision over the issue of
Commerce’s inclusion of EP sales in the calculation of NTN’s CEP
profit since NTN is a party to a live case or controversy.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 31
incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in
the United States (as well as home market expenses).
Thus, where the respondent makes both EP and CEP [sales],
sales of the subject merchandise would encompass all such
transactions.
Def.’s Mem. at 49.
The SAA further clarifies the point and states the following:
The total expenses are all expenses incurred by or on
behalf of the foreign producer and exporter and the
affiliated seller in the United States with respect to
the production and sale of the first of the following
alternatives which applies: (1) the subject merchandise
sold in the United States and the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country (if Commerce requested this
information in order to determine the normal value and
the constructed export price) . . . .
H.R. DOC. 103-316 at 824.
Based upon its interpretation of the statutory language and
upon the SAA’s reference to CEP, NTN claims that there are only two
categories of expenses that Commerce could use in calculating CEP
profit: those used to calculate NV and those used to calculate CEP.
See NTN’s Mem. at 18. Additionally, NTN states that just as EP
expenses cannot be used in calculating CEP profit, neither can
sales revenue be used for EP sales since the definition of “total
actual profit” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D) refers to the
definition of “total expenses” in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). See
id.
NTN, however, ignores two issues. To start, the first
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 32
category of total expenses under § 1677a(f)(2)(C) is not limited to
expenses incurred with respect to CEP sales made in the United
States and the foreign like product sold in the exporting country.
It also covers expenses incurred with respect to EP sales because
it refers to “expenses incurred with respect to the subject
merchandise sold in the United States”; the term “subject
merchandise” is defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25) as the class or
kind of merchandise that is within the scope of a review; and the
class or kind of merchandise in this review includes both CEP and
EP sales.
Second, as the SAA explains, the total expenses are all
expenses incurred with respect to the production and sale of the
first of the three alternatives. In referring to the first
category of expenses, the SAA specifically refers to “the subject
merchandise sold in the United States,” which by definition means
the class or kind of merchandise which is within the scope of a
review and, in this review, includes both CEP and EP sales. H.R.
DOC. 103-316 at 824.
For these reasons the Court is not convinced by NTN’s argument
that Commerce’s interpretation of the statutory scheme is
unreasonable and sustains Commerce’s inclusion of EP sales in the
calculation of CEP profit. See Chevron, 467 U.S. 837.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 33
V. Commerce’s Recalculation of Credit Expenses for Constructed
Export Price Sales
A. Background
During the POR, NTN calculated its United States credit
expense for CEP sales on a customer-specific basis. See NTN’s Mem.
at 23-24 and Ex. “U.S. Verification Report.” “NTN calculated the
average days of payment for each customer, and multiplied the
average number of days by the interest rate to arrive at a credit
expense.” Def.’s Mem. at 53.
During the review, Timken contended that Commerce “should
recalculate NTN’s U.S. credit expense because NTN reported a
customer-specific average credit expense rather than a transaction-
specific credit expense” thereby producing distortive results.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2571. Timken noted that NTN
“provided the necessary information on record to recalculate a
credit expense on a transaction-specific” basis. Id.
NTN responded that its credit expense should not be
recalculated because Commerce had accepted NTN’s methodology of
reporting a customer-specific credit expense in previous AFB
reviews and “verified the accuracy of NTN’s data” for this and
other reviews.10 See id. at 2572; see also NTN’s Mem. at 23 (citing
10
NTN cites to a past administrative review for NTN’s
proposition that Commerce has previously accepted NTN’s
methodology of reporting a customer-specific credit expense. See
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 34
1997 Final Results, 62 Fed. Reg. 54,043, 54,066-54,067 [sic].11
Commerce agreed with Timken with regards to CEP sales,
finding:
We have data on the record which allows us to calculate
a transaction-specific credit expense for CEP sales.
Therefore, we have recalculated NTN’s credit expense
using the dates of payment which NTN reported.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2572.
B. Contentions of the Parties
NTN notes that Commerce has accepted NTN’s calculation of
credit expenses on a customer-specific basis for previous
antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Japan. See NTN’s Mem. at 23.
NTN contends that since “NTN has not modified its reporting
NTN’s Mem. at 23 (citing Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews of Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom (“1997
Final Results”), 62 Fed. Reg. 54,043, 54,066-54,067 [sic] (October
17, 1997). In that review, Commerce allowed NTN to calculate its
United States credit expense for EP sales on a customer-specific
basis since NTN could not report its credit expenses on a
transaction basis. See 1997 Final Results at 54,053. However,
with regards to CEP sales, Commerce recalculated NTN’s credit
expense on a transaction-specific basis since NTN provided
transaction-specific information to Commerce. See id. Therefore,
the Court holds that Commerce’s prior methodology does not require
Commerce to use NTN’s customer-specific reported and verified data
when NTN provides transaction-specific information allowing for the
calculation of credit expense on a transaction-specific basis.
11
The Court assumes that the correct citation is 1997 Final
Results, 62 Fed. Reg. 54,043, 54,053.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 35
methodology, and [Commerce] verified NTN’s reported expenses, it is
inappropriate and contrary to law for [Commerce] to modify NTN’s
reported data.” Id. Moreover, NTN asserts that Commerce’s
recalculation of NTN’s credit expense on a transaction-specific
basis, rather than the use of NTN’s reported customer-specific
credit expense, constitutes unlawful use of facts available under
19 U.S.C. § 1677e (1994). See id. at 23-25.
Commerce asserts that its “questionnaire instructed [NTN] as
to the proper method for calculating and reporting credit
expenses.” Def.’s Mem. at 52 and Ex. 3. In particular, Commerce’s
preference for the reporting of credit expenses is that they be
reported on a transaction-specific basis rather than on an average
or allocated basis. See Def.’s Mem. at 52-53. However, Commerce
claims that when a company’s records do not permit transaction-
specific reporting, Commerce has permitted use of average or
allocated expenses, that is, customer-specific reporting. See id.
at 53. Commerce argues that since NTN provided the necessary
information on record which permitted a transaction-specific
calculation of NTN’s United States credit expenses for CEP sales,
Commerce properly exercised its preference and recalculated the
expenses on such a basis. See id. at 53-54. Additionally,
Commerce contends that NTN’s argument declaring Commerce’s
recalculation of credit expense on a transaction-specific basis as
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 36
“impermissible use of facts available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e has
no merit since Commerce did not resort to any data other than that
reported by NTN. See id. at 54.
Timken agrees with Commerce, noting that, consistent with the
antidumping statute, Commerce has a preference for transaction-
specific reporting of credit expenses since actual costs allow
Commerce to determine “the most accurate dumping margins possible.”
Timken’s Resp. at 65. Timken notes that Commerce’s questionnaire
requesting information indicated a strong preference for reporting
credit expenses on a transaction-specific basis. See id. Since
the record contained information reported by NTN that permitted
more precise credit expense calculations, that is, transaction-
specific payment dates for NTN’s CEP sales, Timken contends that
Commerce properly recalculated NTN’s United States credit expenses
on a transaction-specific basis. See id. Also, Timken asserts
that Commerce’s use of NTN’s reported verified sale and payment
dates to recalculate NTN’s credit expense on a transaction-specific
basis does not constitute the unlawful “use of facts available.”
See id.
C. Analysis
The Court disagrees with NTN that Commerce is now prohibited
from using transaction-specific reporting of NTN’s United States
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 37
credit expense merely because Commerce had accepted NTN’s customer-
specific reporting of such expenses in previous AFB reviews and
verified the accuracy of NTN’s data for this and other reviews.
Commerce does not have to adhere to its customer-specific reporting
methodology for calculating credit expenses when a respondent
provides the necessary information on record for calculating such
expenses on a more accurate and preferred basis, that is, a
transaction-specific basis. See generally NSK Ltd. v. United
States (“NSK 1995"), 19 CIT 1013, 1027, 896 F. Supp. 1263, 1275
(1995), rev’d on other grounds, 115 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
(noting that Commerce does not have to “adhere to its prior
reporting methodology, especially where Commerce is striving for
more accuracy” and explaining that “[d]irect selling expenses are
incurred with respect to specific transactions. Credit, for
example, is a selling expense which is only incurred when credit is
extended under the terms of sale. Because credit expense is a
direct expense, it should be tied to the transaction for which it
was incurred”).
The Court also finds that NTN’s argument that Commerce’s
recalculation of NTN’S United States credit expense on a
transaction-specific basis constitutes the unlawful “use of facts
available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e has no merit since NTN clearly
misreads the clear language of that statute. The antidumping
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 38
statute mandates that Commerce use “facts otherwise available”
(commonly referred to as “facts available”) if “necessary
information is not available on the record” of an antidumping
proceeding. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1). In addition, Commerce may
use facts available where an interested party or any other person:
(1) withholds information that has been requested by Commerce; (2)
fails to provide the requested information by the requested date or
in the form and manner requested, subject to 19 U.S.C. §
1677m(c)(1), (e) (1994); (3) significantly impedes an antidumping
proceeding; and (4) provides information that cannot be verified as
provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) (1994). See 19 U.S.C. §
1677e(a)(2)(A)-(D). Section 1677e(a) provides, however, that the
use of facts available shall be subject to the limitations set
forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)(1994).
The legislative goal behind Commerce’s right to use facts
available is to "induce respondents to provide Commerce with
requested information in a timely, complete, and accurate manner .
. . .” National Steel Corp. v. United States, 18 CIT 1126, 1129,
870 F. Supp. 1130, 1134 (1994). Consequently, Commerce enjoys very
broad, although not unlimited, discretion with regard to the
propriety of its use of facts available. See generally, Olympic
Adhesives, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(acknowledging Commerce’s broad discretion with regard to the use
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 39
of facts available but pointing out that Commerce's resort to facts
available is an abuse of discretion where the information Commerce
requests does not and could not exist).
During the review at issue, NTN complied with Commerce’s
request for data by providing the necessary information on record
which permitted a transaction-specific calculation of NTN’s United
States credit expenses for CEP sales. See Final Results at 2572.
Since Commerce did not resort to any data other than that reported
by NTN, Commerce’s recalculation of NTN’s United States credit
expense on a transaction-specific basis did not constitute the
unlawful use of “facts available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Commerce’s recalculation of
NTN’s United States credit expense on a transaction-specific basis
was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
VI. Denial of an Adjustment to United States Indirect Selling
Expenses for Interest Allegedly Incurred in Financing Cash
Deposits for Antidumping Duties
A. Background
During the review, NTN claimed a downward adjustment to its
reported United States indirect selling expenses for imputed
interest expenses allegedly incurred in financing cash deposits for
antidumping duties. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2570-71.
Commerce denied the adjustment and determined that such an interest
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 40
offset to NTN’s indirect selling expenses is inappropriate, whether
based on actual interest expenses or an imputed amount allegedly
associated with financing cash deposits. See id. at 2571.
Commerce thereby deducted the entire amount of NTN’s reported
indirect selling expenses, including all interest, from the CEP.
See Def.’s Mem. at 55-56.
Commerce noted that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1), which provides
for the deduction of certain selling expenses from CEP that were
“incurred by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or the
affiliated seller in the United States, in selling the subject
merchandise,” does not precisely define what constitutes a selling
expense; instead, Congress has given Commerce discretionary
authority to determine what such an expense encompasses. See Final
Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2571. Commerce acknowledged that in past
reviews of the applicable antidumping duty orders, it determined
that interest expenses incurred in financing antidumping duty cash
deposits were not considered selling expenses and thereby allowed
an offsetting, financing-cost adjustment to United States indirect
selling expenses. See id. For this review, however, Commerce
reconsidered its position and concluded that this offsetting
financing-cost adjustment is inappropriate. See id.
Commerce found that while under the statute it may allow a
limited exemption from deductions from United States price for
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 41
antidumping duty cash deposits and legal fees associated with
participation in an antidumping case, it found no basis for
extending this exemption to interest expenses allegedly incurred in
financing the cash deposits. See id. The agency reasoned that
there is a distinction “between business expenses that arise from
economic activities in the United States and business expenses that
are direct, inevitable consequences of an antidumping duty order.”
Id. Commerce determined that while cash deposits and legal fees
are incurred solely as a result of the existence of an antidumping
order, “[f]inancial expenses allegedly associated with cash
deposits are not a direct, inevitable consequence of an antidumping
duty order.” Id. In particular, Commerce explained that although
it may be true that some importers sometimes incur a cost if they
borrow money in order to pay for cash deposits of antidumping
duties, it is a fundamental principle that:
“[m]oney is fungible. If an importer acquires a loan to
cover one operating cost, that may simply mean that it
will not be necessary to borrow money to cover a
different operating cost.” Companies may choose to meet
obligations for cash deposits in a variety of ways that
rely on existing capital resources or that require
raising new resources through debt or equity. For
example, companies may choose to pay deposits by using
cash on hand, obtaining loans, increasing sales revenues,
or raising capital through the sale of equity shares. In
fact, companies face these choices every day regarding
all their expenses and financial obligations. There is
nothing inevitable about a company having to finance cash
deposits and there is no way for [Commerce] to trace the
motivation or use of such funds even if it were.
Id. (quoting Preliminary Results, 62 Fed. Reg. at 47,455). Commerce
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 42
also noted that “the calculation of the dumping margins should not
vary depending on whether a party has funds available to pay cash
deposits or requires additional funds in the form of loans.”
Preliminary Results, 62 Fed. Reg. at 47,455.
Moreover, Commerce determined that it should not impute an
amount for any interest costs that would theoretically be
associated with financing actual cash deposits of antidumping
duties. Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2571. Commerce reasoned
that
[t]here is no real opportunity cost associated with cash
deposits when the paying of such deposits is a
precondition for doing business in the United States. .
. . Companies cannot choose not to pay cash deposits if
they want to import nor can they dictate the terms,
conditions, or timing of such payments.
Id.
B. Contentions of the Parties
NTN claims that Commerce’s rationale for denying NTN’s
adjustment for interest expenses is flawed because irrespective of
how a company opts to finance the cash deposits for antidumping
duties, the amount of cash deposited will have to be made up by
financing something else, a result that is a direct inevitable
consequence of the antidumping duty order. See NTN’s Mem. at 20.
NTN also asserts that if Commerce were to allow the interest
expenses from cash deposits from prior reviews to affect the
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 43
dumping margin calculations of present reviews, a never-ending
cycle would follow that would prevent Commerce from ever revoking
the antidumping duty order. See id. at 21.
Further, NTN notes that Commerce has repeatedly taken the
position that interest expenses incurred in financing cash deposits
of antidumping duties cannot be properly treated as indirect
selling expenses and, therefore, has allowed for an interest-
expense adjustment on antidumping duty cash deposits. See id. at
20-22 (citations omitted). NTN asserts that Commerce’s decision to
alter its prior methodology is “unreasonable and internally-
contradictory.” NTN’s Reply at 7.
NTN also asserts that this Court has consistently upheld the
interest-expense adjustment to indirect selling expenses when
Commerce has granted it and has remanded to Commerce to allow the
adjustment when the agency has denied it. See NTN’s Mem. at 22-23
(citations omitted). In particular, NTN argues that Federal-Mogul
Corp. v. United States (“Federal-Mogul”), 20 CIT 1438, 1440-41, 950
F. Supp. 1179, 1182-83 (1996), clearly refutes Commerce’s decision
to deny NTN’s interest-expense adjustment. See id. at 22. In
particular, NTN notes the court in Federal-Mogul found that there
was no support for a domestic party’s “assertion that any expense
related to antidumping proceedings is automatically a selling
expense related to the sale of the subject merchandise. Indeed,
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 44
pursuant to the rationale of [Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. United States
(“Daewoo”), 13 CIT 253, 270, 712 F. Supp. 931, 947 (1989)], such
expenses are not necessarily selling expenses.” Id. at 22 (quoting
Federal-Mogul, 20 CIT at 1440-41, 950 F. Supp. at 1183). NTN
points out that the court in Federal-Mogul found that, similar to
the Daewoo court’s holding that legal expenses related to
antidumping proceedings are not selling expenses, the interest
expenses at issue did not qualify as selling expenses because they
were not related to the sale of merchandise, but to NTN’s
participation in the antidumping proceeding. See id. NTN also
notes that in NSK Ltd., 21 CIT at 637, 969 F. Supp. at 55, the
Court reaffirmed its decision in Federal-Mogul to allow NTN’s
adjustment for interest expenses on antidumping duty cash deposits.
See id. at 23. NTN contends that Commerce’s decision to alter its
policy is unreasonable and there is no danger that an interest-
expense adjustment to indirect selling expenses would be used to
“mask dumping.” See id.; NTN’s Reply at 7.
Commerce argues that its decision to deny the offset was
within its discretion. See Def.’s Mem. at 57. Commerce also
argues that it may change its methodology if it presents a
reasonable basis for departing from its previous practice. See id.
at 57-59. Further, Commerce contends that the interest expenses
allegedly incurred with financing antidumping duty cash deposits
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 45
are ordinary interest expenses and, therefore, not deductible from
United States indirect selling expenses. See id. at 59.
Timken asserts that Commerce reasonably denied the offset,
because allowing United States selling expenses to be reduced in
the manner claimed by NTN encourages dumping. See Timken’s Resp.
at 63. Specifically, Timken argues that an adjustment for NTN’s
interest expenses on antidumping duty cash deposits would “allow
NTN to mask present dumping through alleged interest used to
finance past cash deposits.” Id. Timken contends for example
that:
the interest might be equal to five percent of the value
of U.S. sales in the present review. Under NTN’s
approach, the Commerce Department would be required to
offset expenses attributable to sales made during the
present administrative review with interest imputed to
past cash deposits. Thus, the importer may sell at
prices five percent less than fair value without being
found to have dumped. The Commerce Department would
offset reductions amounting to five percent of U.S. sales
prices with the five percent imputed interest. The
offset would mask the importer’s dumping, and the
importer would escape the coverage of the antidumping
duty law.
Id. Timken also argues that other than NTN’s reported “amount of
imputed interest attributable to its cash antidumping duty
deposits,” there is no evidence that NTN actually obtained loans
for the purpose of posting cash deposits. Id. at 64. Therefore,
there is no factual basis for the adjustment. See id.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 46
C. Analysis
Although NTN correctly points out that interest expenses
incurred on financing antidumping cash deposits are not “selling
expenses,” see Federal-Mogul, 20 CIT at 1441, 950 F. Supp. at 1183,
the Court disagrees that Commerce in this review is prevented from
altering its methodology of making adjustments to United States
indirect selling expenses. This Court has noted that “Commerce
may, in certain circumstances, reasonably change its methodology
from review to review.” Timken Co. v. United States (“Timken”), 21
CIT 1313, 1332, 989 F. Supp. 234, 250 (1997), vacated in part on
other grounds, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1390, 1393 (1998) (allowing Commerce
to alter its methodology with respect to interest expenses incurred
for financing cash deposits).
Consequently, since 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) does not provide
clear guidance with respect to the adjustment, the issue for the
Court is whether Commerce’s interpretation of the statute was
reasonable. The Court finds that Commerce reasonably interpreted
the statute by concluding that financing expenses incurred on
antidumping duty cash deposits are not an inevitable consequence of
the antidumping duty order and that, with respect to imputed
interest costs, there is no real opportunity cost associated with
cash deposits when the paying of such deposits is a precondition
for doing business in the United States. Further, the Court finds
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 47
that NTN failed to provide any evidence on record that supports the
fact that NTN actually or approximately incurred the alleged
interest expenses on antidumping duty cash deposits. Commerce
acted rationally in denying NTN’s claimed interest-expense
adjustment and, therefore, Commerce’s determination is sustained.
VII. Valuation of Major Inputs From Affiliated Suppliers
A. Statutory Background
The NV of the subject merchandise is, in pertinent part, “the
price at which the foreign like product is first sold . . . for
consumption in the exporting country.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)
(i). However, whenever Commerce has “reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect” that sales of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of NV have been made at prices
which represent less than the COP of that product, Commerce shall
determine whether, in fact, such sales were made at less than the
COP. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1) (1994). A “reasonable ground”
exists if Commerce disregarded below-cost sales of a particular
exporter or producer from the determination of NV in the most
recently completed administrative review. See 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(b)(2)(A)(ii). If Commerce determines that there are sales
below the COP and certain conditions are present under §
1677b(b)(1)(A)-(B), it may disregard such below-cost sales in the
determination of NV. See id.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 48
Additionally, the special rules for the calculation of COP or
CV contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2)-(3) (1994), provide that,
in a transaction between affiliated persons as defined in 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(33) (1994), Commerce may disregard either the transaction or
the value of a major input.
Section 1677b(f)(2) provides that Commerce may disregard an
affiliated-party transaction when “the amount representing [the
transaction or transfer price] does not fairly reflect the amount
usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in
the market under consideration [that is, an arms-length or market
price].” If such “a transaction is disregarded . . . and no other
transactions are available for consideration,” Commerce shall value
the cost of an affiliated-party input “based on the information
available as to what the amount would have been if the transaction
had occurred between persons who are not affiliated,” that is,
based on an arms-length or market value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2)
(“fair-value” provision).
Section 1677b(f)(3)’s “major input rule” directs that if (1)
a transaction between affiliated companies involves the production
by one of such companies of a “major input” to the merchandise
produced by the other, and (2) Commerce has “reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect” that the amount reported as the value of such
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 49
input is below the COP, then Commerce may calculate the value of
the major input on the basis of the data available regarding such
COP, if such COP exceeds the market value of the input, as
determined under § 1677b(f)(2). For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3),
regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.407(b) (1998) provides that Commerce
will value a major input supplied by an affiliated party based on
the highest of (1) the actual transfer price for the input, (2) the
market value of the input, or (3) the COP of the input.
B. Factual Background
Because Commerce disregarded sales that failed the below-cost
sales test pursuant to § 1677b(b)(1) in the prior review with
respect to NTN’s TRBs from Japan, Commerce determined pursuant to
§ 1677b(b)(2)(A)(ii) that it had “reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect” that sales of NTN’s foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of NV in this POR might have
been made at prices below the COP. See Preliminary Results, 62
Fed. Reg. at 47,457. Consequently, pursuant to § 1677b(b)(1),
Commerce initiated COP investigations of NTN’s sales in the home
market and, thereby, requested information relating to the COP and
CV. See id.
In its questionnaire for this POR, Commerce requested that NTN
provide certain data regarding the valuation of major inputs
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 50
received from affiliated suppliers and used to produce the
merchandise under review during the cost calculation period. See
Def.’s Mem. at 60; see also Def.’s Ex. 4. In particular, Commerce
instructed NTN as follows:
List the major inputs received from affiliated parties
and used to produce the merchandise under review during
the cost calculation period. . . . For each major input
identified, provide the following information:
a. the total volume and value of the input purchased
from all sources by your company during the cost
calculation period, and the total volume and value
purchased from each affiliated party during the
same period;
b. the per-unit transfer price charged for the input
by the affiliated party (if the affiliated party
sells the identical input to other, unaffiliated
purchasers, provide documentation showing the price
paid for the input by the unaffiliated purchaser;
if your company purchases the identical input from
unaffiliated suppliers, provide documentation
showing the unaffiliated party’s sales price for
the input); and
c. if you are responding to this section of the
questionnaire in connection with an investigation
of sales below cost, provide the per-unit cost of
production incurred by the affiliated party in
producing the major input. . . .
Def.’s Ex. 4.
In addition, Commerce requested that NTN “specify the basis
used by [NTN] to value each major input for purposes of computing
the submitted COP and CV amounts (e.g., transfer price, cost of
production).” Id.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 51
In its response to Commerce’s questionnaire, NTN: (1)
identified NTN’s major inputs; (2) “submitted tables that
identified its affiliated and unaffiliated suppliers for a sample
of the different major inputs used to produce TRBs” and compared
transfer prices to the unaffiliated supplier’s prices which
demonstrated that certain “transfer prices were lower than [what]
NTN’s unaffiliated supplier charged for the same model”; (3)
submitted tables containing COP data for a sample of certain major
inputs used to produce TRBs that NTN purchased from an affiliated
supplier; and (4) “specified that [NTN] calculated COP and CV using
transfer prices to value the identified major inputs” and “created
a variable in its COP and CV database, ‘RELPTY,’ that identified
for each control number, the total percentage of affiliated party
inputs used in producing a particular TRB model.” Def.’s Mem. at
60-61 (citing Def.’s Confidential Ex. 5).
Subsequently, NTN “submitted revised exhibits that compared
the weighted average transfer price, the weighted average COP, and,
in limited instances, the market value for major inputs purchased
from affiliated suppliers.” Def.’s Mem. at 61; Def.’s Confidential
Ex. 6. Commerce verified NTN’s COP and transfer price responses
regarding the inputs but did not verify the market values for most
of the major inputs because, except for one affiliated supplier’s
inputs, “there were no unaffiliated suppliers of the identical
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 52
components or services” that would allow NTN to provide market
values for most major inputs. Def.’s Mem. at 62; Def.’s
Confidential Ex. 7 at 24. Commerce also verified that for the
affiliated supplier’s inputs, that is, the one affiliated supplier
for whom there were unaffiliated suppliers of identical components
or services, “the market value was greater than the reported
transfer price and . . . COP.” Def.’s Mem. at 62. In the
Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that the appropriate value
for the affiliated supplier’s major inputs was market value since
it was higher in amount than NTN’s transfer price or the affiliated
supplier’s COP. See id.; Def.’s Confidential Ex. 8 at 1. However,
“Commerce was unable to identify the particular TRB models that
contained [the major inputs at issue] because NTN’s ‘RELPTY’
variables did not isolate these items.” Def.’s Mem. at 62.
Commerce, therefore, used “available information on the record” to
increase the transfer prices, that is, the prices of affiliated
supplier’s inputs that NTN used to calculate COP and CV, in order
to reflect market value. Id. at 62-63.
Commerce articulated its methodology of increasing the
transfer prices of major inputs as reported by NTN in order to
reflect market value:
To account for the difference between the fair value and
the reported transfer price, we have increased NTN’s
reported COP and CV by first calculating a weighted
average percentage difference between the fair value
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 53
and the transfer price. We calculated this weighted
average percentage difference . . . [by:]
[1] determin[ing] the percentage of affiliated party
purchases represented by [the affiliated supplier]
. . .[;]
[2] appl[ying] . . . this difference between fair value
and transfer price for sampled purchases from [the
affiliated supplier] . . .[;]
[3] appl[ying] this difference to each control number’s
Relpty variable that NTN provided in its cost
files[] (NTN’s Relpty variable provides the
percentage of the value of the affiliated party
transfer price to the total cost of production or
constructed value for each model).
-- The resulting value was then included in each model’s
COP or CV.
NTN’s Ex. “COP/CV Memorandum”; see also Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg.
at 2573 and NTN’s Mem. at 25.
C. Contentions of the Parties
NTN contends that Commerce’s “adjustment to COP and CV for
affiliated-party inputs is distortive and should be eliminated.”
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2572. Specifically, NTN asserts
that Commerce erred when it used the results that it obtained from
testing affiliated-party inputs on a sample basis to adjust COP and
CV by using the highest of transfer price, market price or the COP
of the input for “all of NTN’s affiliated party inputs regardless
of the fact that not all of these inputs contained [the particular
affiliated supplier’s] retainers” at issue. NTN’s Reply at 8;
see NTN’s Mem. at 25. NTN notes that Commerce’s application of the
adjustment to all of NTN’s affiliated party inputs resulted in
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 54
double-counting of profit because--even if the price of a TRB’s
input from the particular affiliated supplier at issue was above
COP--an adjustment would still be made to the same input thereby
adding “profit to the input that already includes a profit.” NTN’s
Mem. at 27; NTN’s Reply at 9.
Additionally, NTN contends that 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(f)(2) and
(3) neither mandate nor imply Commerce’s methodology of valuing a
major input purchased from an affiliated party at the highest of
the COP, transfer price or market price. See NTN’s Mem. at 26.
NTN alternatively asserts that if Commerce’s adjustment was
correct, Commerce could have used a more reasonable method by
calculating “the weighted average difference between COP and
transfer price for all [the major inputs at issue] sold to NTN.”
Id.
NTN also argues that Commerce’s single adjustment constituted
an unwarranted use of adverse facts available because Commerce
“used the sales of [a few major inputs at issue] which were sold
[below] COP, while disregarding those sales [of major inputs at
12
issue which were sold above COP], to make a single adjustment.”
12
The Court is unconvinced that Commerce used adverse facts
available in making its single adjustment to NTN’s COP and CV.
Rather, Commerce, in order to value major inputs on a market value
basis, only resorted to facts available since it used information
on the record to increase the affiliated supplier’s transfer prices
that NTN used to calculate COP and CV. See Def.’s Mem. at 62-63;
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 55
NTN’s Reply at 9; see NTN’s Mem. at 26. Additionally, NTN
maintains that “NTN fully responded to [Commerce’s] request for
information on related party inputs, including information such as
COP data, pricing data for affiliated inputs and pricing data for
non-affiliated inputs . . . [;] . . . NTN’s variable ‘RELPTY,’
identified for each control number, the total percentage of
affiliated party inputs used in producing a particular TRB model.”
NTN’s Reply at 7-8.
NTN, therefore, requests that the Court remand the matter and
instruct Commerce “to accept NTN’s reported COP and CV for
affiliated party inputs.” NTN’s Mem. at 27.
Commerce argues that it reasonably interpreted §§ 1677b(f)(2)
and (f)(3) as requiring it to value a major input purchased from an
affiliated person at the highest of the COP, transfer price or
market price. See Def.’s Mem. at 63-70. Consequently, Commerce
asserts that based on its reasonable interpretation of 19 U.S.C. §§
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. 2572; cf. Ferro Union, Inc. v. United
States (“Ferro”), 23 CIT ___, ___, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1329 (1999)
(stating that “[o]nce Commerce has determined under 19 U.S.C. §
1677e(a) that it may resort to facts available, it must make
additional findings prior to applying 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) and
drawing an adverse inference”) and (setting forth that Commerce
must clearly articulate: (1) “why it concluded that a party failed
to comply to the best of its ability prior to applying adverse
facts,” and (2) “why the absence of this information is of
significance to the progress of [its] investigation”). Ferro, 23
CIT at ___, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 1331.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 56
1677b(f)(2) and (f)(3) and “upon the record evidence . . . [,]
Commerce determined that [the affiliated supplier’s inputs at
issue] should be valued using market prices . . . [given that]
NTN’s submitted information revealed that ‘the market price of a
retainer generally exceeded [the affiliated supplier’s] COP and
NTN’s submitted transfer price.’” Id. at 66 (citing Def.’s
Confidential Ex. 7 at 24). Commerce further maintains that since
“‘NTN could not explain the difference between the transfer price
and the market price[,]’ . . . Commerce properly rejected NTN’s
submitted transfer price for [the affiliated supplier’s inputs] as
the appropriate valuation for calculating COP and CV.” Def.’s Mem.
at 66-67 (quoting Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2573).
Commerce also argues that it properly used information on the
record to increase the transfer prices of the affiliated supplier’s
inputs that NTN used to calculate COP and CV in order to reflect
market value since “from the record evidence, Commerce was unable
to identify the particular TRB models that contained [the major
inputs at issue].” Def.’s Mem. at 62. Commerce further contends
that its method of applying sample results to all of NTN’s
affiliated party transactions was reasonable because (1) NTN “did
not identify by control numbers the TRB models that contained” the
affiliated supplier’s major inputs in its COP and CV database; and
(2) “Commerce’s adjustment factor was based upon only the portion
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 57
of affiliated party inputs represented by [the affiliated supplier
at issue and therefore] . . . had a limited impact on NTN’s overall
COP and CV calculations.” Id. at 68.
Commerce further notes that NTN’s assertion that Commerce’s
application of the adjustment to all of NTN’s affiliated party
inputs resulted in “double-counted profit . . . is irrelevant.”
Id. at 69. In particular, Commerce asserts that “[f]air market
value and not the affiliated supplier’s profit is the only
pertinent issue for valuation purposes under 19 U.S.C. §§
1677b(b)(f)(2) and (3) . . . [;] [p]rofitable sales do not
determine whether prices charged between affiliated parties reflect
fair market value.” Id. Commerce also notes that even if profit
were relevant, NTN does not provide record evidence that (1) the
affiliated supplier’s inputs made profits on sales to NTN; and (2)
Commerce double-counted profits in Commerce’s adjustment. See
Def.’s Mem. at 69.
Commerce also argues that, contrary to NTN’s assertion that
Commerce could have used a more reasonable method if Commerce’s
adjustment was correct, Commerce used NTN’s reported information
during the administrative review to adjust NTN’s COP and CV. See
id. at 70. Relying on PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States (“PPG”),
14 CIT 522, 532, 746 F. Supp. 119, 129 (1990), Commerce maintains
that “there is no basis for reversing Commerce’s” chosen
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 58
methodology in this instance. Id. (citing PPG, 14 CIT at 532, 746
F. Supp. at 129). Moreover, Commerce asserts that NTN’s argument
that Commerce distorted NTN’s dumping margin is not supported by
record evidence. See id.
Timken agrees with Commerce, noting that Commerce’s adjustment
to NTN’s COP and CV was reasonable and, contrary to NTN’s
assertions, did not result in a distorted antidumping margin. See
Timken’s Resp. at 66. Timken asserts that Commerce’s use of
information available was authorized pursuant to §§ 1677b(f)(2) and
(3) and was within the agency’s discretion since “the statute does
not specify any specific method for selecting information
available.” Id. Moreover, Timken maintains that Commerce’s
application of information available to all sales with related
party inputs . . . [was] reasonably determined . . . [because] the
problem [Commerce] had identified was likely to affect all models
with related party inputs.” Id. at 67.
Timken also asserts that, contrary to NTN’s assertions that §
1677b(f)(3) does not support Commerce’s methodology because many of
NTN’s inputs were not sold below cost and Commerce should have used
an alternative methodology, the language of the statute requires
“Commerce to act when ‘it has reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that an amount represented as the value of such input is
less than the cost of such input.’” Id. (quoting 19 U.S.C. §
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 59
1677b(f)(3)).
D. Analysis
The Court disagrees with NTN that Commerce erred in valuing
each major input based on the highest of the input’s transfer
price, market price or COP. This Court has consistently
articulated that the plain language of § 1677b(f)(2) and (f)(3), as
well as the legislative history of § 1677b(f)(3), supports
Commerce’s use of the highest of transfer price, market price or
COP in valuing a major input supplied by an affiliated party. See
Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 25 CIT __, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656
(2001); SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT __, __, 116 F. Supp.
2d 1257, 1267 (2000); Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United States
(“Mannesmannrohren-Werke”), 23 CIT __, __, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302,
1310-12 (1999).
Further, the Court finds that Commerce’s decision to resort to
“facts otherwise available” in valuing NTN’s major inputs was in
accordance with law. The antidumping statute mandates that
Commerce use “facts otherwise available” if “necessary information
is not available on the record” of an antidumping proceeding. 19
U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1). In addition, Commerce may use facts
available where “an interested party or any other person: (A)
witholds information that has been requested by [Commerce;] (B)
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 60
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to
[19 U.S.C. §§ 1677m(c)(1), (e);] (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding . . . [; and] (D) provides such information . . . [that]
cannot be verified as provided in section 1677m(i) . . . .” Id. §
1677e(a)(2)(A)-(D).13 Section 1677e(a) provides, however, that the
use of facts available shall be subject to the limitations set
forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d).
Section 1677m (1994), which was enacted as part of the URAA,
is “designed to prevent the unrestrained use of facts available as
to a firm which makes its best effort to cooperate with
[Commerce].” Borden, 22 CIT at 262, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 1245, rev’d
on other grounds, 2001 WL 312232 (Mar. 12, 2001). Section
1677m(d), entitled “deficient submissions,” provides that if
Commerce “determines that a response to a request for information
. . . does not comply with the request, the [agency] . . . shall
promptly inform the person submitting the response of . . . the
deficiency and . . . [provide] that person with an opportunity to
remedy or explain the deficiency.” If the remedial response or
explanation provided by the party is found to be not satisfactory
13
Commerce does not indicate whether it relies on subsection
(1) or (2) of § 1677e(a), the facts available provision. Based on
the parties’ submitted papers, the Court assumes that Commerce used
facts available since “necessary information [was] not available on
the record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 61
or is untimely, Commerce may, subject to § 1677m(e), disregard “all
or part of the original and subsequent responses” in favor of facts
available. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d).
As noted earlier, Commerce’s initial questionnaire, among
other things, specifically requested that NTN provide (1) “the per-
unit transfer price charged for the input by the affiliated party
(if the affiliated party sells the identical input to other,
unaffiliated purchasers, provide documentation showing the price
paid for the input by the unaffiliated purchaser; if [NTN]
purchases the identical input from unaffiliated suppliers, provide
documentation showing the unaffiliated party’s sales price for the
input)”; and (2) “the basis used by [NTN] to value each major input
for purposes of computing the submitted COP and CV amounts (e.g.,
transfer price, cost of production).” Def.’s Ex. 4.
In response to Commerce’s questionnaire, NTN did: (1)
“submit[] tables that identified its affiliated and unaffiliated
suppliers for a sample of the different major inputs used to
produce TRBs[]” and compared transfer prices to the unaffiliated
supplier’s prices which demonstrated that certain “transfer prices
were lower than [what] NTN’s unaffiliated supplier [charged] for
the same model”; and (2) “specified that [NTN] calculated COP and
CV using transfer prices to value the identified major inputs” and
“created a variable in its COP and CV database, ‘RELPTY,’ that
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 62
identified for each control number, the total percentage of
affiliated party inputs used in producing a particular TRB model.”
Def.’s Mem. at 60-61. According to NTN, “there were no
unaffiliated suppliers of the identical components or services”
that would allow NTN to provide market values for most major
inputs. Id. at 62. However, in its supplemental response, NTN
revised its exhibits and compared “the weighted average transfer
price, the weighted average COP, and, in limited instances, the
market value for major inputs purchased from affiliated suppliers.”
Id. at 61.
Commerce verified NTN’s COP and transfer price responses
regarding the major inputs and for one affiliated supplier’s
inputs, that is, the one affiliated supplier for whom there were
unaffiliated suppliers of identical components or service, Commerce
verified that “the market value was greater than the reported
transfer price and . . . COP.” Id. at 62. Therefore, in the
Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that the appropriate value
for the affiliated supplier’s major inputs was market value since
it was higher in amount than NTN’s transfer price or the affiliated
supplier’s COP. “As noted on page 24 of the June 13, 1997 [C]ost
[V]erification [R]eport, NTN could not explain the difference
between the transfer price and the market price.” Final Results,
63 Fed. Reg. at 2573. Because Commerce was unable to identify from
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 63
the record evidence the particular TRB models that contained the
major inputs at issue, and NTN argues that it fully responded to
Commerce’s request for information on related party inputs,
Commerce’s resort to facts available in order to increase the
transfer prices of the affiliated supplier’s inputs to reflect
market value was appropriate.
NTN’s argument that Commerce could have used a more reasonable
method by calculating “the weighted-average difference between COP
and transfer price for all [the major inputs at issue] sold to NTN”
is without merit. Id. “[Commerce] is given discretion in its
choice of methodology as long as the chosen methodology is
reasonable and [Commerce’s] conclusions are supported by
substantial evidence in the record.” Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United
States, 18 CIT 785, 807-08, 862 F. Supp. 384, 405 (1994) (citing
Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 404-05,
636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff’d, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir.
1987)); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750
F.2d 927, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (stating that “[the Court’s] role is
limited to deciding whether [Commerce’s] decision is unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance
with law”). After careful examination of the record of this case
and NTN’s assertion that Commerce’s chosen methodology distorted
NTN’s dumping margin, the Court determines that Commerce’s
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 64
methodology of adjusting NTN’s COP and CV was in accordance with
law. Accordingly, the Court finds that Commerce properly resorted
to facts available in adjusting NTN’s COP and CV.
VIII. Commerce’s Exclusion of Certain Home Market Sales
to Affiliated Parties From the Normal Value Calculation
A. Background
During the POR, NTN made home market sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated parties. In order to determine whether NTN’s
affiliated-party sales could be used for purposes of calculating
NV, Commerce conducted its standard arm’s-length test. See Final
Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2580-81. Specifically, Commerce compared
NTN’s home market selling prices to NTN’s affiliated and
unaffiliated parties by using Commerce’s 99.5% arm’s-length test in
which:
[Commerce] calculated, for each model, the percentage
difference between the weighted-average prices to the
affiliated customer and all unaffiliated customers and
then calculated, for each affiliated customer, the
overall weighted-average percentage difference in prices
for all models purchased by the customer. If the overall
weighted-average price ratio for the affiliated customer
was equal to or greater than 99.5 percent, [Commerce]
determined that all sales to this affiliated customer
were at arm’s-length. Conversely, if the ratio for a
customer was less than 99.5percent, [Commerce] determined
that all sales to the affiliated customer were not at
arm’s-length because, on average, the affiliated customer
paid less than unaffiliated customers for the same
merchandise.
Preliminary Results, 62 Fed. Reg. at 47,457. Commerce, in
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 65
accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(5)(1994) and 19 C.F.R. §
353.45(a) (1996), disregarded all of NTN’s sales to affiliated
parties in its computation of NV because Commerce found that sales
to NTN’s affiliated customers, on average, were lower than NTN’s
prices to unaffiliated customers, that is, sales made to affiliated
parties were not at arm’s length. See id.; see also Final Results,
63 Fed. Reg. at 2580-81.
B. Contentions of the Parties
NTN contends that Commerce erred in applying the arm’s-length
test when it “compare[d] the weighted average price for unrelated
sales to the price for individual related sales.” NTN’s Mem. at
42. To illustrate its contention, NTN provides a hypothetical
example attempting to demonstrate that Commerce’s arm’s-length test
is distortive since it does not compare average price for
affiliated sales to average price for unaffiliated sales or
individual price for affiliated sales to individual price for
unaffiliated sales.14 See id. Alternatively, NTN asserts that,
14
Relying on its hypothetical example, NTN asserts that “NTN
need not use evidence on the record to illustrate that [Commerce’s]
methodology is flawed.” See NTN’s Reply at 11. The Court finds
this argument to be without merit since it is well settled that
record evidence is required to prove distortion of Commerce’s
methodology. See Usinor Sacilor v. United States (“Usinor”), 18
CIT 1155, 1159, 872 F. Supp. 1000, 1004 (1994)(upholding Commerce’s
arm’s-length test as reasonable given the lack of evidence showing
a distortion of price comparability); Torrington Co. v. United
States (“Torrington Co.”), 21 CIT 251, 261, 960 F. Supp. 339, 348
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 66
should Commerce choose to retain its methodology of comparing
individual sales to a weighted average margin, Commerce should
lower the percentage of the arm’s-length test to “95% to reflect
the true range of arm’s-length prices in these transactions and
compensate for the distortive nature of the test.” NTN’s Reply at
11.
NTN also argues that Commerce’s arm’s-length test was
unreasonable since Commerce should have examined factors other than
price in determining whether to include affiliated party sales when
calculating NV. See NTN’s Mem. at 43. Specifically, NTN contends
that Commerce erred in failing to examine: (1) “quantity of goods”;
and (2) “payment terms of specific sales.” Id. According to NTN,
all of these factors influence the price of an affiliated party
transaction and Commerce cannot make meaningful price comparisons
without examining them. See id.
Commerce responds that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b (1994) provides that:
(1997) (stating that the respondent “must do more than indicate a
possible correlation between price and quantity” to support its
argument that Commerce should consider quantity in Commerce’s
arm’s-length test); NTN, 19 CIT at 1241, 905 F. Supp. at 1100
(upholding Commerce’s arm’s-length test as reasonable given the
lack of “record evidence tending to show that, in application,
Commerce’s test was unreasonable”); NSK, 190 F.3d at 1328
(affirming the judgment of the CIT that Commerce’s arm’s-length
methodology was reasonable given respondent’s mere reference to a
hypothetical and lack of record evidence that Commerce’s
methodology was unreasonable).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 67
[i]f the foreign like product is sold or, in the absence
of sales, offered for sale through an affiliated party,
the prices at which the foreign like product is sold (or
offered for sale) by such affiliated party may be used in
determining normal value.
Def.’s Mem. at 71 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(3) [sic] (emphasis
supplied).15
Relying on the language of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(5), Commerce
argues that it has broad discretion to determine whether sales to
affiliated parties could be used in the calculation of NV since the
language of the statute indicates that Commerce “may, but need not,
base NV upon the price paid by an affiliated party.”16 Def.’s Mem.
at 71. In addition, Commerce points out that the regulation
provides the following:
If a producer or reseller sold such or similar
merchandise to [an affiliated party], [Commerce]
ordinarily will calculate foreign market value based on
that sale only if satisfied that the price is comparable
to the price at which the producer or reseller sold such
or similar merchandise to [an affiliated] person not
related to the seller.
19 C.F.R. § 353.45(a).
15
The Court assumes that Commerce is relying on the language
of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(5) and not § 1677b(a)(3).
16
Commerce also relies on this Court’s decisions in Usinor, 18
CIT at 1159, 872 F. Supp. at 1004; NTN, 19 CIT at 1241, 905 F.
Supp. at 1100; and NSK Ltd., 21 CIT at 637, 969 F. Supp. at 54, for
the proposition that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(3) [sic] (1994) “granted
to Commerce broad discretion to determine whether home market sales
to related parties could be used to determine foreign market
value.” See Def.’s Mem. at 71.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 68
Relying on both the statute and regulation, Commerce used its
price-based arm’s-length test to examine the price comparability of
NTN’s home market sales of affiliated and unaffiliated parties.
Def.’s Mem. at 72. Commerce argues that, since: (1) NTN has
“failed to provide record evidence demonstrating that Commerce’s
arm’s-length test distorted the price comparability analysis”; and
(2) NTN failed to prove that Commerce’s arm’s-length test was
unreasonable, Commerce’s use of it’s arm’s-length test was in
accordance with law. Id. at 73-74. Timken supports Commerce’s
contentions. See Timken’s Resp. at 70-71.
C. Analysis
The Court disagrees with NTN that Commerce’s arm’s-length test
is unreasonable. Under the applicable statute, 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(a)(5), Commerce is allowed considerable discretion in
deciding whether to include affiliated party sales when calculating
NV. See Usinor, 18 CIT at 1158, 872 F. Supp. at 1004. This Court
has repeatedly upheld Commerce’s arm’s-length test on the basis
that respondents have failed to present “record evidence tending to
show that . . . Commerce’s test was unreasonable.” NTN, 19 CIT at
1241, 905 F. Supp. at 1100; See Torrington Co., 21 CIT at 261, 960
F. Supp. at 348 (stating that the respondent “must do more than
indicate a possible correlation between price and quantity” to
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 69
support its argument that Commerce should consider quantity in
Commerce’s arm’s-length test); NSK, 190 F.3d at 1328 (affirming the
judgment of the CIT that Commerce’s arm’s-length methodology was
reasonable given respondent’s mere reference to a hypothetical and
lack of record evidence that Commerce’s methodology was
unreasonable). Commerce’s arm’s-length method is reasonable. In
addition, in this case, NTN’s hypothetical example supporting its
assertion that Commerce’s arm’s-length method is distortive and
Commerce should lower the percentage of the arm’s-length test to
95% in determining comparability fails to prove that Commerce’s
test is unreasonable, since it does not constitute record evidence
demonstrating that NTN’s affiliated party prices were comparable to
NTN’s unaffiliated party prices.
The Court has also repeatedly rejected the argument that
Commerce should consider additional factors, that is, factors other
than price, when determining whether sales prices to affiliated and
unaffiliated parties are comparable. The Court finds no basis
under the circumstances of this case to depart from its prior
holdings in NTN Bearing, 24 CIT at ___, 104 F. Supp. 2d at 148, and
NTN, 19 CIT at 1241, 905 F. Supp. at 1099 (disagreeing “with NTN
that Commerce’s arm[’]s-length test is flawed because Commerce did
not take into account certain factors proposed by NTN”).
Accordingly, the Court upholds Commerce’s application of the
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 70
arm’s-length test to exclude certain home market sales to
affiliated parties from the NV calculation as reasonable, in
accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence.
IX. Depreciation of Idle Equipment and Write-Off of Production
Equipment
NTN contends that on line 29717 [sic] of Commerce’s margin
program, Commerce “created a calculation for the depreciation of
idle equipment . . . [that] was previously accounted for in
[Commerce’s] calculation of GNA [sic]”18 expense ratio. NTN’s Mem.
at 46 (citing Ex. “Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”). NTN asserts
that Commerce double-counted NTN’s depreciation of idle equipment
and, thus, distorted NTN’s margin. See id.; see NTN’s Reply at 12.
Therefore, NTN requests to remove the depreciation of idle
equipment calculation from line 297 [sic] of Commerce’s margin
program. See NTN’s Mem. at 46 (citing Ex. “NTN Margin Program”).
Commerce, in turn, argues that it did not double-count NTN’s
depreciation of idle equipment. See Def.’s Mem. at 74. In
particular, Commerce maintains that the depreciation of idle
17
The Court assumes that NTN is disputing line 298 of NTN’s
margin program and not line 297, since line 297 does not contain
any information regarding depreciation of idle equipment. See
NTN’s Mem. at 46 (citing Ex. “NTN Margin Program”).
18
The Court assumes that NTN means the calculation of G&A and
not the calculation of GNA.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 71
equipment and the write-off of production equipment and fixed
property are not the same. See id. at 75. According to Commerce,
although NTN properly included the depreciation of idle equipment
in its G&A ratio, NTN excluded the write-off of production
equipment and fixed property from its calculation of COP and CV.
See id. at 74-75 (citing Confidential Ex. 7 at 26); see also Def.’s
Confidential Ex. 5. Therefore, Commerce argues that its adjustment
to COP and CV to include the write-off of production equipment and
fixed property did not result in double-counting that would distort
NTN’s margin. See Def.’s Mem. at 75.
Timken supports Commerce’s conclusion that NTN’s claim is
without merit. See Timken’s Resp. at 72.19
The Court disagrees with NTN that Commerce double-counted when
it made an adjustment to COP and CV to include the write-off of
production equipment and fixed property. Although NTN included the
depreciation of idle equipment in its G&A expense ratio, it failed
to include the write-off of production equipment and fixed property
19
Timken’s version of NTN’s argument is somewhat different
from Commerce’s. Timken reads NTN’s argument as asserting that
Commerce double-counted when it “adjusted for the depreciation in
its preliminary results analysis memorandum and in the computer
program used to calculate NTN’s margins.” Timken’s Resp. at 72.
Timken misreads NTN’s argument because NTN contends that, on line
297 [sic] of Commerce’s margin program, Commerce “created a
calculation for the depreciation of idle equipment . . . [that] was
previously accounted for in [Commerce’s] calculation of GNA [sic].”
NTN’s Mem. at 46.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 72
in its calculation of COP and CV. Depreciation of idle equipment
and write-off, that is, loss on disposal, of production equipment
and fixed property are not the same. See OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
ONLINE (2nd ed. 1989) (stating that depreciation means to “lower in
value, lessen the value of” whereas write-off means “worthless
asset”); see also NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204,
1206 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that Commerce’s “inclu[sion] [of]
depreciation expenses and disposal losses [that is, write-offs] in
calculating cost of production and constructed value . . . is
supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law”).
Therefore, this Court sustains Commerce’s adjustment to COP and CV
to include the write-off of production equipment and fixed assets.
X. NTN’s Zero-Priced United States Transactions and NTN’s Home-
Market Sample Sales in NTN’s Margin Calculation
A. NTN’s Zero-Priced United States Transactions
NTN argues that in light of NSK Ltd. v. United States (“NSK
1997"), 115 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Court should remand the
matter to Commerce to exclude NTN’s zero-priced samples from its
margin calculations. See NTN’s Mem. at 44; NTN’s Reply at 12. NTN
maintains that United States transactions at zero value, such as
“samples . . . provided for testing, evaluating, and to determine
whether or not to buy a particular product[,]” do not constitute
true sales and, therefore, should be excluded from the margin
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 73
calculations pursuant to NSK 1997. NTN’s Reply at 12.
Commerce and Timken assert that Commerce properly included
NTN’s zero-priced United States sales when calculating NTN’s
dumping margin because NTN failed to demonstrate that the
transactions in question lacked “consideration” as defined by NSK
1997, and that further factual inquiry was necessary. See Def.’s
Mem. at 75-81; Timken’s Resp. at 71. Therefore, Commerce and
Timken assert that, since NTN did not meet its burden of providing
information necessary to prove that “sales were outside of the
ordinary course of trade,” the Court should affirm Commerce’s
inclusion of NTN’s zero-priced sales in NTN’s dumping margin.
Def.’s Mem. at 81; see Timken’s Resp. at 71.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1) (1994), Commerce is required
to impose antidumping duties upon merchandise that “is being, or is
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair
value.” A zero-priced transaction does not qualify as a “sale”
and, therefore, by definition cannot be included in Commerce’s NV
calculation. See NSK 1997, 115 F.3d at 975 (holding “that the term
‘sold’ . . . requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated
party and consideration”). Thus, the distribution of TRBs for no
consideration falls outside the purview of 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (1994).
Consequently, the Court remands to Commerce to exclude any
transactions that were not supported by consideration from NTN’s
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 74
United States sales database and to adjust the dumping margins
accordingly.
B. NTN’s Home Market Sample Sales
1. Background
Commerce is required to base its NV calculation upon “the
price at which the foreign like product is first sold . . . in the
ordinary course of trade . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i).
In NSK 1997, 115 F.3d 965, the CAFC concluded that “the term ‘sold’
. . . requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party
and consideration.” NSK 1997, 115 F.3d at 975. The CAFC
specifically determined that the samples NSK had given to potential
customers at no charge and with no obligation lacked consideration.
See id. Moreover, the CAFC found that “[b]ecause NSK’s [free]
samples did not constitute ‘sales,’ they should not have been
included in calculating United States price.” Id.
During this review, Commerce sent a questionnaire “requir[ing]
all respondents to identify any transactions . . . which they
claimed involved sample or prototype sales” and further requested,
that respondents:
[d]escribe [their] agreement(s) for sales in the United
States and the foreign market (e.g., long-term purchase
contract, short-term purchase contract, purchase order,
order confirmation). Provide a copy of each type of
agreement and all sales-related documentation generated
in the sales process (including the purchase order,
internal and external order confirmation, invoice, and
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 75
shipping and export documentation) for a sample sale in
the foreign market and U.S. market during the POR.
Def.’s Mem. at 77 (quoting Section A of NTN’s Questionnaire at 5-
6).
Commerce further provided NTN with a questionnaire “relating
to reporting data on sales outside the ordinary course of trade,”
and explained that:
[i]f [NTN] consider[s] a sale to be outside the ordinary
course of trade, report “YES” in this field. If the sale
was in the ordinary course of trade, report a “NO.” If
[NTN] claim[s] that any of its home market sales are
outside the ordinary course of trade [NTN] must provide
a detailed explanation why. Please note that the burden
of proof is on respondents to demonstrate, through
narrative explanation of the circumstances surrounding
such sales and supporting documentation or other
evidence, that sales claimed to be outside the ordinary
course of trade are in fact outside the ordinary course
of trade. [Commerce] will not consider only one factor in
isolation (i.e., the fact that certain sales are labeled
as samples, or that a transaction involved small
quantities or high prices) as sufficient proof that a
sale is not in the ordinary course of trade.
Def.’s Mem. at 77-78 (quoting Section B of NTN’s Questionnaire at
B-14).
NTN responded to Commerce’s questionnaires by marking sample
sale transactions with an “S” and providing a chart of profit
levels to demonstrate that sales were outside of the ordinary
course of trade. See Def.’s Mem. at 78. In turn, Commerce sent a
supplemental questionnaire to NTN requesting clarification as to
NTN’s original response, that is, “what [NTN] was attempting to
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 76
establish in [a particular NTN exhibit], and to provide a detailed
explanation of . . . [the] exhibit.” Id. NTN responded to
Commerce’s supplemental questionnaire by explaining the profit
charts it provided in its original response. Commerce stated that
“NTN’s response relying upon profit levels to demonstrate that
sales were outside of the ordinary course of trade does not address
the factors considered important in NSK 1997, i.e., whether there
was any transfer of ownership or consideration given for the
samples.” Id. at 81. Moreover, Commerce determined that NTN
failed to provide “information demonstrating that [NTN’s] alleged
home market sample sales were outside the ordinary course of
trade.” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2582. Therefore, for the
final results, Commerce included NTN’s home market sample sales in
NTN’s final dumping margin calculation. See Def.’s Mem. at 82.
2. Contentions of the Parties
NTN argues that Commerce erred when it failed to exclude NTN’s
sample sales and other sales from Commerce’s margin calculations,
despite what NTN considers to be sufficient evidence on record
indicating that these transactions were outside of the ordinary
course of trade. See NTN’s Mem. at 44-46; NTN’s Reply at 13-14.
In particular, NTN asserts that the evidence on the record
includes: (1) NTN’s questionnaire response stating that “‘[s]amples
are provided to customers for the purpose of allowing the customer
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 77
to determine whether a particular product is suited to the
customer’s needs[;]’” (2) NTN’s sample sales tracking system in
which sample sales are identified by placing “SS” “in the prefix to
the order number[;]” and (3) an NTN submitted exhibit which
provides a profit chart and identifies sample sales with unusual
profits that NTN considers outside of the ordinary course of trade.
NTN’s Reply at 13-14. Therefore, NTN claims that it provided
Commerce with “‘the greatest profit level in the range of profits
at which the most quantity of the subject merchandise [was] sold’”
(hereinafter “X”) and requested that Commerce “treat any sale with
a profit level greater than [X] as not being in the ordinary course
of trade.” NTN’s Reply at 14. Moreover, NTN maintains that 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B), the SAA, regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)
(1998) and NSK 1997, 115 F.3d 965, clearly instruct Commerce to
exclude NTN’s sample sales or other sales from the margin
calculations. See NTN’s Mem. at 45-46; NTN’s Reply at 13-14.
Commerce alleges that it properly exercised its discretion in
rejecting NTN’s argument that Commerce must exclude NTN’s home
market sample sales or other sales because NTN failed to adequately
show that home market sample sales and other sales lacked
consideration or were otherwise outside of the ordinary course of
trade. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2582. Commerce asserts
that “only NTN possessed the information regarding the purchase
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 78
history of its alleged samples, including the price and quantity
for any prior or subsequent purchases of these products by the same
or other customers” and since NTN withheld that information, NTN
failed to meet its burden to show that it received no consideration
for the alleged sample sales at issue. Def.’s Mem. at 81.
Further, Commerce contends that NTN cannot be excused from
responding to the agency’s questions because NTN considers certain
information irrelevant. See id. Commerce claims that it, not NTN,
determines the relevancy of Commerce’s questions. See id.
Therefore, Commerce argues that its decision to include NTN’s
alleged sample sales in calculating NTN’s dumping margin is based
upon substantial evidence and in accordance with law. See id. at
81-82.
Timken supports Commerce’s decision to include NTN’s sample
sales in calculating NTN’s dumping margin because Commerce found
that: (1) “there [was] no record evidence demonstrating that any of
NTN’s home market sales, samples, or otherwise [were] outside the
ordinary course of trade[;] and (2) consideration was paid for all
of [NTN’s] sample sales.” Timken Resp. at 72.
3. Analysis
An NV calculation has to be based upon “the price at which the
foreign like product is first sold . . . in the ordinary course of
trade . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). The term “ordinary
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 79
course of trade” is defined as:
the conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time
prior to the exportation of the subject merchandise, have
been normal in the trade under consideration with respect
to merchandise of the same class or kind. [Commerce]
shall consider the following sales and transactions,
among others, to be outside the ordinary course of trade:
(A) Sales disregarded under section 1677b(b)(1) of
this title.
(B) Transactions disregarded under section
1677b(f)(2) of this title.
19 U.S.C. § 1677(15) (1994) (emphasis supplied).
Section 1677b(b)(1) deals with sales below cost of production.
Section 1677b(f)(2) deals with sales to affiliated parties.
Therefore, Commerce must consider below cost sales and sales
between related parties as sales outside the ordinary course of
trade. Although § 1677b(b)(1)’s sales below cost of production and
§ 1677b(f)(2)’s affiliated party transactions are specifically
designated as outside the ordinary course of trade, the “among
others” language of § 1677(15) clearly indicates that other types
of sales could be excluded as being outside the ordinary course of
trade.20 Commerce “may consider sales or transactions to be outside
20
The SAA, accompanying the URAA provides that aside from §§
1677b(b)(1) and (f)(2) transactions:
Commerce may consider other types of sales or
transactions to be outside the ordinary course of trade
when such sales or transactions have characteristics
that are not ordinary as compared to sales or
transactions generally made in the same market. Examples
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 80
the ordinary course of trade if [Commerce] determines, based on an
evaluation of all of the circumstances particular to the sales in
question, that such sales or transactions have characteristics that
are extraordinary for the market in question.” 19 C.F.R. §
351.102(b) (emphasis supplied). Examples of what could be
considered outside the ordinary course of trade include: (1) off-
quality merchandise; (2) merchandise produced according to unusual
product specifications; (3) merchandise sold at aberrational prices
or with abnormally high profits; (4) merchandise sold pursuant to
unusual terms of sale; or (5) merchandise sold to an affiliated
party not at an arm’s-length transaction. See 19 C.F.R. §
351.102(b).
In determining whether a sale is outside the ordinary course
of such sales or transactions include merchandise
produced according to unusual product specifications,
merchandise sold at aberrational prices, or merchandise
sold pursuant to unusual terms of sale. As under
existing law, amended section 771(15) does not establish
an exhaustive list, but the Administration intends that
Commerce will interpret section 771(15) in a manner which
will avoid basing normal value on sales which are
extraordinary for the market in question, particularly
when the use of such sales would lead to irrational or
unrepresentative results.
H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 834 (emphasis supplied).
The SAA also provides that “[o]ther examples of sales that
Commerce could consider to be outside the ordinary course of trade
include sales of off-quality merchandise, sales to related parties
at non-arm’s length prices, and sales with abnormally high
profits.” Id. at 839-40.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 81
of trade, Commerce must consider not just “one factor taken in
isolation but rather . . . all the circumstances particular to the
sales in question.” Murata Mfg. Co. v. United States, 17 CIT 259,
264, 820 F. Supp. 603, 607 (1993). Commerce’s methodology for
making this determination is codified in section 351.102(b) of
Commerce’s regulations. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b); see
also Torrington Co. v. United States (“Torrington”), 25 CIT ___,
___, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845, 861-64 (2001) (detailing Commerce’s
methodology for deciding when sales are outside the “ordinary
course of trade” and finding both Commerce’s interpretation of 19
U.S.C. § 1677(15) and Commerce’s methodology reasonable). In
addition, plaintiff has the burden of proving whether the sales
used in Commerce’s calculations are outside the ordinary course of
trade. See, e.g., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT
606, 608, 798 F. Supp. 716, 718 (1992) (citing Koyo Seiko Co. v.
United States (“Koyo”), 16 CIT 539, 543, 796 F. Supp. 1526, 1530
(1992), vacated in part on other grounds, (“Koyo 1992"), 806 F.
Supp. 1008 (1992).
Adhering to the explanation provided by this Court in
Torrington, 25 CIT __, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845, the Court finds that in
light of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15)’s legislative purpose, Commerce’s
interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15) and exercise of its
discretion by requiring additional evidence besides NTN’s response
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 82
relying upon profit levels to demonstrate that sales were outside
of the ordinary course of trade, that is, whether there was any
transfer of ownership or consideration given for the samples, was
reasonable. NTN was or should have been aware of such a
requirement. See NTN Bearing, 24 CIT ___, 104 F. Supp. 2d 110
(holding that Commerce’s request to NTN for additional evidence
demonstrating that sales were outside of the ordinary course of
trade was not an unreasonable exercise of Commerce’s discretion);
see also NTN, 19 CIT at 1229, 905 F. Supp. at 1091 (finding that
“[w]ithout a complete explanation of the facts which establish the
extraordinary circumstances rendering particular sales outside the
ordinary course of trade, Commerce cannot exclude those sales from
[NV]”).
In the case at bar, NTN failed to meet its burden of providing
Commerce with requested additional detailed information regarding
sales that NTN claimed were outside the ordinary course of trade.
NTN merely relied on: (1) its questionnaire response in which NTN
stated that “‘[s]amples are provided to customers for the purpose
of allowing the customer to determine whether a particular product
is suited to the customer’s needs[;]21’” and (2) its submitted
exhibit in which NTN provides a profit chart and identifies sample
21
NTN identified its sample sales by placing “SS” “in the
prefix to the order number.” NTN’s Reply at 13.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 83
sales with unusual profits that it considers are outside of the
ordinary course of trade in order to support NTN’s argument that
its sample sales should be excluded from Commerce’s margin
calculation. NTN’s Reply at 13-14. NTN’s identification of its
sales as samples does not necessarily render those sales as being
outside of the ordinary course of trade. See NTN, 19 CIT at 1229,
905 F. Supp. at 1091. In addition, “[t]he presence of profits
higher than those of other sales[,] [that is, sales with unusual
profits,] is, however, merely an element which does not necessarily
place the sales outside the ordinary course of trade under
Commerce’s requirement for additional evidence.” Torrington, 25
CIT at __, 146 F. Supp. 2d at 863. Therefore, because Commerce’s
interpretation and application of the statute was reasonable and
the record reflects that NTN did not provide sufficient additional
evidence requested by Commerce to support NTN’s claim that the
disputed sales were outside the ordinary course of trade, Commerce
was justified in its decision to include NTN’s sample and other
sales in Commerce’s margin calculation.
XI. Commerce’s Adjustment to NTN’s Total Billing Adjustment in
the Home Market
A. Background
For the POR at issue, NTN reported home market billing
adjustments in its questionnaire response submitted to Commerce.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 84
See Def.’s Mem. at 82. In the final results, Commerce stated:
[Commerce] thoroughly verified NTN’s reported home market
volume and value for the POR. As [Commerce’s]
verification report indicates, it was necessary for
[Commerce] to reconcile the volume and value NTN reported
in its response to its Ministry of Finance (MOF) reports.
As part of this reconciliation [Commerce] examined an
adjustment NTN made for its total HM billing adjustments
for the POR (see Department’s Home Market Verification
Report for NTN, July 9, 1997, exhibit [3])(NTN HM
Report).22 Not only did [Commerce] successfully trace
this total to the computer program NTN used to calculate
it, but [Commerce] also traced NTN’s reported volume and
value for the POR for its home market sales directly to
the MOF report with no discrepancies (see NTN HM Report
at 6). [Commerce] also verified NTN’s reported,
transaction-specific home market billing adjustments by
examining a variety of sales documentation in the sales
trace portion of [Commerce’s] verification (see NTN HM
Report at 17). Again [Commerce] found no discrepancies.
As a result of both verification exercises, one would
assume that NTN’s reported home market billing
adjustments were accurate and that the total of its
transaction-specific billing adjustments for the POR
would equal the total reported on exhibit [3] of
[Commerce’s] [V]erification [R]eport.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2563.
After verification, however, “Timken identified a discrepancy
between the billing adjustment NTN reported in its questionnaire
response and the amount Commerce determined through verification.”
Def.’s Mem. at 82. Commerce, therefore, in its review of NTN’s
questionnaire responses, calculated the overall total of NTN’s
22
NTN’s Home Market Verification Report is partially in
Commerce’s Confidential Exhibit 10. Although Commerce indicates in
that exhibit that it will supplement the Home Market Verification
Report, no such supplement has been made.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 85
reported home market billing adjustment and found that it was
significantly different from the total billing adjustment Commerce
determined at verification in exhibit 3 of NTN’s HM Report.
See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2563; Def.’s Mem. at 82.
Commerce then proceeded to determine a more accurate total billing
adjustment and discovered that “the total billing adjustment amount
that [Commerce] had verified as part of the reconciliation for
quantity and value reflected the accurate total adjustment” because
exhibit 3’s total was more traceable to NTN’s Ministry of Finance
(“MOF”) reports. Def.’s Mem. at 83; see Final Results, 63 Fed.
Reg. 2563. While Commerce had verified NTN’s reported transaction-
specific billing adjustment, Commerce considered the verification
to be merely a “spot check,” that is, Commerce’s examination of
selected billing adjustments that left a possibility that many of
NTN’s other transaction-specific billing adjustments were
inaccurate. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. 2563. Commerce,
therefore, explained its methodology stating:
having determined that the exhibit [3] total billing
adjustment amount is the accurate figure, [Commerce]
ha[s] adjusted NTN’s reported transaction-specific
billing adjustments to reflect this total. . . .
[B]ecause the record provides no information as to which
transaction-specific billing adjustments are accurate,
and because NTN has neither explained this discrepancy
nor provided [Commerce] with any information with respect
to the correction of this discrepancy in its reported
data, [Commerce] ha[s] relied on facts available to
correct NTN’s reported home market billing adjustments.
Because [Commerce] [is] unable to identify which billing
adjustments are inaccurate, as facts available,
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 86
[Commerce] systematically sorted through NTN’s raw home
market database and totaled the reported per-sale billing
adjustments until [Commerce] arrived at a total equal to
[Commerce’s] calculated adjustment. [Commerce] then
adjusted these sales’ billing adjustments such that they
reflected the total in exhibit [3] and disallowed the
rest of NTN’s reported billing adjustments.
Id.
B. Contentions of the Parties
NTN argues that Commerce erred when it used facts available
to: (1) correct NTN’s reported billing adjustment data; and (2)
“substitut[e] [Commerce’s] adjusted figures for verified, accurate
data presented by [NTN].” NTN’s Reply at 15; see NTN’s Mem. at 13-
14. In particular, NTN maintains that since Commerce verified
NTN’s reported transaction-specific billing adjustments and found
no discrepancies, there is no basis under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e for
Commerce to use facts available. See NTN’s Mem. at 14. NTN also
contends that “substituting [Commerce’s] adjusted figures for
verified, accurate data presented by a party is [not only] contrary
to . . . 19 U.S.C. § 1677e, [but also contrary] to 19 C.F.R. §
351.308 [1998] [and] . . . the express language of the SAA.” NTN’s
Reply at 15. Therefore, NTN requests that this Court remand to
Commerce to use NTN’s reported and verified data for the total
billing adjustment in the home market. See id.; NTN’s Mem. at 15.
Commerce responds that although it verified NTN’s reported
transaction-specific home market billing adjustments and found no
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 87
discrepancies, Commerce only “spot-checked,” that is, examined a
sample of NTN’s reported billing adjustments, and it is therefore
possible that many of NTN’s other transaction-specific billing
adjustments that Commerce did not select during verification are
inaccurate. See Def.’s Mem. at 83. Commerce maintains that this
is particularly true considering that the total of all of NTN’s
billing adjustments do not match the total from exhibit 3, that is,
the total billing adjustment Commerce determined at verification.
See id.
Commerce also asserts that, despite the errors contained in
NTN’s questionnaire response, Commerce had to use questionnaire
response data, that is, “[Commerce] had to make adjustments in the
data so that the data from the questionnaire response would not
exceed the total billing adjustment determined at verification,” to
calculate NTN’s dumping margin. Id. at 83-84. In particular,
Commerce argues, that since it could not identify the inaccurate
billing adjustments, “as facts available, Commerce systematically
sorted through NTN’s raw home market data base and totaled the
reported per-sale billing adjustments until Commerce arrived at a
total equal to the verified total adjustment[] . . . [and] then
adjusted the billing adjustments for the examined sales to reflect
the total determined at verification and disallowed the rest of
NTN’s reported billing adjustments.” Id. at 84. Therefore,
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 88
Commerce requests that since it relied upon verified figures, that
is, Commerce relied upon its verified total billing expense in
exhibit 3, the Court should sustain its adjustment to NTN’s
reported billing adjustment as supported by the record and in
accordance with law.
Timken agrees with Commerce and argues that since Commerce
determined that NTN’s transaction-specific billing adjustments were
inaccurate, NTN’s assertion that Commerce wrongfully rejected
verified data is without merit. See Timken Resp. at 58. Timken
also asserts that Commerce acted in accordance with 19 U.S.C. §
1677e(a)(2)(D) when it used facts available in place of
unverifiable data to make an adjustment to NTN’s reported billing
adjustment. See id.
C. Analysis
The antidumping statute mandates that Commerce use facts
available if “an interested party or any other person . . .
provides . . . information but the information cannot be verified
as provided in section 1677m(i) . . . .” 19 U.S.C. §
1677e(a)(2)(D)(1998).23 Section 1677e(a) provides that the use of
23
Section 1677m(i) provides that:
[Commerce] shall verify all information relied upon in
making--
(1) a final determination in an investigation,
(2) a revocation under section 1675(d) of this title,
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 89
facts available shall be subject to the limitations set forth in 19
U.S.C. § 1677m(d).
Commerce’s decision to use facts available to adjust NTN’s
reported billing adjustments to reflect the total billing
adjustment determined by Commerce at verification was supported by
substantial evidence and in accordance with law. According to
Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States (“Micron Tech.”), 117 F.3d
1386, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Antifriction Bearings (Other
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal
Republic of Germany, 56 Fed. Reg. 31,692, 31,707 (July 11, 1991)),
[v]erification depends precisely on tying amounts
reported in questionnaire responses to the company’s
internal accounting records and financial statements.
Failure to demonstrate such a relationship results in a
failed verification.
“‘[A] verification is a spot check and is not intended to be an
exhaustive examination of the respondent's business. [Commerce]
has considerable latitude in picking and choosing which items it
will examine in detail.’” PMC Specialties Group, Inc. v. United
and
(3) a final determination in a review under section
1675(a) of this title, if--
(A) verification is timely requested by an
interested party as defined in section 1677(9)(C), (D),
(E), (F), or (G) of this title, and
(B) no verification was made under this subparagraph
during the 2 immediately preceding reviews and
determinations under section 1675(a) of this title of the
same order, finding, or notice, except that this clause
shall not apply if good cause for verification is shown.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 90
States (“PMC”), 20 CIT 1130, 1134 (1996) (quoting Monsanto Co. v.
United States (“Monsanto”), 12 CIT 937, 944, 698 F. Supp. 275, 281
(1988)). In fact, “Commerce enjoys 'wide latitude' in its
verification procedures.” Pohang Iron and Steel Co. v. United
States (“Pohang”), 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 105, *1, Slip. Op.
99-112 (October 20, 1999); see also American Alloys, Inc. v. United
States (“American Alloys”), 30 F.3d 1469, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
Carlisle Tire and Rubber Co. v. United States (“Carlisle”), 9 CIT
520, 532, 622 F. Supp. 1071, 1082 (1985) (“It is within the
discretion of Commerce to determine how to verify” and “due
deference will be given to the expertise of the agency”). NTN may
not usurp Commerce's role as fact finder and substitute their
analysis of the data for the result reached by Commerce. The Court
“will not supersede Commerce's conclusions so long as it ‘applies
a reasonable standard to verify material submitted and the
verification is supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept.’” Pohang, 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 105, *55,
Slip. Op. 99-112 (quoting AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 22 CIT
1070, 1091, 34 F. Supp. 2d 756, 772-73 (1998)).
In this case, NTN reported home market billing adjustments in
its questionnaire response submitted to Commerce. Commerce, in
turn, acting within the “wide latitude” of discretion allowed to
Commerce, performed two verifications: (1) “reconcil[ing] the
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 91
volume and value NTN reported in its response to [NTN’s] MOF
reports” to arrive at a total billing adjustment which Commerce
refers to as exhibit 3 of NTN’s HM Report; and (2) “verified NTN’s
reported, transaction-specific home market billing adjustments by
examining a variety of sales documentation,” that is, Commerce
“spot checked” a select few of NTN’s reported transaction-specific
billing adjustments. Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. 2563. After the
verifications, Commerce, acting upon Timken’s identification of a
discrepancy, reviewed NTN’s questionnaire response by taking the
overall total of NTN’s reported home market billing adjustment and
compared it to the total billing adjustment Commerce determined at
verification in exhibit 3 of NTN’s HM Report. See id. Commerce
found that NTN’s total reported home market billing adjustment was
significantly different from Commerce’s verified total billing
adjustment in exhibit 3 of NTN’s HM Report. See id. Since
Commerce determined that its verified total billing adjustment in
exhibit 3 was more traceable to NTN’s MOF reports than NTN’s
reported transfer-specific total billing adjustment, Commerce
concluded that NTN’s other transaction-specific billing adjustments
that Commerce did not select during verification were inaccurate.
See id. In addition, the record did not provide any information as
to which transaction-specific billing adjustments were inaccurate
and NTN never explained the discrepancy nor provided Commerce with
information as to the correction of this discrepancy at issue.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 92
Therefore, since: (1) NTN’s transaction-specific billing
adjustments (that were not selected during Commerce’s verification)
were inaccurate; and (2) Commerce cannot identify which
transaction-specific billing adjustments are inaccurate, this Court
finds that Commerce’s use of facts available is in accordance with
19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(D).24
Accordingly, the Court sustains Commerce’s adjustment to NTN’s
reported billing adjustment as reasonable, in accordance with law
and supported by substantial evidence.
XII. Use of Affiliated Supplier Cost Data for Inputs Obtained From
the Affiliated Supplier for All Purposes
A. Statutory Background
Normal value of the subject merchandise is defined, in
24
The Court does not agree with NTN’s assertion that the
substitution of Commerce’s adjustment to NTN’s billing adjustment
“for verified, accurate data presented by [NTN] . . . is contrary
to . . . 19 U.S.C. § 1677e, . . . 19 C.F.R. § 351.308 . . . [and]
the express language of the SAA.” NTN’s Reply at 15. Commerce
verified: (1) a few samples of NTN’s reported transaction-specific
billing adjustments; and (2) a total billing adjustment that
Commerce arrived at while reconciling the volume and value NTN
reported in its response to its MOF, that is, what Commerce refers
to as the total in exhibit 3 of NTN’s HM Report. After
verification, Commerce found that the other transaction-specific
billing adjustments that Commerce did not select during
verification were inaccurate. Moreover, Commerce could not
identify which of these transaction-specific billing adjustments
were inaccurate. Therefore, Commerce properly resorted to facts
available since NTN provided information, that is, NTN’s reported
transaction-specific billing adjustments, that could not be
verified.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 93
pertinent part, as “the price at which the foreign like product is
first sold . . . for consumption in the exporting country . . . .”
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). However, whenever Commerce has
“reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that sales of the
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of
NV have been made at prices which represent less than the COP of
that product, Commerce shall determine whether such sales were made
at less than the COP. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1). If Commerce
determines that there are sales below the COP and certain
conditions are present under § 1677b(b)(1)(A)-(B), it may disregard
such below-cost sales in the determination of NV. See 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(b)(1).
Additionally, the special rules for the calculation of COP or
CV contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2)-(3) provide that, in a
transaction between affiliated parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. §
1677(33), Commerce may disregard either the transaction or the
value of a major input.
Section 1677b(f)(2) provides that Commerce may disregard an
affiliated party transaction when “the amount representing [the
transaction or transfer price] does not fairly reflect the amount
usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in
the market under consideration,” that is, an arms-length or market
price. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2) (“fair-value” provision). If such
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 94
“a transaction is disregarded . . . and no other transactions are
available for consideration,” Commerce shall value the cost of an
affiliated-party input “based on the information available as to
what the amount would have been if the transaction had occurred
between persons who are not affiliated,” that is, based on arm’s-
length or market value. Id.
One of the elements of value to be considered in the
calculation of COP, which is referred to in section 1677b(f)(2), is
the cost of manufacturing and fabrication. See 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(b)(3)(A).
Section 1677b(f)(3)’s “major input rule” states that Commerce
may calculate the value of the major input on the basis of the data
available regarding COP, if such COP exceeds the market value of
the input calculated under § 1677b(f)(2). See 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(f)(3). Commerce, however, may rely on the data available
only if: (1) a transaction between affiliated parties involves the
production by one of such parties of a “major input” to the
merchandise produced by the other, and, in addition, (2) Commerce
has “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that the amount
reported as the value of such input is below the COP. 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(f)(3). For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3), regulation 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.407(b) (1998) provides that Commerce will value a major input
supplied by an affiliated party based on the highest of (1) the
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 95
actual transfer price for the input; (2) the market value of the
input; or (3) the COP of the input. See also Mannesmannrohren-
Werke, 23 CIT at ___, 77 F. Supp. 2d at 1312 (holding that 19
U.S.C. §§ 1677b(f)(2) and (3), as well as the legislative
history of the major input rule, support Commerce’s decision to use
the highest of transfer price, cost of production, or market value
to value the major inputs that the producer purchased from the
affiliated supplier).
Thus, paragraphs (2) and (3) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f) authorize
Commerce, in calculating COP and CV, to do the following: (1)
disregard a transaction between affiliated parties if, in the case
of any element of value that is required to be considered, the
amount representing that element does not fairly reflect the amount
usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in
the market under consideration; and (2) determine the value of the
major input on the basis of the information available regarding COP
if Commerce has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that an
amount represented as the value of the input is less than its COP.
See Timken, 21 CIT at 1327-28, 989 F. Supp. at 246 (holding that
Commerce may disregard transfer price for inputs purchased from
related suppliers pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2), the
predecessor to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2), if the transfer price or
any element of value does not reflect its normal value and citing
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 96
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 19 CIT 1319, 1323-26, 910 F. Supp. 663,
668-70 (1995), aff’d, 119 F.3d 16 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
B. Factual Background
During the POR at issue, Commerce, “pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(f), . . . requested [that] NSK . . . submit affiliated
supplier cost data for inputs [NSK] obtained from the affiliated
supplier.” Def.’s Mem. at 88. Commerce, as the statute directs,
then proceeded to use the affiliated supplier cost data to
calculate NSK’s COP and CV. See id. However, during the
administrative review, Commerce also:
substituted affiliated-party cost data [for NTN’s
reported transfer prices] when it determined whether the
foreign like product was commercially comparable to each
U.S. model, when it calculated a difference-in
merchandise (difmer) adjustment for non-identical U.S.
and home market matches, and when it recalculated NSK’s
reported U.S. inventory carrying costs prior to deducting
this expense from CEP.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. 2573.
Explaining its methodology, Commerce stated that:
in accordance with section [1677b(f)] of the Act,
[Commerce] recalculated NSK’s reported TRB-specific COP
and CV to include the COP of an affiliated-party input if
the transfer price NSK reported for that input was less
than the COP for that input. [Commerce] note[s] that COP
and CV are composed of several components. The
adjustment [Commerce] made for NSK’s affiliated-party
inputs is actually an adjustment to its reported material
costs. Because material costs are a component of the
variable cost of manufacture (VCOM) and the total cost of
manufacture (TCOM), and these in turn are components of
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 97
COP and CV, when [Commerce] adjusted NSK’s reported
material costs [Commerce] not only recalculated its COP
and CV, but [Commerce] effectively recalculated VCOM and
TCOM components of COP and CV as well.
Id. at 2574.
Therefore, as a result, Commerce resorted to using affiliated
supplier cost data for purposes other than calculating COP and CV
and explained:
[Commerce] does not rely on a respondent’s reported costs
solely for the calculation of COP and CV. [Commerce] also
use[s] cost information in a variety of other aspects of
[Commerce’s] margin calculations. For example, when
determining the commercial comparability of the foreign
like product in accordance with section [1677(16)] of the
Act, it has been [Commerce’s] long-standing practice to
rely on the product-specific VCOMs and TCOMs for U.S. and
home market merchandise. Likewise, when calculating a
difmer adjustment to NV in accordance with section
[1677b(a)(6)] of the Act, it has been [Commerce’s]
consistent policy to calculate the adjustment as the
difference between the product-specific VCOMs for the
U.S. and home market merchandise compared . . . .
Furthermore, [Commerce] has permitted respondents to
calculate their reported [inventory carrying costs] on
the basis of TCOM.
Id.
C. Contentions of the Parties
NSK asserts that the plain language of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f) and
legislative history restrict Commerce’s use of affiliated supplier
cost data in that “Commerce may substitute . . . affiliated supplier
cost data[] for affiliated supplier price data,” that is, transfer
prices between affiliates, only “‘[f]or purposes of subsections (b)
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 98
and (e)’” of § 1677b(f). NSK’s Mem. at 7 (quoting 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(f)). In particular, NSK argues that Commerce violated the law
when it used NSK’s affiliated supplier cost data to: (1) run its
model match methodology under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16); (2) calculate
the difmer adjustment under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6); and (3)
recalculate NSK’s reported United States inventory carrying costs
prior to deducting this expense from CEP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(d). See NSK’s Mem. at 8-12; NSK’s Reply at 2-6.
NSK also argues that, pursuant to Ad Hoc Comm. of AZ-NM-TX-FL
Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398, 401
(Fed. Cir. 1994),
the Court must presume [that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)] means
that Commerce may use data gathered pursuant to
subsection [§ 1677b(f)] for calculations involving
subsections [§§ 1677b(b) and (e)] only. That other
sections of the statute - specifically subsections
[1677(16), 1677b(a)(6), 1677a(d)] - are silent about the
use of affiliated supplier cost data does not nullify the
precise language of subsection [1677b(f)].
NSK’s Mem. at 8-9.
NSK further asserts that § 1677b(f)’s restriction on the use
of affiliated supplier cost data applies to all of the provisions
of the antidumping law that is, especially, §§ 1677(16), 1677b(a)(6)
and 1677a(d) because there are no statements to the contrary. See
id. at 9-10 (citing Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. United States
(“Yankee”), 112 F.3d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Therefore, NSK
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 99
requests Commerce “to rerun the model match methodology, and
recalculate the difmer adjustment and U.S. inventory carrying costs,
without regard to affiliated supplier cost data collected” pursuant
to subsections § 1677b(f)(2) and § 1677b(f)(3). NSK’s Mem. at 11-
12.
Commerce alleges that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f) does not restrict
the use of affiliated supplier cost data to calculating COP and CV
since Commerce requires cost data for other purposes.25 See Def.’s
Mem. at 86-91. Commerce argues that §§ 1677(16), 1677a(a)(6)26
[sic] and 1677a(d) do not prohibit Commerce from using affiliated
supplier cost data. See id. at 89. Moreover, Commerce alleges
that §§ 1677(16), 1677b(a)(6) and 1677a(d) grant Commerce
discretion. See id. at 90. In particular, Commerce points out
that:
Section [1677(16)] does not specify a particular
25
As stated above, in the Final Results, Commerce explains how
material costs are a component of VCOM and TCOM which in turn, are
both components of COP and CV. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at
2574. Therefore, when Commerce adjusted NSK’s reported material
costs, it not only calculated COP and CV, but also recalculated
VCOM and TCOM. See id. In turn, since Commerce relies upon VCOM
and/or TCOM in running its model match, calculating the difmer
adjustment and inventory carrying costs, Commerce asserts that its
use of affiliated supplier cost data for purposes other than the
calculation of COP and CV was reasonable and in accordance with
law. See id.
26
The Court assumes that Commerce is referring to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(a)(6) and not 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a)(6).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 100
methodology for determining appropriate matches. Rather,
the statute implicitly delegates the selection of an
appropriate methodology to [Commerce].
. . . Likewise, section [1677b(a)(6)] grants
[Commerce] the same discretion to determine a suitable
method to calculate a difmer adjustment and does not
restrict [Commerce’s] selection of an appropriate
methodology to any particular approach. In addition,
with respect to [Commerce’s] recalculation of NSK’s U.S.
[inventory carrying costs], section [1677a(d)] only
specifies what adjustments are to be made to determine
CEP and does not provide details regarding the precise
calculations for each particular adjustment.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2574-75.
[I]f [Commerce] determine[s] a component of a
respondent’s COP and CV is distortive for one aspect of
[Commerce’s] analysis, it is reasonable to make the same
determination with respect to those other aspects of
[Commerce’s] margin calculations where [Commerce] relied
on identical cost data. To do otherwise would not only
produce distortive results but would be contrary to
[Commerce’s] mandate to administer the dumping laws as
accurately as possible.
Id. at 2574.
Commerce further argues that the plain language of § 1677b(f)
does not prohibit the use of affiliated supplier cost data for
purposes other than the calculation of COP and CV because “Congress
has [not] directly spoken on the precise question at issue.” Def.’s
Mem. at 89. In sum, Commerce maintains that the use of affiliated
supplier cost data is not restricted only to the calculation of COP
and CV. Rather, Commerce asserts that it has been afforded
discretion to use cost data for other purposes. See id. at 89-90.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 101
Commerce, in response to NSK argues that its use of affiliated
supplier cost data for purposes other than the calculation of COP
and CV not only produced a harmonious whole but also indicated
Commerce’s observing and understanding of the statute as a whole.
Therefore, Commerce requests that the Court sustain its use of
affiliated supplier cost data for purposes other than calculating
COP and CV as in accordance with law.
Timken agrees with Commerce and asserts that NSK’s arguments
are not supported by the statute. See Timken’s Resp. at 53. In
particular, Timken argues that the term: (1) “for purposes of this
part” in § 1677b(b)(3) means “[t]he part of the statute referred to
[a]s ‘Part IV General Provisions’ and includes 19 U.S.C. § 1677
through § 1677n [(1994)]” and, therefore “[t]he three provisions for
which Commerce has used NSK’s modified costs are all contained
within this part;” and (2) “this subtitle” in § 1677b(e) “includes
§ 1671 [(1994)] through § 1677n . . . [and] the three provisions for
which Commerce has used modified costs are included within these.”
Id. Timken also maintains that the respective statues for running
the model match, calculating the difmer adjustment and inventory
carrying costs do not contain any language on how Commerce is to
calculate costs.27 See id. at 54. Pointing out that Commerce has
27
NSK argues that “[w]hile the statute views affiliated
supplier transactions with caution as regards COP and CV
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 102
discretion to “employ cost information obtained from [NSK] to make
all of these determinations,” Timken asserts that Commerce’s use of
affiliated supplier cost data for purposes other than the
calculation of COP and CV was in accordance with law. Id.
D. Analysis
In resolving questions of statutory interpretation, the
Chevron test requires this Court first to determine whether
“Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,”
that is, whether the plain meaning of the statute’s text answers the
question. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842. If the language of the statute
is clear, then this Court must defer to Congressional intent. See
id. at 842-43. If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect
to the specific issue and the legislative history of the statute
doesn’t clarify the issue, the question for the Court is whether
Commerce’s construction of the statute is permissible. See id. at
843. Essentially, this is an inquiry into the reasonableness of
Commerce’s interpretation. See Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States,
calculations, this does not mean these transactions should be
replaced whenever Commerce uses cost to assist in the measurement
of non-cost variables. For example, . . . the difmer adjustment
measures differences between merchandise, not differences in cost.”
NSK’s Reply at 4-5. NSK further argues that Congress knew ‘[t]he
question of affiliation is relevant to a number of price and cost
issues in an antidumping investigation or review,’ but nevertheless
confined Commerce’s ability to collect and use affiliated supplier
cost data just to COP and CV calculations.” Id. (quoting H.R. Doc.
103-316, at 838).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 103
88 F.3d 1034, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Provided Commerce has acted
rationally, the Court may not substitute its judgment for the
agency’s. See IPSCO, 965 F.2d at 1061; see also Koyo Seiko Co. v.
United States (“Koyo CAFC”), 36 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(holding that “a court must defer to an agency’s reasonable
interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred
another”). “In determining whether Commerce’s interpretation is
reasonable, the Court considers, among other factors, the express
terms of the provisions at issue, the objectives of those provisions
and the objectives of the antidumping scheme as a whole.”
Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 22 CIT 541, 545, 15
F. Supp. 2d 807, 813 (1998).
In the case at bar, the issue before the Court is whether
Commerce can use affiliated supplier cost data obtained pursuant to
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f) for purposes other than the calculation of COP
and CV. In particular, the Court must determine whether Commerce’s
use of affiliated supplier cost data to: (1) run its model match
methodology under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16); (2) calculate the difmer
adjustment under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6); and (3) recalculate NSK’s
reported United States inventory carrying costs prior to deducting
this expense from CEP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) was in
accordance with law. Because the plain language of §§ 1677(16),
1677b(a)(6) and 1677a(d) is silent with respect to the specifics of
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 104
Commerce’s use of affiliated supplier cost data obtained from §
1677b(f), see §§ 1677(16), 1677b(a)(6) and 1677a(d), and because
neither the statutory language nor the legislative history of §
1677(16), § 1677b(a)(6) and § 1677a(d) explicitly establish that
Commerce cannot use affiliated supplier cost data when running the
model-match methodology, calculating the difmer adjustment and
recalculating inventory carrying costs prior to deducting this
expense from CEP, the Court must proceed to determine whether
Commerce’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable and in
accordance with its legislative purpose. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at
843.
Congress has: (1) implicitly delegated authority to Commerce
to select an appropriate methodology for determining appropriate
matches under § 1677(16); (2) granted Commerce discretion to
determine a suitable method to calculate a difmer adjustment
pursuant to § 1677b(a)(6); and (3) omitted to provide details
regarding the precise calculations for each particular adjustment
that Commerce makes with respect to the recalculation of inventory
carrying costs under § 1677a(d). See §§ 1677(16), 1677b(a)(6) and
1677a(d); see also Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2574; Koyo Seiko
Co. v. United States, 66 F.3d 1204, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
(“Congress has implicitly delegated authority to Commerce to
determine and apply a model-match methodology necessary to yield
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 105
‘such or similar’ merchandise [that is, what is now referred to as
“foreign like product”] under [§ 1677(16)]”).
In the Final Results, Commerce explained its use of affiliated
supplier cost data for running its model match methodology,
calculating the difmer adjustment and recalculating NSK’s inventory
carrying costs as follows:
[t]he adjustment [Commerce] made for NSK’s affiliated-
party inputs is actually an adjustment to its reported
material costs. Because material costs are a component
of . . . VCOM and . . . TCOM, and these in turn are
components of COP and CV, when [Commerce] adjusted NSK’s
reported material costs [Commerce] not only recalculated
[NSK’s] COP and CV, but [Commerce] effectively
recalculated VCOM and TCOM components of COP and CV as
well.
. . . [Commerce] does not rely on a respondent’s
reported costs solely for the calculation of COP and CV.
[Commerce] also use[s] cost information in a variety of
other aspects of [Commerce’s] margin calculations. For
example, when determining the commercial comparability of
the foreign like product in accordance with section
[1677(16)] . . . , it has been our long-standing practice
to rely on the product-specific VCOMs and TCOMs for U.S.
and home market merchandise. Likewise, when calculating
a difmer adjustment to NV in accordance with section
[1677b(a)(6)] . . . , it has been [Commerce’s] consistent
policy to calculate the adjustment as the difference
between the product-specific VCOMs for the U.S. and home
market merchandise compared . . . . Furthermore,
[Commerce] ha[s] permitted respondents to calculate their
reported [inventory carrying costs] on the basis of TCOM.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2574.
Commerce further states:
[I]f [Commerce] determine[s] a component of a
respondent’s COP and CV is distortive for one aspect of
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 106
[Commerce’s] analysis, it is reasonable to make the same
determination with respect to those other aspects of
[Commerce’s] margin calculations where [Commerce] relied
on the identical cost data. To do otherwise would not
only produce distortive results but would be contrary to
[Commerce’s] mandate to administer the dumping laws as
accurately as possible.
Id.
The Court also holds that § 1677b(f) does not restrict the use
of affiliated supplier cost data to purposes other than calculating
COP and CV. Although the SAA provides in relevant part that
“[u]nder the existing statute [that is, §§ 1677b(f)(2) and (3)],
these provisions literally apply only to the calculation of
constructed value . . . [and] cost of production[,] . . .” the Court
finds that it would be anamolous to interpret this language as
implying that Congress’ intention was to prohibit Commerce from
using affiliated supplier cost data for other purposes. H.R. Doc.
103-316, at 838-39. “When construing an act of Congress, and
especially when determining the essential characteristic of a
particular statute, we must observe and understand the statute as
a whole.” Yankee, 112 F.3d at 1576 (quoting Richards v. United
States, 369 U.S. 1, 11, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed. 2d. 492 (1962), that
states that a Court “believe[s] it fundamental that a section of a
statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the
whole Act”; In re Nantucket, Inc., 677 F.2d 95, 98 (CCPA 1982), that
states that “[e]ach part or section of a statute should be construed
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 107
in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a
harmonious whole, and it is not proper to confine interpretation to
the one section to be construed”). The statute, read as a whole,
does not show Congressional intent to restrict the use of affiliated
supplier cost data solely to COP and CV calculations and in effect,
tie the hands of Commerce while parties could distort dumping
margins with impunity. Commerce has an overriding mandate to
calculate accurate dumping margins. See Bowe-Passat v. United
States (“Bowe”), 17 CIT 335, 340 (1993). Based on the foregoing,
the Court finds that Commerce’s use of affiliated supplier cost data
for purposes other than the calculation of COP and CV is reasonable
and in accordance with law.
XIII. Commerce’s Denial of a Partial Price-Based LOT Adjustment
to NV for CEP Sales
A. Background
During this review, Commerce applied a CEP offset under 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(B) to NV for all of NSK’s CEP sales. See
Def.’s Mem. at 91. In reaching this result, “Commerce first
determined that for NSK there was one CEP LOT and two home market
LOTs, [that is,] original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) and
aftermarket (“AM”), and that the CEP LOT was not the same as either
home market LOT.” See id. Commerce found that “because NSK lacked
home market sales at a LOT equal to NSK’s CEP sales, there was no
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 108
information on the record that would enable Commerce to quantify the
price differences between the CEP LOT and either of the two NV
levels, i.e., OEM and AM.” Id. Commerce also determined it lacked
the information that provides an appropriate basis for determining
a level-of-trade adjustment. Id. For NSK’s CEP sales, Commerce
“determined that a CEP offset adjustment [pursuant to §
1677b(a)(7)(B)] was appropriate for all of the NV transactions that
were matched to CEP, because these NV transactions were at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the CEP transactions.”28 Id.
Contrary to NSK’s contentions, Commerce concluded that no provision
of the antidumping statute provides for a “partial” LOT adjustment
“between two home market LOTs where neither level is equivalent to
the LOT of the U.S. sale.” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2578.
B. Contentions of the Parties
NSK agrees with the manner in which Commerce determined the LOT
of its CEP for NV transactions. See NSK’s Mem. at 18. In
particular, NSK agrees that Commerce properly used the CEP as
adjusted for § 1677a(d) expenses prior to its LOT analysis. NSK,
however, argues that Commerce should have granted it a “partial”
28
According to Commerce, “[a] CEP offset is made only when the
LOT of the home market sale is more advanced than the LOT of the
CEP sale and there is not an appropriate basis for determining
whether there is an effect on price comparability.” Final Results,
63 Fed. Reg. at 2577.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 109
price-based LOT adjustment. See id. at 19.
NSK first notes that Commerce found two LOTs in the home
market, one corresponding to OEM sales and the other to AM sales.
See id. NSK also agrees that when Commerce matched CEP sales to
home market OEM sales, Commerce correctly applied a CEP offset
because there was no basis for quantifying a price-based LOT
adjustment for CEP to OEM NV matches. See id. Further, NSK notes
that “Commerce correctly concluded that there was no record
information that would allow Commerce to quantify the downward price
adjustment to adjust fully the AM NV [LOT] to the CEP [LOT].” Id.
NSK however disagrees with Commerce’s decision to apply a CEP offset
when Commerce matched CEP sales to home market AM sales. See id.
In these situations, NSK argues, § 1677b(a)(7)(A) and the SAA direct
Commerce to calculate a partial price-based LOT adjustment to NV for
CEP sales measured by the price differences between OEM and AM LOTs.
See id. at 19-20.
NSK notes that the statute directs Commerce to adjust NV for
any difference between CEP and NV “wholly or partly” due to a
difference in LOT between CEP and NV. Id. at 19 (citing §
1677b(a)(7)(A)). NSK also points out that § 1677b(a)(7)(B)
indicates that a CEP offset should only be used in the total absence
of price-based LOT adjustments. See NSK’s Mem. at 19. Accordingly,
NSK claims that since there was evidence for quantifying price
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 110
differences between OEM and AM LOTs, Commerce’s failure to calculate
a price-based LOT adjustment that partly accounted for such LOT
differences violated the plain language of § 1677b(a)(7)(A). See
NSK’s Reply at 10.
Commerce argues that it properly denied a partial LOT
adjustment and applied a CEP offset to NV for all of NSK’s CEP
transactions. See Def.’s Mem. at 91-101. Contrary to NSK’s reading
of § 1677b(a)(7)(A), Commerce asserts that the statute only provides
for an LOT price-based adjustment to NV based upon price differences
in the home market between the CEP LOT and NV LOT when the
differences can be quantified. See id. at 98-99. Commerce claims
that the statute does not authorize an LOT price-based adjustment
based upon different LOTs in the home market when the price
difference between the CEP LOT sales and the home market LOT sales
cannot be quantified. See id. at 91, 96-99; see also Final Results,
63 Fed. Reg. at 2578 (explaining that Commerce does not read into
§ 1677b(a)(7)(A)’s “wholly or partly” language the authority to make
an LOT adjustment based on differences between two home market LOTs
where neither level is equivalent to the level of the United States
sale).
Timken agrees with Commerce’s positions, emphasizing that
Commerce: (1) properly denied an LOT adjustment for NSK’s CEP sales;
and (2) reasonably interpreted § 1677b(a)(7)(A) as not providing for
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 111
a “partial” LOT adjustment as contended by NSK. See Timken’s Resp.
at 55-56.
C. Analysis
This issue has already been decided in NTN Bearing, 24 CIT at
___, 104 F. Supp. 2d at 127-31. As this Court explained in NTN
Bearing, Commerce’s decision to deny NSK a partial price-based LOT
adjustment measured by price differences between home market OEM and
AM sales was in accordance with law. There is no indication in §
1677b(a)(7)(A) that the pattern of price differences between two
LOTs in the home market, absent a CEP LOT in the home market,
justifies an LOT adjustment. Rather, Commerce’s interpretation of
§ 1677b(a)(7)(A) as only providing an LOT adjustment based upon
price differences in the home market between the CEP LOT and the NV
LOT was reasonable, especially in light of the existence of the CEP
offset to cover situations such as those at issue here.
XIV. Commerce’s Calculation of CEP for Further-Manufactured
Merchandise and Its Application of Facts Available
A. Background
An antidumping duty is imposed upon imported merchandise when:
(1) Commerce determines such merchandise is being dumped, that is,
sold or likely to be sold in the United States at less than fair
value; and (2) the International Trade Commission determines that
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 112
an industry in the United States is materially injured or is
threatened with material injury. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673; 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(34) (1994). To determine whether there is dumping, Commerce
compares the price of the imported merchandise in the United States
to the NV for the same or similar merchandise in the home market.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b (1994). The price in the United States is
calculated using either an export price or constructed export price.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a), (b); see also, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at
822 (Commerce will classify the price of a United States sales
transaction as a CEP “[i]f, before or after the time of importation,
the first sale to an unaffiliated person is made by (or for the
account of) the producer or exporter or by a seller in the United
States who is affiliated with the producer or exporter”); AK Steel
Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (discussing
when to apply EP or CEP methodology).
Commerce must reduce the price used to establish CEP by any of
the following amounts associated with economic activities occurring
in the United States: (1) commissions paid in “selling the subject
merchandise in the United States”; (2) direct selling expenses, that
is, “expenses that result from, and bear a direct relationship to,
the sale, such as credit expenses, guarantees and warranties”; (3)
“any selling expenses that the seller pays on behalf of the
purchaser” (assumptions); (4) indirect selling expenses, that is,
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 113
any selling expenses not deducted under any of the first three
categories of deductions; (5) certain expenses resulting from
further manufacture or assembly (including additional material and
labor) performed on the merchandise after its importation into the
United States; and (6) profit allocated to the expenses described
in categories (1) through (5). 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)-(3); see
H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 823-24.
Commerce calculates the expenses resulting from further
manufacture or assembly using one of two statutory methods. See 19
U.S.C. § 1677a(d), (e). The first method provides that Commerce
shall reduce “the price used to establish constructed export price
[by] . . . the cost of any further manufacture or assembly
(including additional material and labor), except in [certain]
circumstances.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(2). When the first method
does not apply, Commerce applies a special rule for merchandise with
value added after importation (“Special Rule”). See 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(e) (1994). The Special Rule provides that:
[w]here the subject merchandise is imported by a person
affiliated with the exporter or producer, and the value
added in the United States by the affiliated person is
likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject
merchandise, [Commerce] shall determine the constructed
export price for such merchandise by using one of the
following prices if there is a sufficient quantity of
sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and
[Commerce] determines that the use of such sales is
appropriate:
(1) The price of identical subject merchandise sold by
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 114
the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person.
(2) The price of other subject merchandise sold by
the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person.
If there is not a sufficient quantity of sales to provide
a reasonable basis for comparison under paragraph (1) or
(2), or [Commerce] determines that neither of the prices
described in such paragraphs is appropriate, then the
constructed export price may be determined on any other
reasonable basis.
19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e).
On January 29, 1997, Koyo requested that Commerce apply the
Special Rule pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e) for certain of Koyo’s
imported bearings and bearing parts further manufactured in the
United States prior to being sold to an unaffiliated customer. See
Koyo’s Mem. Ex. 1. Moreover, Koyo requested that Commerce exempt
it from completing a certain section of Commerce’s questionnaire
that required Koyo to report sales and cost data information for its
further manufactured sales. See id. Although Commerce notified
Koyo on February 18, 1997, that Koyo was not currently required to
respond to the particular section of the questionnaire, Commerce
also cautioned Koyo by stating “this information is subject to
verification and may be required for future submission.” Koyo’s
Mem. Ex. 2. Commerce then, in the Final Results, determined that:
the record does not lead [Commerce] to conclude that the
use of either of the two alternative methods described in
section [1677a(e)(1) and (2)] with respect to Koyo’s
further-manufactured subject merchandise is appropriate.
The record indicates that Koyo’s U.S. sales of further-
manufactured subject merchandise represented a large
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 115
portion of its total U.S. sales of subject merchandise
during the POR. Therefore, the use of either of the
proxy methods in this case–-where the proportion of
further-manufactured sales is relatively high–-would have
a relatively high potential for inaccuracy. In addition,
as noted in [Commerce’s] preliminary results, the
finished merchandise sold by Koyo to the first unrelated
U.S. customer was still in the same class or kind as
merchandise within the scope of the TRB order and finding
(i.e., imported TRB components were processed into TRBs).
As a result, the calculation of the precise amount of
cost of further manufacturing would not be nearly as
burdensome as it would be for . . . another respondent
who imported TRBs for incorporation in automobiles.
Furthermore, in prior reviews [Commerce has] calculated
margins for Koyo’s further-processed sales and ha[s]
extensive experience with and knowledge of Koyo’s
further-manufactured sales and the calculation of the
cost of further manufacturing in the United States with
respect to these sales. Therefore, in this case Commerce
ha[s] determined that for Koyo the relatively small
reduction of burden on Commerce that would result from
resorting to either of the two statutory proxy methods
under the [S]pecial [R]ule is outweighed by the potential
distortion and losses in accuracy as a consequence of
their use. Accordingly, Commerce ha[s] rejected the use
of either of the two proxies as inappropriate and ha[s]
sought to calculate the CEP for Koyo’s further
manufactured sales using another reasonable basis.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2561.
As another reasonable method, Commerce chose its standard
methodology under § 1677a(d)(2) to calculate the CEP of Koyo’s
further manufactured merchandise and found that this methodology was
not only not burdensome but also “presented a higher probability of
accurate results than using margins calculated for non-further-
manufactured sales.” Def.’s Mem. at 103-104 (citing Final Results,
63 Fed. Reg. at 2561). Accordingly, Commerce requested that Koyo
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 116
provide Commerce with responses to the particular section of the
questionnaire. See Koyo’s Mem. Ex. 3. Koyo refused to submit
responses to the particular section and proposed that Commerce, as
an alternative methodology, apply the margins on finished products
to the further-manufactured products. See Koyo’s Mem. Exs. 4, 6.
In particular, Koyo proposed
that [Commerce] instead of evaluating whether the margins
for finished over 4 [inch] A-588-604 bearings were an
appropriate surrogate for A-588-604 further-manufactured
merchandise, could have used the margins it calculated
for under 4 [inch] A-588-054 bearings as a proxy for that
A-588-604 merchandise which was further processed into
under 4 [inch] bearings, and the margins calculated for
over 4 [inch] bearings as a proxy for that A-588-604
merchandise which was further processed into over 4
[inch] bearings.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2562.
Koyo alternatively proposed that Commerce could have
“compare[d] the value of all finished bearings [0-4 inch A-588-604
TRBs and over 4 inch A-588-604 TRBs] to the value of all further-
processed components [that is, 0-4 inch A-588-054 further-
manufactured TRBs and over 4 inch A-588-604 further-manufactured
TRBs].” Koyo’s Mem. at 26-27. Commerce responded that:
[w]hile Koyo’s proposal would be less burdensome than the
use of the standard methodology, [Commerce] believe[s]
that the standard methodology is not unduly burdensome
and presents a higher probability of accurate results
than using margins calculated for non-further-
manufactured sales. Among other things, Koyo’s proposal
relies on information concerning a different class or
kind of merchandise and therefore in this case does not
sufficiently allay concerns about potential inaccuracy.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 117
The record indicates that the use of these proxy methods
would have a relatively high potential for distortion;
[Commerce] believe[s] that the gains in accuracy that
[Commerce] would achieve using the standard methodology
would outweigh the additional burden resulting from the
use of the standard calculation. The record supports
[Commerce’s] continued use of the standard methodology as
a reasonable basis for calculating the CEP for Koyo’s
further-manufactured merchandise.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2562.
Therefore, since Koyo refused to respond to the particular
section, Commerce, pursuant to § 1677e(b), “selected as adverse
facts available the highest rate ever calculated for Koyo in any
previous review of the TRBs at issue . . . [and applied this] rate
. . . to the total entered value of Koyo’s further-manufactured
sales” to calculate the CEP of Koyo’s further-manufactured
merchandise. Def.’s Mem. at 108 (citing Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg.
at 2562).
B. Contentions of the Parties
1. Koyo’s Contentions
Koyo and Commerce both agree that “Koyo met the ‘substantially
exceeds’ qualification29 for implementation of the [S]pecial [R]ule”
under § 1677a(e). Koyo’s Mem. at 19 (citing Final Results, 63 Fed.
29
The “substantially exceeds” qualification is met when “the
value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely
to exceed substantially the value of the [imported] merchandise.”
19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 118
Reg. at 2561). Koyo does not argue that Commerce erred in not
selecting one of the two proxies under § 1677a(e). See Koyo’s Mem.
at 17. Koyo, however contends that Commerce erred in using, as
another “reasonable basis,” its standard methodology pursuant to §
1677a(d) to calculate Koyo’s further-manufactured merchandise. See
id. at 20-26. In particular, Koyo argues that Commerce’s use of its
standard methodology, that is, “a full-blown further manufacturing
analysis violates both the letter and the intent of the statute.”
Id. at 27. Koyo, therefore, maintains that since the Special Rule
under § 1677a(e) applies in this case, Commerce cannot employ as an
“other reasonable basis” under § 1677a(e) its standard methodology
pursuant to § 1677a(d) to calculate Koyo’s further manufactured
merchandise.30 See id. at 28.
Rather, Koyo asserts that Commerce should have used Koyo’s
proposed methodology to calculate the CEP of Koyo’s further-
manufactured merchandise. See Koyo’s Mem. at 19-27. In particular,
Koyo proposed that:
instead of evaluating whether the margins calculated on
the finished over 4 [inch A-588-604] TRBs were an
appropriate proxy for the margins on imported bearing
parts destined to become both 0-4 [inch A-588-604] TRBs
and over 4 [inch A-588-604] TRBs, [Commerce] should have
looked to the margins on finished 0-4 [inch A-588-054]
TRBs as a proxy for parts further manufactured into 0-4
30
Koyo argues that “any other reasonable basis [under §
1677a(e)] cannot include a reversion to the full further processing
methodology.” Koyo’s Reply at 19.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 119
[inch A-588-604] TRBs, and the margins on finished over
4 [inch A-588-604] as a proxy for parts further
manufactured into over 4 [inch A-588-604] TRBs.
Id. at 22. Koyo maintains that “[s]uch a comparison conforms
closely with the statutory preference for relying on ‘identical
subject merchandise,’ 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(1), or, as a second
choice, ‘other subject merchandise,’ 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(2), as a
proxy for the further manufactured parts.” Id. at 22-23. Koyo
further asserts that its proposed methodology would: (1) be less
burdensome than Commerce’s selected standard methodology; (2) not
cause the possible high level of distortion in the antidumping
margin as Commerce alleges. See id. at 23-26.
Koyo also proposed an alternative methodology to its proposed
methodology. See id. at 26. In particular, Koyo alleges that
Commerce could have “compare[d] the value of all finished bearings
[0-4 inch A-588-604 TRBs and over 4 inch A-588-604 TRBs] to the
value of all further-processed components [that is, 0-4 inch A-588-
054 further-manufactured TRBs and over 4 inch A-588-604 further-
manufactured TRBs].” Id. Koyo maintains that this proposed
methodology would qualify as “another reasonable basis” pursuant to
§ 1677a(e). See id. at 27. Furthermore, Koyo asserts that
regardless of which of its two proposed methodology Commerce were
to follow, there is nothing on the record that the proposed
methodologies would not provide for accurate dumping margins or
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 120
would not reduce the burden on Commerce to perform a standard
further-manufactured merchandise analysis. Id.
Koyo also contends that Commerce unlawfully applied adverse
facts available to Koyo’s further-manufactured merchandise. See
Koyo’s Reply at 18-22. Koyo asserts that because the statutory
language under § 1677a(d)(2) provides that “the price used to
establish [CEP] shall . . . be reduced by . . . the cost of any
further manufacture or assembly (including additional material and
labor), except in circumstances described in subsection(e) of this
section,” Commerce cannot revert to § 1677a(d)(2) and deduct the
cost of further manufacture and assembly, that is, perform a full-
blown further manufacturing analysis. Id. at 19 (quoting §
1677a(d)(2)) (emphasis supplied). Therefore, Koyo maintains that
Commerce acted unlawfully by applying adverse facts available and
had no authority to demand that Koyo provide responses to the
particular section of the questionnaire. See Koyo’s Reply at 19.
Koyo alternatively argues that “if the statute did accord
[Commerce] the discretion to resort to the traditional further
processing analysis despite the fact that the criteria for the
‘[S]pecial [R]ule’ are satisfied . . . , [Commerce’s] justification
for doing so in this case is without support on the record.” Id.
at 20. In particular, Koyo argues that Commerce did not provide any
record evidence or support for its proposition that Koyo’s proposed
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 121
alternative methodologies for calculating the CEP of Koyo’s further-
manufactured merchandise would be distortive. See id. at 20-22.
Moreover, Koyo asserts that Commerce’s denial of Koyo’s proposed
alternative methods on the basis of them being distortive is not
supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 22. Koyo, therefore,
requests that this Court remand to Commerce with instructions “not
to apply the standard further manufacturing analysis under §
1677a(d)(2) to calculate Koyo’s margins, nor to apply adverse facts
available in response to Koyo’s failure to submit a response to [the
particular section] of the questionnaire.” Koyo’s Mem. at 29.
Finally, Koyo maintains if the Court finds that Commerce had
the authority to apply adverse facts available to Koyo’s further-
manufactured merchandise, then the Court should sustain Commerce’s
application of adverse facts available to entered value rather than
sales value of the finished TRBs as Timken argues Commerce should
have used. See Koyo’s Mem. Resp. Timken’s Mot. J. Agency R.
(“Koyo’s Resp.”) at 16-22. In particular, Koyo asserts that
Commerce acted within 19 U.S.C. § 1677e when it “appl[ied] the facts
available margin rate to [Koyo’s] entered value . . .” and
Commerce’s approach is more reasonable than Timken’s suggested
approach of applying the adverse facts available margin rate to
Koyo’s sales value because Commerce’s “methodology . . . was both
reasonable and bore ‘a rational relationship to the [subject] matter
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 122
at issue[,]’” id. at 18 (quoting Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG v. United
States, 22 CIT 574, 584, 15 F. Supp. 2d 834, 846 (1998)), vacated
in part on other grounds, 259 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Koyo
further alleges that
Timken’s approach would result in the application of the
dumping margin to manufacturing that took place in the
United States, that is, to U.S. value-added. It would
violate the premise of the antidumping law to apply
duties to the value of U.S. manufacturing rather than the
value of imported merchandise. The entire purpose of
[Commerce’s] further-manufacturing exercise is to “back
out” the value added in the United States to find the
“value” of the imported subject merchandise. Because the
subject merchandise in this case was forgings, and
because the statue does not contemplate imposing
antidumping duties on manufacturing done in the United
States, [Commerce’s] reliance on the entered value of
forgings rather than the sales value of finished bearings
incorporating significant U.S. value-added, was
reasonable and rationally related to the task at hand.
Koyo’s Resp. at 19-20.
Koyo further contends that Timken’s arguments that Commerce
erred in not calculating the highest potential uncollected dumping
duties possible and the unreliability of transfer prices (that is,
Koyo’s entered value of imported forgings) are without merit.
Id. at 20-22. Therefore, Koyo maintains that “to the extent that
any application of adverse facts available was appropriate in this
case,” the Court should affirm Commerce’s methodology as reasonable
and in accordance with law. Id. at 22.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 123
2. Commerce’s Contentions
Commerce contends that Congress has granted to Commerce broad
discretion in determining when the use of “any other reasonable
basis” under § 1677a(e) is appropriate. Def.’s Mem. at 105-08.
Commerce maintains that “[n]either the statute nor the SAA prohibits
Commerce from using the more burdensome standard [§ 1677a] (d)(2)
methodology as an alternative reasonable method where the agency
finds that neither alternative under [§§ 1677a](e)(1) or (e)(2) is
appropriate.” Id. at 107. In this case, Commerce determined that
the record does not lead [Commerce] to conclude that the
use of either of the two alternative methods described in
section [1677a(e)(1) and (2)] with respect to Koyo’s
further-manufactured merchandise is appropriate. The
record indicates that Koyo’s U.S. sales of further-
manufactured subject merchandise represented a large
portion of its total U.S. sales of subject merchandise
during the POR. Therefore, the use of either of the
proxy methods in this case–-where the proportion of
further-manufactured sales is relatively high–-would have
a relatively high potential for inaccuracy. In addition,
as noted in [Commerce’s] preliminary results, the
finished merchandise sold by Koyo to the first unrelated
U.S. customer was still in the same class or kind as
merchandise within the scope of the TRB order and finding
(i.e., imported TRB components were processed into TRBs).
As a result, the calculation of the precise amount of
cost of further manufacturing would not be nearly as
burdensome as it would be for . . . another respondent
who imported TRBs for incorporation in automobiles.
Furthermore, in prior reviews [Commerce has] calculated
margins for Koyo’s further processed sales and ha[s]
extensive experience with and knowledge of Koyo’s
further-manufactured sales and the calculation of the
cost of further manufacturing in the United States with
respect to these sales. Therefore, in this case
[Commerce has] determined that for Koyo the relatively
small reduction of burden on [Commerce] that would result
from resorting to either of the two statutory proxy
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 124
methods under the [S]pecial [R]ule is outweighed by the
potential distortion and losses in accuracy as a
consequence of their use. Accordingly, [Commerce has]
rejected the use of either of the two proxies as
inappropriate and ha[s] sought to calculate the CEP for
Koyo’s further manufactured sales using another
reasonable basis.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2561.
Commerce does agree that: (1) Koyo’s proposed methodology would
be less burdensome than Commerce’s standard methodology under §
1677a(d)(2); and (2) “that one of the underlying purposes of section
1677a(e) was to provide a mechanism for avoiding certain
complexities involved in the standard further manufacturing analysis
set forth in section 1677a(d)(2).” Def.’s Mem. at 107; See Final
Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2562. Commerce, however, cites to Bowe,
17 CIT at 340 realizing its overriding mandate to calculate accurate
dumping margins and points out in the Final Results that
the standard methodology [pursuant to § 1677a(d)(2)] is
not unduly burdensome and presents a higher probability
of accurate results than using margins calculated for
non-further-manufactured sales. . . . Koyo’s proposal
relies on information concerning a different class or
kind of merchandise and therefore in this case does not
sufficiently allay concerns about potential inaccuracy
[that is, Koyo relied on information from two different
dumping orders when it proposed that Commerce should have
looked to the margins on finished 0-4 inch A-588-054 TRBs
as a proxy for parts further manufactured into 0-4 inch
A-588-604 TRBs].
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2562.
Commerce argues that its determination, pursuant to § 1677a(e),
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 125
is limited to the scope of the order and is not permitted to include
non-subject sales since the statute refers to “identical or other
subject merchandise.” See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2562.
Contrary to Commerce’s argument, Koyo contends that “in authorizing
[Commerce] to use ‘other reasonable means’ to calculate the margins,
Congress must have envisioned that [Commerce] would use non-subject
merchandise, i.e., merchandise not subject to the same order, as a
proxy.” Koyo’s Mem. at 24. Moreover, Commerce asserts that “the
greater the proportion of further-manufactured to non-further-
manufactured merchandise, the greater the possibility of inaccurate
results.” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2561.
Commerce also contends that it acted in accordance with 19
U.S.C. § 1677e, when it used the adverse facts available margin rate
to calculate the CEP of Koyo’s further-manufactured merchandise.
See Def.’s Mem. at 108. In particular, Commerce argues that, since
Koyo failed to act to the best of its ability by refusing to respond
to the particular section of Commerce’s questionnaire, Commerce
properly selected the adverse facts available margin rate and
applied it to the total entered value of Koyo’s further-manufactured
merchandise. See id. Contrary to Timken’s argument that Commerce
should have applied facts available to Koyo’s total sales value of
the further-manufactured sales rather than to the entered value of
Koyo’s sales, Commerce maintains that it “is not required by the
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 126
statute to select a method that is ‘the most’ or ‘more’ reasonably
adverse.” Id. Commerce also argues that Timken has not provided
any evidence or arguments that the adverse facts available margin
rate that Commerce applied was not reasonably adverse. See id. at
109.
Commerce further contends that Timken does not provide “any
evidence demonstrating that the transfer prices that Koyo reported
as entered values are unreliable.” Id. Finally, Commerce argues
that the record indicates that Koyo’s transfer prices were
maintained within the ordinary course of business and for purposes
besides antidumping proceedings (i.e., for United States tax
purposes and United States Customs’ reviews). See id.
3. Timken’s Contentions
Timken agrees with Commerce’s resorting to its standard
methodology under § 1677a(d)(2) as an alternative reasonable method
and argues that Commerce has broad discretion as to when to use “any
other reasonable basis” under § 1677a(e). See Timken’s Resp. at 47-
50. Moreover, Timken maintains that “[n]o court (much less Koyo)
may substitute its judgment for that of the Commerce Department
(absent action contrary to the statute)[.]” Id. at 48. Timken,
however, disagrees with Commerce’s application of the adverse facts
available margin to Koyo’s entered value and argues that Commerce
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 127
should have applied its facts available rate to Koyo’s sales value
rather than Koyo’s entered value. See Timken’s Mem. Supp. Rule 56.2
Mot. J. Agency R. (“Timken’s Mem.”) at 22-28. Timken contends that
Commerce’s application of the adverse facts available margin to
Koyo’s entered value was unlawful because: (1) transfer prices are
not reliable, see id.; (2) “the [facts available] scheme presumes
that the choice of ‘facts available’ will be not only adverse but
sufficiently adverse to accomplish the purpose of encouraging a
respondent’s full cooperation”; and (3) Commerce “rewarded Koyo’s
refusal to supply requested information by applying the [facts
available] rate to Koyo’s entered value, rather than to its sales
value, for further processed merchandise, which resulted in a lower
[facts available] margin for Koyo.” Timken’s Reply Resp. Brs. Def.,
NTN, Koyo, and NSK. (“Timken Reply”) at 16, 18.
C. Analysis
The first issue is whether Commerce’s use of its standard
methodology pursuant to § 1677a(d)(2) constitutes another
“reasonable basis” under § 1677a(e). To determine whether
Commerce’s interpretation and application of the antidumping statute
is in accordance with law, the Court must undertake the two-step
analysis prescribed by Chevron, 467 U.S. 837. Under the first step,
the Court reviews Commerce’s construction of a statutory provision
to determine whether “Congress has directly spoken to the precise
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 128
question at issue.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842. “To ascertain
whether Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue,
[the Court] employ[s] the ‘traditional tools of statutory
construction.’” Timex V.I., Inc. v. United States, 157 F.3d 879,
882 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.9). “The
first and foremost ‘tool’ to be used is the statute’s text, giving
it its plain meaning. Because a statute’s text is Congress’s final
expression of its intent, if the text answers the question, that is
the end of the matter.” Id. (citation omitted).
The end clause of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e) clearly provides
Commerce with a great deal of discretion in adjusting CEP for the
cost of further manufacture and assembly. See § 1677a(e). Under
§ 1677a(e), when the value added to subject merchandise in the
United States is likely to substantially exceed the value of the
merchandise, Commerce must use specified surrogate prices if two
conditions are met. See id. The first condition in the preamble
of § 1677a(e) that there be “a sufficient quantity of sales to
provide a reasonable basis for comparison,” is not at issue here.
Id. The second condition in the preamble of § 1677a(e) requires
Commerce to “determine[] that the use of such sales is appropriate.”
Id. Thus, Commerce is not forced to use the surrogate prices if it
determines that their use is not “appropriate.” Id. According to
the end clause of § 1677a(e), Commerce is permitted to determine CEP
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 129
“on any other reasonable basis.” Id.
Commerce, therefore, may determine the method by which to
calculate CEP, when it finds that the use of the surrogate prices
is not appropriate. This holds true even if Commerce finds that the
value added in the United States “is likely to exceed substantially
the value of the subject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e). Thus,
even if Commerce finds that Koyo’s added value substantially exceeds
the value of the merchandise, Commerce still has the discretion to
refuse to apply the Special Rule.31
In the case at bar, Commerce determined that
the record does not lead [Commerce] to conclude that the
use of either of the two alternative methods described in
section [1677a(e)(1) and (2)] with respect to Koyo’s
further-manufactured merchandise is appropriate. The
record indicates that Koyo’s U.S. sales of further-
manufactured subject merchandise represented a large
portion of its total U.S. sales of subject merchandise
during the POR. Therefore, the use of either of the
proxy methods in this case--where the proportion of
further-manufactured sales is relatively high--would have
a relatively high potential for inaccuracy. In addition,
as noted in [Commerce’s] [P]reliminary [R]esults, the
finished merchandise sold by Koyo to the first unrelated
U.S. customer was still in the same class or kind as
merchandise within the scope of the TRB order and finding
(i.e., imported TRB components were processed into TRBs).
. . .
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2561.
31
In fact, neither Commerce nor Koyo dispute that the value
added to Koyo’s merchandise substantially exceeded the value of the
merchandise. See Koyo’s Mem. at 19 (citing Final Results, 63 Fed.
Reg. at 2561).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 130
The Court finds that Commerce acted within the discretion
afforded to it by § 1677a(e) in refusing to apply the Special Rule
to Koyo in this review. The Court will not require Commerce to use
the Special Rule when it finds the use of the Special Rule
inappropriate, since the imposition of such a requirement would be
contrary to § 1677a(e). Therefore, since Commerce found that
neither alternative under §§ 1677a(e)(1) nor (e)(2) were
appropriate, Commerce’s resort to its standard methodology under §
1677a(d)(2) as an alternative reasonable method is affirmed.32
Next, the Court must determine whether Commerce’s application
of the adverse facts available margin rate to Koyo’s entered value
in order to calculate the CEP of Koyo’s further-manufactured
merchandise was in accordance with law. The antidumping statute
mandates that Commerce use “facts otherwise available” if “necessary
information is not available on the record” of an antidumping
proceeding. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1). In addition, Commerce may use
facts available where an interested party or any other person: (1)
withholds information that has been requested by Commerce; (2) fails
32
Although Koyo proposes two alternative methodologies, the
Court’s “duty is not to weigh the wisdom of, or to resolve any
struggle between, competing views of the public interest, but
rather to respect legitimate policy choices made by the agency in
interpreting and applying the statute.” Suramerica de Aleaciones
Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 966 F.2d 660, 665 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 131
to provide the requested information by the requested date or in the
form and manner requested, subject to 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(1), (e)
(1994); (3) significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding; and (4)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided in 19
U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See id. § 1677e(a)(2)(A)-(D). Section 1677e(a)
provides, however, that the use of facts available shall be subject
to the limitations set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d).
Once Commerce determines that use of facts available is
warranted, § 1677e(b) permits Commerce to apply an “adverse
inference” if it can find that “an interested party has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with
a request for information.” Such an inference may permit Commerce
to rely on information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous review or any other information placed on
the record. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c) (1994). When Commerce relies
on information other than “information obtained in the course of the
investigation or review, [Commerce] shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
that are reasonably at [its] disposal.” Id.
In order to find that a party “has failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability” pursuant to § 1677e(b), it is not
sufficient for Commerce to merely assert this legal standard as its
conclusion or repeat its finding concerning the need for facts
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 132
available. See Ferro, 23 CIT at ___, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 1329 (“Once
Commerce has determined under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) that it may
resort to facts available, it must make additional findings prior
to applying 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) and drawing an adverse inference”).
Rather, Commerce must clearly articulate: (1) “why it concluded that
a party failed to comply to the best of its ability prior to
applying adverse facts,” and (2) “why the absence of this
information is of significance to the progress of [its]
investigation.” Ferro, 23 CIT at ___, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 1331.
The Court finds that Commerce’s decision to apply adverse facts
available was in accordance with law. When Commerce chose to use
its standard methodology under § 1677a(d)(2) to calculate the CEP
of Koyo’s further-manufactured merchandise, Commerce made extensive
requests that Koyo provide Commerce with responses to the particular
section of the questionnaire. Specifically, on April 10, 1997,
Commerce requested that Koyo provide a response to the particular
section of the questionnaire by May 1, 1997. See Koyo’s Mem. Ex.
3. On May 6, 1997, Koyo responded by letter to Commerce urging
Commerce to reconsider its position and proposed to Commerce an
alternative methodology. See Koyo’s Mem. Ex. 4. Commerce, on May
28, 1997, responded to Koyo stating that Koyo was required to submit
responses to the particular section by June 9, 1997. See Koyo’s
Mem. Ex. 5. On June 10, 1997, Koyo wrote to Commerce informing
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 133
[b]ecause Koyo has no confidence that it will receive
even-handed treatment from [Commerce] in the calculation
of the fair value of TRBs further-processed from imported
forgings, Koyo has chosen not to file a [particular]
response in this review.
Koyo’s Mem. Ex. 6 at 2 (emphasis supplied).
As a result of Koyo’s refusal to provide responses to the
particular section and, thereby, failing to act to the best of its
ability, Commerce selected as “adverse facts available . . . the
highest rate [Commerce] ever calculated for Koyo in any previous
review of the [TRBs at issue].” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at
2562. Consequently, Commerce’s decision to apply the adverse facts
available rate to Koyo’s entered value to calculate the CEP of
Koyo’s further-manufactured merchandise was in accordance with law.
The Court also finds that Timken’s argument that Commerce
should have applied the adverse facts available rate to Koyo’s sales
value is without merit. As Commerce correctly argues, “[i]n
choosing among the facts available, [Commerce is] not required by
the statute to select a method that is ‘the most’ or ‘more’
reasonably adverse.” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2562. Rather,
this Court affirms Commerce’s application of the adverse facts
available rate to Koyo’s entered value since Commerce’s methodology
was reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court sustains Commerce’s resort to its
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 134
standard methodology under § 1677a(d)(2) and its application of the
adverse facts available rate to Koyo’s entered value to determine
the CEP of Koyo’s further manufactured merchandise.
XV. Calculation of the Antidumping Duty Assessment Rate
A. Background
In the subject review, Commerce, following its usual
practice in ascertaining cash deposit rates and assessment rates,
stated that the “cash deposit rate has been determined on the basis
of the selling price to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. For
appraisement purposes, where information is available, [Commerce]
will use the entered value of the merchandise to determine the
assessment rate.” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2585.
Any of Commerce’s findings concerning assessment rates and cash
deposit rates are subject to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1)(B) (1994) which
provides that Commerce shall “review, and determine (in accordance
with [§ 1675(a)] (2)), the amount of any antidumping duty . . . .”
Section 1675(a)(2) further states that the dumping margin “shall be
the basis for the assessment of . . . antidumping duties on entries
of merchandise . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(C).
The dumping margin (equal to the amount of antidumping duty
owed) is the amount by which NV exceeds the EP or CEP on the subject
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 135
merchandise sold during the POR.33 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) (1994).
NV is the comparable price for a product like the imported
merchandise when first sold (generally, to unaffiliated parties)
“for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent
practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or
constructed export price.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i).
The export price means the “price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold . . . by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser,” while the constructed export price is the “price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold . . . in the United
States . . . [by] the producer or exporter . . . to a purchaser not
affiliated with the producer or exporter . . . .” 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(a),(b) (1994).
Cash deposit is a provisional remedy. When Commerce directs
Customs to suspend liquidation upon a preliminary determination of
dumping, the importer must make a cash deposit of estimated
antidumping duties with Customs or post a bond or other security.
33
Because Koyo had only CEP sales during the POR, Koyo’s
arguments address only the calculation of the assessment rate for
CEP sales. See Koyo’s Reply at 22 n.7. However, for the purpose
of our analysis, the outcome would be identical if Koyo had both EP
and CEP or only EP sales during the POR.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 136
See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii). Commerce orders the posting of
a cash deposit in an amount equal to the estimated average amount
by which the foreign market value exceeds the United States price,
that is, the dumping margin. 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(1)(B) (1994); see
also 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(b) (applying similar calculation for
Commerce’s final determination). Commerce then calculates the cash
deposit rate by dividing “‘the aggregate dumping margins by the
aggregated United States prices.’” National Steel Corp. v. United
States (“National Steel”), 20 CIT 743, 746, 929 F. Supp. 1577, 1581
(1996) (citation omitted); accord 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(B) (stating
that “‘weighted average dumping margin’ is the percentage determined
by dividing the aggregate dumping margins . . . by the aggregate
export prices . . . .”). Commerce interprets the term “United
States price” as the sale price after Commerce has made all
adjustments as provided for by law. See National Steel, 20 CIT at
746, 929 F. Supp. at 1581.
When an antidumping duty is imposed upon imported merchandise,
Commerce calculates an assessment rate for each importer by dividing
the dumping margin for the subject merchandise by the entered value
of such merchandise for normal Customs purposes. See 19 C.F.R. §
351.212(b).
In promulgating 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b), Commerce reasoned as
follows:
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 137
[Section] 351.212(b)(1) [deals] with the method that
[Commerce] will use to assess antidumping duties upon
completion of a review. . . . [Commerce] provided that
it normally will calculate an “assessment rate” for each
importer by dividing the absolute dumping margin found .
. . by the entered value . . . . [The regulation] merely
codified an assessment method that [Commerce] has come to
use more and more frequently in recent years.
Historically, [Commerce] (and, before it, the
Department of Treasury) used the so-called “master list”
(entry-by-entry) assessment method. Under the master
list method, [Commerce] would list the appropriate amount
of duties to assess for each entry of subject merchandise
separately in its instructions to the Customs Service.
However, in recent years, the master list method has
fallen into disuse for two principal reasons. First, in
most cases, respondents have not been able to link
specific entries to specific sales, particularly in CEP
situations in which there is a delay between the
importation of merchandise and its resale to an
unaffiliated customer. Absent an ability to link entries
to sales, [Commerce] cannot apply the master list method.
Second, even when respondents are able to link entries to
sales, there are practical difficulties in creating and
using a master list if the number of entries covered by
a review is large. Preparing a master list that covers
hundreds or thousands of entries is a time-consuming
process, and one that is prone to errors by [Commerce]
and/or Customs Service staff.
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 Fed. Reg. 27,296,
27,314 (May 19, 1997).
B. Contentions of the Parties
1. Koyo’s Contentions
Koyo asserts that Commerce unlawfully calculated the
antidumping duty assessment rate under 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)
because Commerce used the entered value for the subject merchandise
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 138
as the denominator in the formula. See Koyo’s Mem. at 30-32. Koyo
alleges that because 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(A),(C) requires that the
dumping margin be calculated as the difference between NV and CEP,
and since NV and CEP are both price-based concepts, the logic of the
statute necessitates that the denominator used in the formula must
also be a price-based concept, specifically, sales value. See id.
at 30. Koyo, therefore, concludes that Commerce’s use of entered
value instead of sales value as the denominator is either
unreasonable or in violation of the statutory language of 19 U.S.C.
§§ 1675(a)(1)(B) and 1675(a)(2). See id. at 30-31.
Furthermore, Koyo maintains that because Commerce always uses
sales value as the denominator for calculating cash deposit rates,
Commerce must apply the same calculation method to the assessment
rates. See Koyo’s Mem. at 30. Koyo argues that Commerce’s use of
different denominators for cash deposit rates and assessment rates
creates a distinction between the two that conflicts with the
mandate of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2). See Koyo’s Mem. at 30-31; Koyo’s
Reply at 25.
Koyo also notes that Commerce’s use of 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)
is unreasonable as applied because all of Koyo’s merchandise for the
POR was imported solely by Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. and,
therefore, Commerce’s purpose of using entered value as the
denominator in order to “allocate the dumping margin among different
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 139
importers that bring Koyo’s merchandise into the United States” has
no relevance to Koyo’s situation. Koyo’s Reply at 24 (citing Def.’s
Mem. at 112).
Although Koyo concedes that this Court upheld Commerce’s
methodology for calculating the assessment rates in Koyo, 16 CIT
539, 796 F. Supp. 1526, vacated in part on other grounds, Koyo 1992,
806 F. Supp. 1008, Koyo asserts that the issue was not finally
resolved by a determination by the CAFC. See Koyo’s Mem. at 30.
Finally, Koyo asserts that the exhaustion doctrine does not
preclude Koyo from raising its claim because the futility exception
applies. See Koyo’s Reply at 23. In particular, Koyo claims that
since Commerce has used the same methodology to calculate the
assessment rate in past reviews, “it simply would have been a waste
of time and effort--futile--for Koyo to raise this issue . . .
before [Commerce].” Id.
2. Commerce’s Contentions
In response, Commerce contends that the calculation of the
assessment rate, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b), by dividing the
dumping margin by the entered value of the subject merchandise was
reasonable and in accordance with law. See Def.’s Mem. at 110-13.
According to Commerce, the requirement of 19 U.S.C. §
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 140
1675(a)(2) that the amount by which NV exceeds CEP (or EP) “be the
basis for the assessment of . . . antidumping duties” is fully
satisfied by the methodology devised in 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)
because the first step of the calculation, the computation of the
dumping margin (the numerator) as the difference between NV and
Koyo’s CEP, supplies the statutorily-prescribed basis for the entire
formula set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b). Id. at 112 (citing
Koyo, 16 CIT 539, 796 F. Supp. 1526). Commerce further asserts that
“[t]he purpose of using entered value in the denominator [in the
formula for an assessment rate] is to allocate the dumping margin
among the importers of the merchandise produced by a respondent.”
Def.’s Mem. at 112.
Commerce also argues that this Court should not consider the
issue because Koyo failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.
See id. at 110-11. In particular, Commerce contends that Koyo was
aware of Commerce’s regulation concerning the filing of case briefs
which are to be submitted by interested parties after the
publication of the preliminary results and which must “contain all
the arguments that, in the [respondent’s] view, continue to be
relevant to the final results of administrative review . . . .” Id.
at 111 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2) (1998)). Since Koyo failed
to “raise any issue with respect to Commerce’s assessment
methodology in its October 16, 1997 case brief[,]” Commerce requests
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 141
that this Court find that Koyo failed to exhaust its administrative
remedies and uphold Commerce’s assessment rate calculations.
See Def.’s Mem. at 111.
3. Timken’s Contentions
Timken generally supports Commerce and contends that contrary
to Koyo, the “price-based nature of the calculation of dumping
margins provides no support for any position regarding assessment.”
Timken’s Resp. at 51. Moreover, Timken asserts that if Commerce
used sales value in the denominator as Koyo argues, rather than the
entered value for the subject merchandise, an under-collection of
antidumping duties would result. See id. at 50. Timken also points
out that, contrary to Koyo’s claim, there is binding precedent by
the CAFC upholding Commerce’s methodology for purposes of
calculating cash deposit rates and assessment rates. See id. at 51-
52 (citing Torrington v. United States, 44 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1995)).
C. Analysis
The exhaustion doctrine requires a party to present its claims
to the relevant administrative agency for the agency’s consideration
before raising these claims to the Court. See Unemployment
Compensation Comm’n of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 155, (1946)
(“A reviewing court usurps the agency’s function when it sets aside
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 142
the administrative determination upon a ground not theretofore
presented and deprives the [agency] of an opportunity to consider
the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for its
action”).34
34
There is however, no absolute requirement of exhaustion in
the Court of International Trade in non-classification cases. See
Alhambra Foundry Co. v. United States (“Alhambra”), 12 CIT 343,
346-47, 685 F. Supp. 1252, 1255-56 (1988). Section 2637(d) of
Title 28 directs that “the Court of International Trade shall,
where appropriate, require the exhaustion of administrative
remedies.” By its use of the phrase “where appropriate,” Congress
vested discretion in the Court to determine the circumstances under
which it shall require the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
See Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 133 F.3d 897, 905 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Therefore, because “each exercise of judicial discretion
[does] not require litigants to exhaust administrative remedies,”
the Court is authorized to determine proper exceptions to the
doctrine of exhaustion. Alhambra, 12 CIT at 347, 685 F. Supp. at
1256 (citing Timken Co. v. United States, 10 CIT 86, 93, 630 F.
Supp. 1327, 1334 (1986), rev’d in part on other grounds, Koyo Seiko
Co. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
In the past, the Court has exercised its discretion to obviate
exhaustion where: (1) requiring it would be futile, see Rhone
Poulenc, S.A. v. United States (“Poulenc”), 7 CIT 133, 135, 583 F.
Supp. 607, 610 (1984) (“it appears that it would have been futile
for plaintiffs to argue that the agency should not apply its own
regulation”), or would be “inequitable and an insistence of a
useless formality” as in the case where “there is no relief which
plaintiff may be granted at the administrative level,” United
States Cane Sugar Refiners’ Ass’n v. Block, 3 CIT 196, 201, 544 F.
Supp. 883, 887 (1982); (2) a subsequent court decision has
interpreted existing law after the administrative determination at
issue was published, and the new decision might have materially
affected the agency’s actions, see Timken, 10 CIT at 93, 630 F.
Supp. at 1334; (3) the question is one of law and does not require
further factual development and, therefore, the court does not
invade the province of the agency by considering the question, see
id.; R.R. Yardmasters of Am. v. Harris, 721 F.2d 1332, 1337-39
(D.C. Cir. 1983); and (4) plaintiffs had no reason to suspect that
the agency would refuse to adhere to clearly applicable precedent.
See Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 76, 80, 630 F.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 143
The purpose behind the doctrine of exhaustion is to prevent
courts from premature involvement in administrative proceedings, and
to protect agencies “from judicial interference until an
administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in
a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Labs. v.
Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, (1967); see also Public Citizen
Health Research Group v. Comm’r, FDA, 740 F.2d 21, 29 (D.C. Cir.
1984) (pointing out that the “exhaustion doctrine . . . serves four
primary purposes: [(1)] it ensures that persons do not flout
[legally] established administrative processes . . .; [(2)] it
protects the autonomy of agency decisionmaking; [(3)] it aids
judicial review by permitting factual development [of issues
relevant to the dispute]; and [(4)] it serves judicial economy by
avoiding [repetitious] administrative and judicial factfinding and
by” resolving sole claims without judicial intervention).
In this case, based on precedent, Koyo knew Commerce’s position
on this issue and deemed it futile for Koyo to raise this issue
below. The Court, therefore, concludes that Koyo properly exhausted
its administrative remedies and is correct to raise this issue to
the Court. See Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v.
United States, 916 F.2d 1571, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(stating that,
as a general rule, courts may “‘refuse to require administrative
Supp. 1317, 1321 (1986).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 144
exhaustion when resort to the administrative remedy would be futile
. . . .’” and (quoting Bendure v. United States, 554 F.2d 427, 431
(Ct. Cl. 1977)); see also Poulenc, 7 CIT at 135, 583 F. Supp. at
610; Techsnabexport, Ltd. v. United States, 16 CIT 420, 425, 795 F.
Supp. 428, 434-35 (1992).
Turning to the merits of this issue, in Koyo Seiko Co. v.
United States (“Koyo Seiko Co.”), 24 CIT __, 110 F. Supp. 2d 934
(2000), aff’d, 258 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001), this Court determined
and the CAFC affirmed that Commerce’s methodology for calculating
the assessment rate, that is, using the entered value of Koyo’s
imported merchandise in the assessment rate formula rather than
sales value, was reasonable and in accordance with law. See Koyo
Seiko Co., 24 CIT at __, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 943. The Court noted
that “neither [19 U.S.C. §§ 1675(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2)] nor its
legislative history provide[d] an ‘unambiguously expressed intent’
with regard to the” issue of whether Commerce could use entered
value rather than sales value in its calculation of the assessment
rate. Id. at 940.
Because Commerce’s methodology of calculating the assessment
rate and the parties’ arguments are practically identical to those
presented in Koyo Seiko Co., 24 CIT __, 110 F. Supp. 2d 934, the
Court adheres to its reasoning in Koyo Seiko Co. Therefore, the
Court affirms Commerce’s methodology of calculating the assessment
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 145
rate as reasonable and in accordance with law.
XVI. Commerce’s Treatment of Forgings as In-Scope Merchandise
Koyo argues that Commerce erred in treating Koyo’s imported
forged rings as in-scope merchandise subject to the TRB antidumping
duty order. See Koyo’s Mem. at 32. Koyo acknowledges that
Commerce’s 1995 scope determination treating Koyo’s imported forged
rings as in-scope merchandise subject to the TRB antidumping duty
order was upheld by the CAFC in Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 155
F.3d 574 (1998). See id. at 33. However, Koyo asserts, since Koyo
“submits that the determination is unsupported by substantial
evidence and otherwise contrary to law, and [Koyo] is continuing to
consider the avenues available for relief from that
determination[,]” the Court should remand the issue for Commerce to
recalculate the determination “after excluding Koyo’s sales of
merchandise further processed from the imported forged rings from
[Koyo’s] U.S. sales database.” Id.
Commerce responds that “Commerce’s scope ruling determination
[is in accordance with law and] Koyo’s rough forgings are within the
scope of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from Japan.” Def.’s
Mem. at 113-14 (citing Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States (“Koyo
1997”), 21 CIT 146, 955 F. Supp. 1532 (1997)), and Timken Co. v.
United States (“Timken 1997”), 21 CIT 889, 972 F. Supp. 702 (1997),
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 146
aff’d, Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 155 F.3d 574. Timken
generally agrees with Commerce. See Timken’s Resp. at 52.
Because Commerce’s scope ruling determination and the parties’
arguments are practically identical to those presented in Koyo 1997,
21 CIT 146, 955 F. Supp. 1532, and Timken 1997, 21 CIT 889, 972 F.
Supp. 702, the Court adheres to its reasoning in Koyo 1997 and
Timken 1997. Therefore, the Court sustains Commerce’s treatment of
Koyo’s forgings.35
XVII. Commerce’s Decision to Limit United States Indirect
Selling Expenses to Those Expenses Specifically Associated
With Commercial Activity in the United States
A. Background
The pre-URAA statute provided the reduction of exporter’s sales
price (“ESP”) by the amount of “expenses generally incurred by or
for the account of the exporter in the United States in selling
identical or substantially identical merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. §
1677a(e)(2)(1988). Although the statute was silent as to whether
indirect selling expenses incurred outside the United States should
be categorized as United States indirect selling expenses, Commerce
chose to adjust United States price for such expenses. See 19
35
Koyo states that it “is also challenging the method by which
[Commerce] calculated the margins on [merchandise further
manufactured] . . . .” Koyo’s Mem. at 32 n.17. This Court
affirmed Commerce’s methodology regarding Koyo’s further
manufactured merchandise. See supra Part XIV.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 147
C.F.R. § 353.41(e)(2)(1994); ITA ANTIDUMPING MANUAL , § 7, at 11 (rev.
ed. 1993).
As revised by the URAA, the statute states that CEP, the post-
URAA equivalent to ESP, is to be reduced by the amount of any
“expenses generally incurred by or for the account of the producer
or exporter, or the affiliated seller in the United States[:]”
including “any selling expenses not deducted under subparagraph (A)
[commissions], (B) [direct selling expenses], or (C) [selling
expenses assumed by the seller on behalf of the purchaser].” 19
U.S.C. § 1677a (d)(1) and (d)(1)(D). In the Final Results, Commerce
determined that
[a]s [Commerce] stated in [Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part of
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan, 62 Fed. Reg. 11,825, 11,834] and
AFBs VI at 2124, [Commerce] will deduct from CEP only
those expenses associated with economic activities in the
United States which occurred with respect to sales to the
unaffiliated U.S. customer. [Commerce] found no
information on the record for this review period to
indicate that the indirect selling expenses and ICC for
the respondents that were incurred in their respective
home markets were incurred on sales to the unaffiliated
customer in the United States.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. 2575.
Therefore, since NTN’s, NSK’s and Koyo’s “reported selling
expenses at issue were not associated with commercial activity in
the United States[,] [but] [r]ather, . . . were incurred prior to
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 148
the commercial activity in the United States[,] . . . [Commerce] did
not deduct these expenses from CEP for these final results.” Id.
B. Contentions of the Parties
Timken claims that the new 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1) statutory
language and the SAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 823, indicate that
Congress intended for Commerce to continue the practice of including
in United States indirect selling expenses the home market selling
expenses attributable to export sales. See Timken’s Mem. at 18-20.
Timken further argues that the “pre-URAA old law referred only to
expenses ‘incurred by or for the account of the exporter in the
United States,’ but the URAA broadened this language to include
adjustment for expenses ‘incurred by or for the account of the
producer or exporter, or the affiliated seller in the United
States.’” Timken’s Reply at 4; see also Timken’s Mem. at 19-20.
Therefore, Timken maintains that Congress by referring to expenses
incurred by “producers or exporters,” codified Commerce’s prior
practice under pre-URAA. See Timken’s Reply at 4. Accordingly,
Timken requests that the Court reexamine its decision in Timken Co.
v. United States (“Timken 1998"), 22 CIT 621, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1102
(1998), and remand this issue to Commerce so that it may adjust CEP
for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market on account
of United States sales (that is, export selling expenses reported
by Koyo, NTN and NSK).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 149
Relying on this Court’s decision in Timken 1998, Commerce
responds that it properly did not adjust CEP for indirect selling
expenses reported by Koyo, NTN and NSK because the new statutory
language (that is, 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)), does not define the
types of expenses to be included as United States indirect selling
expenses. See Def.’s Mem. at 114-18. Moreover, Commerce states
that “it is clear from the SAA that under the new statute Commerce
should deduct from CEP only those expenses associated with economic
activities in the United States.” Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at
2575.
Koyo, NTN and NSK generally agree with Commerce and argue that:
(1) “the SAA fully supports [Commerce’s] decision not to adjust CEP
to account for indirect selling expenses and ICC incurred in Japan,”
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2575; (2) the statutory language of
§ 1677a(d)(1) and the statutory construction makes it clear that no
adjustment should be made for indirect selling expenses incurred in
Japan; and (3) Commerce has a practice of limiting indirect selling
expenses to those specifically associated with commercial activity
in the United States. See NTN’s Resp. Mem. Timken’s Sept. 8, 1998
Mem. Supp. Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s Resp.”) at 2-5; NSK’s
Mem. Opp. Timken’s Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R. (“NSK’s Resp.”) at
5-8; Koyo’s Resp. at 13-16.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 150
C. Analysis
In Timken 1998, 22 CIT at 625-26, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 1106, and
Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States (“Micron 1999"), 23 CIT ___,
___, 40 F. Supp. 2d 481, 484-85 (1999), aff’d, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314,
this Court upheld Commerce’s practice of limiting United States
indirect selling expenses to those expenses incurred in the United
States. The Court noted that neither the pre-URAA statute nor the
newly-amended statute address whether United States indirect selling
expenses incurred outside the United States should be categorized
as United States indirect selling expenses. Timken 1998, 22 CIT at
625-26, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 1106; Micron 1999, 23 CIT at ___, 40 F.
Supp. 2d at 485.
Because Commerce’s practice of limiting United States indirect
selling expenses to those expenses incurred in the United States and
the parties’ arguments are practically identical to those presented
in Timken 1998 and Micron 1999, the Court adheres to its reasoning
in Timken 1998 and Micron 1999. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Commerce’s decision to limit United States indirect selling expenses
to those expenses incurred in the United States is supported by
substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 151
XVIII. NTN’s Exclusion of Warehousing Expenses for Non-Scope
Merchandise From United States Selling Expenses
A. Background
In the underlying review, NTN excluded certain warehousing
expenses attributable to non-scope merchandise from its reported
United States indirect selling expenses. See NTN’s Resp. at 5. In
particular,
because certain of its U.S. expenses were incurred solely
for non-scope merchandise, in order to ensure an accurate
allocation of its U.S. expenses, NTN first removed all
such expenses from its pool of U.S. expenses. The
remaining expenses which were incurred for either scope
or non-scope merchandise, but cannot be specifically
linked to either scope or non-scope merchandise by NTN,
were then allocated to scope and non-scope merchandise.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2572.
In accepting NTN’s methodology of reporting its United States
indirect selling expenses, Commerce: (1) verified NTN’s United
States expenses finding no discrepancies; and (2) stated that it has
found NTN’s methodology to be reasonable in past TRB and AFB cases.
Id. Commerce also explained how it eliminated the possibility of
distortion in NTN’s methodology when
Commerce calculated a ratio of sales of scope merchandise
to all sales. Commerce then adjusted NTN’s reported
final indirect selling expense by adding or subtracting
various expenses to arrive at a final indirect selling
expense. Next, Commerce multiplied that total expense by
the ratio of scope-to-total products.
Def.’s Mem. at 121 (citing Def.’s Ex. 1 at 18).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 152
B. Contentions of the Parties
Timken argues that Commerce improperly permitted NTN to exclude
certain warehousing expenses attributable to non-scope merchandise
from its reported United States indirect selling expenses.
See Timken’s Mem. at 21-22; Timken’s Reply at 5-8; Final Results,
63 Fed. Reg. at 2572. In particular, Timken asserts that “NTN’s
adjustment of its allocated pool of indirect U.S. selling expenses
was not reasonable and not supported by substantial evidence”
because NTN excluded the warehousing expenses attributable to the
non-scope merchandise for one of its subsidiaries and then allocated
the remaining expenses to all of NTN’s scope and non-scope United
States sales thereby creating distortion. Timken’s Reply at 5-6.
Timken also maintains that one of NTN’s subsidiaries’ “warehousing
expenses attributed to non-scope merchandise is disproportionate to
the amount of non-scope sales . . . .”36 Id. at 7.
Commerce responds that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d), “as amended by the
URAA, continues to be silent on the question of allocation methods.”
Def.’s Mem. at 119. Commerce maintains that it found no
discrepancies during its verification of NTN’s United States
expenses and eliminated the possibility of distortion in NTN’s
36
Commerce asserts that the “record does not show what non-
scope merchandise was stored in the warehouse at issue. . . .”
Therefore, the Court agrees with Commerce that it is “impossible to
say whether the storage charges are disproportionate to the sales
of the non-scope merchandise.” Def.’s Mem. at 121.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 153
methodology when Commerce: (1) calculated a pertinent ratio; (2)
“adjusted NTN’s reported final indirect selling expense”; and (3)
“multiplied that total expense by the ratio of scope-to-total
products.” Id. at 121.
Pointing out that NTN’s allocation methodology was reasonable,
Commerce asserts that the Court should uphold NTN’s reported
allocation for United States indirect selling expenses.
NTN supports Commerce’s conclusion. Replying to Timken’s claim
that “‘the basic premise underlying NTN’s allocation methodology for
its U.S. indirect selling expenses is that the sum of those expenses
may be evenly allocated to the sum of its sales[,]’” NTN contends
that Timken misunderstands the methodology at issue. NTN’s Resp.
at 5 (quoting Timken’s Mem. at 21). NTN asserts that it
“differentiates expenses on the basis of whether they were incurred
for merchandise within the scope of the case as the first step in
its allocation methodology.” NTN’s Resp. at 6. NTN maintains that
its “allocation methodology simply allocates expenses to the product
which incurred the expenses, this allocation methodology is not
distortive, and Commerce’s acceptance of it is reasonable and in
accordance with law.” Id.
C. Analysis
The Court upholds Commerce’s decision to allow NTN to exclude
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 154
warehousing expenses attributable to non-scope merchandise from its
United States selling expenses since it is in accordance with law.
The Court notes that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) is silent on the question
of allocation methods and thus grants Commerce considerable
discretion. Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g)(1998),
[Commerce] may consider allocated expenses and price
adjustments when transaction-specific reporting is not
feasible, provided [Commerce] is satisfied that the
allocation method used does not cause inaccuracies or
distortions.
In addition, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g)(4),
[Commerce] will not reject an allocation method solely
because the method includes expenses incurred, or price
adjustments made, with respect to sales of merchandise
that does not constitute subject merchandise or a foreign
like product (whichever is applicable).
Based on a careful examination of the record and on the
regulatory language of 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g) and (g)(4) that grants
Commerce considerable discretion in choosing allocation methods, the
Court sustains Commerce’s decision to accept NTN’s United States
selling expenses as reasonable, supported by substantial evidence
and in accordance with law. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S.
134, 139-40 (1944).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 155
XIX. Treatment of Certain Rebates and Billing Adjustments
A. Background
1. Koyo’s Home Market Support Rebates
Koyo reported certain home market support rebates on a
customer-specific basis and the allocations used by Koyo included
rebates on non-scope merchandise. See Koyo’s Resp. at 30-32. “Koyo
calculated rebate factors by dividing the total rebates paid to a
given customer by the total POR sales to that customer.” Final
Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2567. In accepting Koyo’s reporting of
home market support rebates on a customer-specific basis, Commerce
stated the following:
Based on information Koyo provided, [Commerce] [is]
satisfied that Koyo acted to the best of its ability in
reporting home market rebates. However, because Koyo’s
allocation methodology includes non-scope merchandise,
[Commerce has] nevertheless examined Koyo’s allocation to
determine if it is distortive. [Commerce’s] review of
the record indicates that the non-scope merchandise
included in Koyo’s allocation are sales of bearings other
than TRBs. . . . [Commerce’s] review and analysis of the
record give[s] [Commerce] no reason to believe that Koyo
is more likely to grant rebates on sales of bearings
other than TRBs than on sales of TRBs, [and Commerce]
note[s] that Koyo is primarily in the business of selling
bearings, some of which are within the scope of the TRB
orders and others which are not. While [Commerce]
recognize[s] that there are differences among bearings,
[Commerce has] not found that the scope and non-scope
bearings included in Koyo’s allocation vary significantly
in terms of value, physical characteristics, nor the
manner in which they were sold such that Koyo’s
allocation would result in an unreasonably inaccurate or
distortive allocation.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 156
See id.
2. Koyo’s Home Market Billing Adjustment Two
Koyo reported home market “billing adjustment two” on a
customer-specific basis and allocated these adjustments over scope
and non-scope merchandise. See Koyo’s Resp. at 23. “Koyo . . .
calculated its lump-sum billing adjustments by multiplying the total
adjustment amount paid to a customer by the ratio of its TRB sales
to that customer to the total sales to that customer.” Final
Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2565. In accepting Koyo’s methodology,
Commerce stated the following:
While [Commerce’s] preference is for transaction-specific
reporting, [Commerce] recognize[s] that this is not
always possible. It is inapporpriate to reject
allocations that are not unreasonably distortive where a
fully cooperating respondent is unable to report the
information in a more specific manner. . . .
Accordingly, [Commerce has] accepted these adjustments
when it was not feasible for a respondent to report these
adjustments on a more specific basis, provided that the
allocation method used does not cause unreasonable
inaccuracies or distortions. . . . [Commerce has] not
rejected an allocation method solely because the
allocation includes adjustments granted on non-scope
merchandise. However, such allocations are not
acceptable where [Commerce has] reason to believe that
respondents did not grant such adjustments in
proportionate amounts with respect to sales of out-of-
scope and in-scope merchandise. . . .
Based on [Commerce’s] examination of the record in
this and in past reviews, [Commerce is] satisfied that
Koyo’s records do not allow it to report these billing
adjustments on a transaction-specific basis and that Koyo
acted to the best of its ability in calculating the
reported adjustment on as narrow a basis as its records
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 157
allowed. Therefore, for these final results [Commerce
has] made a direct adjustment to NV for Koyo’s lump-sum
billing adjustments.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2566.
3. NSK’s Home Market Rebate
NSK reported lump-sum rebates to certain customers on a
customer-specific basis and “applied the amount directly to the
customer’s account receivable - the amount [was] not directly linked
to any specific shipment(s), part number(s), or group of part
numbers, but [was] just the lump-sum amount that result[ed] from the
parties’ negotiations.” NSK’s Resp. at 9. Such rebates were paid
on the basis of subject and non-subject merchandise. See Final
Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2566. In accepting NSK’s rebates, Commerce
stated that:
[Commerce has] accepted [NSK’s] claims for lump-sum
rebates because [Commerce is] satisfied that NSK’s
methodology, while it includes non-subject merchandise,
does not shift rebates from non-scope to scope
merchandise. In its response, NSK submitted information
demonstrating that the ratio of scope to non-scope
merchandise purchased by each customer who received this
rebate was relatively constant throughout the POR.
Furthermore,[Commerce has] determined based on
[Commerce’s] review of the record that NSK acted to the
best of its ability in reporting these price adjustments
and that reporting on a more specific basis was not
possible given the manner in which NSK maintains its
records.
Id. at 2566-67.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 158
B. Contentions of the Parties
Timken alleges that Commerce’s acceptance of Koyo’s home market
support rebates and home market billing adjustments, as well as
NSK’s lump sum rebates, are unlawful because such adjustments must
always be reported on a transaction-specific basis. See Timken’s
Mem. at 28-32, 34-36; Timken’s Reply at 9.
Timken contends that even under its new methodology, Commerce’s
determination was not supported by substantial evidence inasmuch as
respondents failed to show that: (1) their reporting methods did not
result in distortion; and (2) they put forth their best efforts to
report the information on a more precise basis. See Timken’s Mem.
at 29-32; 34-36. Timken argues that respondents have the burden of
showing non-distortion and best efforts, and having failed to carry
the burden, they must not benefit from the adjustment. See Timken’s
Reply at 9-11.
Commerce responds that its treatment of the adjustments is
consistent with current law. See Def.’s Mem. at 121-27. Even
though Koyo’s and NSK’s billing adjustments and rebates were not
reported in a transaction-specific manner, Commerce accepted them
as part of its new policy to accept allocated adjustments where it
is not feasible for the respondent to report them on a transaction-
specific basis and the respondent has acted to the best of its
ability. See id. at 123. Additionally, Commerce examines whether
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 159
the allocation method used is not unreasonably distortive pursuant
to 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e). See id.
Commerce argues that its findings are supported by substantial
evidence and in accordance with law because “Commerce used its
acquired knowledge of Koyo[’s] and NSK’s computer systems and
databases to conclude that they could not provide the information
in the preferred form.” Id. at 124 (citing Timken 1998).
“Moreover, . . . Commerce [states that it] scrutinized Koyo’s and
NSK’s data before concluding that the data were reliable and that
the adjustments on scope and non-scope merchandise did not result
in unreasonable distortions.” Id. at 124.
With respect to Koyo’s rebates and “billing adjustment two,”
Commerce maintains that: (1) Koyo had reported the adjustments on
the most specific basis possible and, thus, had cooperated to the
best of its ability; and (2) the allocation method was not
distortive. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2566-67.
Commerce also argues that it properly accepted NSK’s home
market rebates. See Def.’s Mem. at 126.
Koyo and NSK concur with Commerce’s position. See Koyo’s
Resp. at 22-32; NSK’s Resp. at 8-11.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 160
C. Analysis
Commerce’s decision to accept Koyo’s and NSK’s billing
adjustments and rebates was in accordance with the post-URAA
statutory language, as well as with the SAA that accompanied the
enactment of the URAA because: (1) Commerce reasonably determined
that the adjustments were reliable and could not be reported more
specifically; (2) Commerce properly determined that respondents
acted to the best of their abilities in reporting the adjustments;
and (3) Commerce properly accepted the allocation methodologies of
the respondents after carefully reviewing the differences between
such merchandise and ensuring that the allocations were not
unreasonably distortive. Accord Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at
2566-67; Def.’s Mem. at 122-27.
After the enactment of the URAA, Commerce reevaluated its
treatment of post-sale price adjustments (“PSPAs”), and since that
time it treats them as adjustments to price and not as selling
expenses. Indeed, Commerce’s treatment of the home market support
rebates, early-payment discounts and billing adjustments as
adjustments to price instead of selling expenses is the issue left
unanswered by the pre-URAA cases such as Torrington Co. v. United
States (“Torrington CAFC”), 82 F.3d 1039, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
Koyo CAFC, 36 F.3d 1565; and Consumer Prods. Div., SCM Corp. v.
Silver Reed Am., Inc., 753 F.2d 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Torrington
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 161
CAFC does not mandate that direct price adjustments may only be
accepted when they are reported on a transaction-specific basis.
Rather, Torrington CAFC merely overturned a prior Commerce practice
of treating certain allocated price adjustments as indirect selling
expenses and does not address the propriety of the allocation
methods that respondents used in reporting the price adjustments in
question. Although (1) “Commerce treated rebates and billing
adjustments as selling expenses in preceding reviews under pre-URAA
law,” and (2) “previously decided that such adjustments are selling
expenses and, therefore, should not be treated as adjustments to
price,” this did not “preclude Commerce’s change in policy or this
Court’s reconsideration of its stance in light of the newly-amended
antidumping statute [that is, 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)].” Timken 1998,
16 F. Supp. 2d at 1107. “Neither the pre-URAA nor the newly-amended
statutory language imposes standards establishing the circumstances
under which Commerce is to grant or deny adjustments to NV for
PSPAs.” Id. at 1108 (citing Torrington CAFC, 82 F.3d at 1048).
Moreover, 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e) “specifically directs that Commerce
shall not decline to consider an interested party’s submitted
information if that information is necessary to the determination
but does not meet all of Commerce’s established requirements, if the
[statute’s] criteria are met.” Timken 1998, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 1108.
Commerce applied its post-URAA methodology to analyze
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 162
adjustments to price, explaining that Commerce accepted PSPAs as
direct adjustments to price if Commerce determined that a
respondent, in reporting these adjustments, acted to the best of its
ability to associate the adjustment with the sale on which the
adjustment was made, rendering its reporting methodology not
unreasonably distortive. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2566.
In evaluating the degree to which an allocation over scope and non-
scope merchandise may be distortive, Commerce examines “the extent
to which the out-of-scope merchandise included in the allocation
pool is different from the in-scope merchandise in terms of value
and physical characteristics, and the manner in which it is sold.”
Id.
Timken argues that Commerce’s methodology is inadequate,
unlawful and not supported by substantial evidence. See Timken’s
Mem. at 29-32; 34-36. Timken is incorrect. Although the URAA does
not compel Commerce’s new policy on price adjustments, the statute
does not prohibit Commerce’s new practice. Commerce’s “change in
policy . . . substitutes a rigid rule with a more reasonable method
that nonetheless ensures that a respondent’s information is reliable
and verifiable.” Timken 1998, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 1108. Commerce's
decision to accept Koyo’s and NSK’s allocated adjustments to price
is acceptable, “especially . . . in light of the more lenient
statutory instructions of [19 U.S.C. § ] 1677m(e).” Id.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 163
Accordingly, “Commerce’s decision to accept the PSPAs . . . is
fully in accordance with the post-URAA statutory language and
directions of the SAA,” and the decision to accept Koyo’s and NSK’s
adjustments was reasonable even though the adjustments were not
reported on a transaction-specific basis and even though the
allocations included rebates on non-scope merchandise. Id.
Moreover, one of the goals of Congress in passing the URAA was
to liberalize certain reporting requirements imposed on respondents
in antidumping reviews. Such intent is evident both in the
amendments enacted by the URAA and in the SAA. The URAA amended the
antidumping law to include a new subsection, 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e).
The provision states that:
[i]n reaching a determination under [19 U.S.C.] section
1671b, 1671d, 1673b, 1673d, 1675, or 1675b[,] . . .
[Commerce] shall not decline to consider information that
is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to
the determination but does not meet all the applicable
requirements established by [Commerce], if—-
(1) the information is submitted by the deadline
established for its submission,
(2) the information can be verified,
(3) the information is not so incomplete that it
cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination,
(4) the interested party has demonstrated that
it acted to the best of its ability in providing
the information and meeting the requirements established
by [Commerce] with respect to the information, and
(5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e).
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 164
This section of the statute liberalized Commerce’s general
acceptance of data submitted by respondents in antidumping
proceedings by directing Commerce not to reject data submissions
once Commerce concludes that the specified criteria are satisfied.37
Next, Timken suggests that Commerce has accepted the
adjustments without requiring respondents to carry the burden of
proving that the adjustments are non-distortive. See Timken’s Reply
at 9-11. This argument is similarly without merit. As a routine
part of its antidumping practice, Commerce accepts a range of
reporting methodologies and allocations adopted by respondents. The
mere acceptance of an adjustment as reported cannot be a sufficient
ground for rejecting Commerce’s decision. It would be anomalous
indeed to expect a respondent to provide Commerce, in addition to
the information on the basis of which Commerce could conclude that
the respondent’s reporting methods are not distortive, with proof
of the validity of Commerce’s determination of that sort. Such a
scheme would effectively allow the respondent to bind Commerce,
37
Consistent with § 1677m(e), the SAA states that the new
provision “does not intend to change Commerce's current practice,
sustained by the courts, of allowing companies to allocate these
expenses when transaction-specific reporting is not feasible,
provided that the allocation method used does not cause
inaccuracies or distortions.” H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 823-24.
Therefore, the statute and the accompanying SAA both support
Commerce's use of allocations in circumstances such as those
present here.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 165
restricting Commerce’s inherent power to investigate, examine and
render a decision.
In determining whether Koyo’s and NSK’s allocation over scope
and non-scope merchandise was unreasonably distortive, Commerce
reasonably has not required respondents to demonstrate the non-
distortive nature of the allocation directly, for example, by
compelling them to identify separately the adjustments on scope
merchandise and compare them to the results of allocations over both
scope and non-scope merchandise. Such a burdensome exercise would
defeat the entire purpose underlying the more flexible reporting
rules, by compelling the respondent to go through the enormous
effort that the new rules were intended to obviate. Rather,
Commerce has adopted criteria by which Commerce determines whether
an allocation over scope and non-scope merchandise was likely to
cause unreasonable distortions on a case-by-case basis, utilizing
Commerce’s administratory expertise.
In the case at hand, Commerce’s determination with respect to
Koyo’s rebates and “billing adjustment two” was reasonable.
Commerce premised its conclusion on Koyo’s response to Commerce’s
supplemental questionnaire in which “Koyo stated that more specific
reporting for a certain customer who received rebates was not
possible because its records did not allow it to isolate sales of
those bearings for which rebates were granted.” Final Results, 63
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 166
Fed. Reg. at 2567. Commerce also found that transaction-specific
reporting was not feasible for “billing adjustment two” based on the
record in this POR and past reviews. See id. at 2566. For both
adjustments, Commerce found that the allocation methodologies used
were not distortive, and that Koyo acted to the best of its ability
in reporting the information inasmuch as more specific reporting was
not feasible. See id.
Commerce also properly accepted NSK’s lump-sum home market
rebates. NSK’s home market rebates were granted on a customer-
specific basis, and “while it includes non-subject merchandise,
[NSK] does not shift rebates from non-scope to scope merchandise.”
See id. at 2566. Commerce also found that the method was not
unreasonably distortive and that NSK acted to the best of its
ability. See id. at 2566-67.
Timken asserts that Commerce improperly determined that Koyo
and NSK acted to the best of their ability in reporting adjustments.
See Timken Mem. at 31-32, 36. Timken’s assertion is without merit.
When respondents’ adjustments were granted over both scope and non-
scope merchandise without reference to any particular model or
transaction, Commerce could not have reasonably expected them to be
recorded or reported to Commerce in a manner more specific than that
which was used. It was equally appropriate for Commerce to
consider, as a part of its decision whether respondents acted to the
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 167
best of their ability in reporting the adjustments, its acquired
knowledge of Koyo’s and NSK’s computer systems and databases to
conclude that they could not provide the information in the
preferred form. See Def.’s Mem. at 124.38
In sum, the Court finds that Commerce’s decision to accept
Koyo’s and NSK’s reported home market adjustments was in accordance
with the post-URAA statutory language and the SAA. The record
demonstrates that the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e) were
38
The Court finds that Commerce reasonably determined that
Koyo and NSK acted to the best of their ability in reporting
billing adjustments and rebates. First, with regards to Koyo’s
“billing adjustment two,” some of Koyo’s adjustments reported in
“billing adjustment two”
were “true lump-sum adjustments,” granted over both scope
and non-scope merchandise[] . . . without reference to
any particular model or transaction. . . . The other
type of adjustment included in billing adjustment 2 is an
adjustment that may have been granted on a model-specific
basis, but was recorded in Koyo’s computer database as a
customer-specific amount without reference to specific
models or transactions. To identify the models or
transaction to which these adjustments applied, Koyo
would have had to review manually thousands of paper
receipts regarding individual original transactions in
the hopes of finding explanatory notes by the salesmen.
Koyo’s Resp. at 29.
Second, with regards to Koyo’s rebates, “the record does not
show that Koyo could alter its computer program to identify the
sales on which the rebates were paid.” Id. at 31. Finally, with
regards to NSK’s lump-sum rebates, “NSK’s lump-sum PSPAs did not
relate to specific part numbers, but, . . . constituted a single
lump sum applied to a customer’s account receivable.” NSK’s Resp.
at 11.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 168
satisfied by the respondents in that: (1) the reported adjustments
were submitted in a timely fashion, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(1);
(2) the information submitted can be verified by Commerce, see 19
U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(2); (3) the respondents’ information was not so
incomplete that it could not serve as a basis for reaching a
determination, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(3); (4) respondents
demonstrated that they acted to the best of their abilities in
providing the information and meeting Commerce’s new reporting
requirements, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(4); and (5) there was no
indication that the information was incapable of being used without
undue difficulties. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(5).
Commerce’s determinations with respect to Koyo and NSK were
also consistent with the SAA. The Court agrees with Commerce’s
finding in the Final Results that given Koyo’s and NSK’s computer
systems and databases and time constraints imposed by the statute,
the reporting and allocation methodologies were reasonable. This
is consistent with the SAA directive under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e),
which provides that Commerce “may take into account the
circumstances of the party, including (but not limited to) the
party’s size, its accounting systems, and computer capabilities.”
H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 865. Thus, the Court holds that Commerce
properly considered the ability of Koyo and NSK to report their
billing adjustments and rebates on a more specific basis.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 169
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Commerce’s acceptance of
Koyo’s and NSK’s reported adjustments was in accordance with law.
XX. Commerce’s Acceptance of Home Market Average Short-Term
Interest Rate
Timken contends that Commerce’s acceptance of Koyo’s home
market average short-term interest rate is not supported by
substantial evidence because there are two loan entries whose
“interest amounts . . . are aberrational and unsupported by the
record . . . [since the two loan entries] do not list certain
relevant information regarding the terms and details of these loans
for which the reported interest was incurred.”39 Final Results, 63
Fed. Reg. at 2569. In particular, Timken argues that “Koyo has
calculated the home market interest rate which it has used for
various adjustments by dividing the amount of interest it paid by
the principal amount it has borrowed” and about half of the total
interest used in Koyo’s calculation was composed of two loan entries
that were a different type of loan arrangement than the other loan
entries. Timken’s Mem. at 32-33. Timken maintains that Commerce’s
verification of selected Koyo interest expenses should not serve as
39
Commerce points out that Timken’s argument is misleading
because on one of the pages “of its brief, Timken argues that the
aberrations are in the hundreds . . . [while] it is clear from
Timken’s own calculations on [another page] of its brief that the
alleged aberrations are one-hundreth of the amounts alleged.”
Def.’s Mem. at 127-28.
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 170
“a basis for finding that all of Koyo’s interest expenses were
accurate.” Timken’s Reply at 12-13. Accordingly, Timken asserts
that it is unreasonable for Commerce to verify one loan category and
deduce from this that the other loan arrangement’s interest and loan
amounts are accurate, that is, “Commerce is effectively claiming
that verification of ‘apples’ . . . suffices to find that ‘oranges’
. . . are accurate.” Id. at 13. Timken, therefore, requests that
this Court reverse Commerce’s acceptance of Koyo’s home market
interest rate and remand with instructions that Commerce recalculate
Koyo’s interest rate excluding the interest amounts of the two loan
entries at issue.
Commerce, in turn argues that it properly accepted Koyo’s
reported home market average short-term interest rate in its
calculation of NV because
[d]uring verification [Commerce] carefully reviewed the
manner in which Koyo calculated its short-term interest
rate and its credit expense ratios. After reviewing
supporting documentation for each of several loans
[Commerce] selected from Koyo’s credit calculation
worksheets, [Commerce was] . . . satisfied that Koyo had
accurately reported its credit expense.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2569; Def.’s Mem. at 127.
In regards to the two interest amounts that are at issue,
Commerce maintains that
[Commerce is] generally satisfied with Koyo’s explanation
of and the reliability of those interest amounts which
Timken claims should be removed from the interest rate
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 171
calculation and can find no evidence on the record that
indicates these interest amounts should be excluded from
the calculation of credit; accordingly, [Commerce has]
not done so for these final results.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2569.
Commerce also argues that although the two entries were not
among the data selected for verification, a verification is intended
to serve as a spot check and not an exhaustive review of a response.
See Def.’s Mem. at 128 (citing Bomont Indus. v. United States, 14
CIT 208, 209, 733 F. Supp. 1507, 1508 (1990)). Since the two
entries at issue were interest payments incurred during a normal
business arrangement and not payments on a specific loan and
“Commerce had no basis upon which to challenge Koyo’s explanation
[regarding the two entries at issue],” Commerce asserts that
Commerce’s acceptance of Koyo’s home market credit expense
calculation was in accordance with law. Def.’s Mem. at 128-29.
Koyo generally agrees with Commerce, emphasizing that
Timken’s assertions are misplaced because they are based
on a misunderstanding of the credit verification exhibit.
Koyo argues that the interest amounts Timken identified
as aberrational do not constitute payments on specific
loans, but rather reflected interest paid by Koyo Seiko
under some other arrangement.
Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2569; see Koyo’s Resp. at 33-35.
Koyo maintains that “Timken points to nothing in the record to
suggest that Koyo did not in fact incur or pay these costs[;]
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 172
[g]iven that Koyo had to pay those amounts to the bank during the
period of review, it legitimately included them in its interest
calculation as part of the cost of borrowing money.” Koyo’s Resp.
at 34. Relying on Micron Tech., 117 F.3d at 1396, Koyo asserts the
fact that Commerce did not verify the two entries at issue does not
mean that the home market credit calculation is not accurate. See
id. at 35.
The Court disagrees with Timken that Commerce’s acceptance of
Koyo’s home market average short-term interest rate is not in
accordance with law. Timken fails to acknowledge the appropriate
level of deference owed to Commerce’s verifications. A
“‘[v]erification is a spot check and is not intended to be an
exhaustive examination of the respondent’s business. [Commerce] has
considerable latitude in picking and choosing which items it will
examine in detail.’” PMC, 20 CIT at 1134 (quoting Monsanto, 12 CIT
at 944, 698 F. Supp. at 281). In fact, “Commerce enjoys ‘wide
latitude’ in its verification procedures.” Pohang, 1999 Ct. Intl.
Trade LEXIS 105, *1, Slip Op. 99-112; see also American Alloys, 30
F.3d at 1475; Carlisle, 9 CIT at 532, 622 F. Supp. at 1082 (“It is
within the discretion of Commerce to determine how to verify” and
“due deference will be given to the expertise of the agency.” The
Court defers to the agency’s sensibility as to the depth of the
inquiry needed. In the absence of evidence in the record suggesting
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 173
the need to examine further the supporting evidence itself, the
agency may accept the credibility of the document at face value.
See Pohang, 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 105, Slip Op. 99-112. “To
conclude otherwise would leave every verification effort vulnerable
to successive subsequent attacks, no matter how credible the
evidence and no matter how burdensome on the agency further inquiry
would be.” Id. at *54 n.32, Slip Op. 99-112, (relying on PPG Indus.,
Inc. v. United States, 15 CIT 615, 620, 781 F. Supp. 781, 787
(1991)); see also Micron Tech., 117 F.3d at 1396 (“declin[ing] to
impose a requirement on Commerce to trace every figure it chooses
to verify back to financial statements prepared in the ordinary
course of business”). Timken may not usurp Commerce’s role as fact
finder and substitute Timken’s analysis of the data for the result
reached by Commerce in the verification report. The Court will not
supersede Commerce’s conclusions so long as it applies a reasonable
standard to verify material submitted and the verification is
supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept.
Commerce’s verification of the data underlying Koyo’s home
market interest rate falls within Commerce’s discretion. In this
review, Commerce conducted the verification and concluded that
Commerce was satisfied with Koyo’s reported home market interest
rate. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 2569. Since Commerce
Consol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 174
properly acted within its discretion when verifying Koyo’s reported
home market interest rate, the Court concludes that Commerce’s
acceptance of Koyo’s home market interest rate was in accordance
with law.
CONCLUSION
This case is remanded to Commerce to: (1) annul all findings
and conclusions made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry
conducted for the subject review in accordance with this opinion;
and (2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by
consideration from NTN’s United States sales database and to adjust
the dumping margins accordingly. All other issues are affirmed.
______________________________
NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
SENIOR JUDGE
Dated: January 24, 2002
New York, New York