Slip Op. 12- UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

NTN BEARING C ORP ORATION OF AMERICA, N TN CORP ORATION, NTN BOWER CORPORA TION, AMERICAN NTN BEARING MANU F ACTURING

CORP ., NTN-BCA CORP ORATION, and NTN DRIVESHAF T, INC.,

Plaintiffs, and JTEKT CORP ORATION, and KOYO CORP ORATION OF U .S.A.,

Plaintiff-Interve nors,

v. UNITED STAT ES, Def endant, and THE T IMK

EN COMP ANY, Def endant- I nterve nor. Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 10- 00286

OP INION AND ORDER [Granting motion for sta

y of proc eeding s pending appea l in Union Steel v. U nited States , CAFC Court No. 2012-1248] Dated: June 4, 2012 Kevin M. O’

Brien and Christ ine M. Streatfeild , Ba ker & McKe nzie, L L P, of Washington, DC, and Diane A. Mac

Donald , Ba

ker & McKe nzie, L L P, of Chicag o, I L , for plaintiffs. Neil R. Ellis and Jill Caiazz o , Sidley Austin, L L P, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff-interve nors.Court No. 10- 00286 P age 2

L. Misha Preheim , Trial Attorne y , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, U.S. Depa rtment of Just ice, of

Washington, DC, for de fenda nt. Wi th him on the briefs we re Stuart F. Delery , ActingAssistant Attorney Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor and Claudia Burke , Assistant Director . Of c ounsel on the brief s was Deborah R. King , Offic e of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of Commerce. Gee rt M. De Pre

st , TerenceP. Stewart , Lane S. Hurewitz and W illiam A. Fennell , Stewart and Stewar

t, of Washington, DC, for defe ndant-interve nor. Stanceu, Judge : Plainti ffs NTNCorporation, NTN B ear ing Corpor ation of Amer ica, NTN-B ower

Corporation, Amer ican NTN B ear ing Ma nufac turingCorporation, NTN- BCA Corporation, and N TN Drive shaft, Inc. (c ollectively , “NTN ” or “ plaintiffs”) c ontest an antidumping de termination of the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ( “Commerce ” or the “De partment” ). Specific ally , they challeng e ce rtain aspe cts of the final de termination that Commerce issued to conclude the twentieth administrative re view of antidumping duty

order s cover ing ba ll bearing s and par ts thereof from F ranc e, Ge rmany , I taly , J apan, a nd the United King dom. Ball Bearings and Parts T hereof From Franc e, Ge rmany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: F inal Results of Anti dumping Duty Admin. Re views, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Re view, and Rev ocation of an Order in Part , 75 Fe d. Reg . 53,661 (Sept. 1, 2010). Joi ned by plaintiff-interve nors J TEKT Corpora tion and Koy o Corporation of U.S.A. ( collectively , “JTEKT” or “ plaintiff-interve nors”) , plaintiffs 1 challeng e, inter alia , Commerce’ s use of “ zeroing ” to calculate the dumping marg in for U.S. 2

On Octobe r 12, 2010, the c ourt g rante d the conse nt motion of J TEKT Corporation and 1 Koy o Corporation of U.S.A. ( collectively , “JTEKT”) to interve ne in this action as a matter of rig ht. Order

(Oc t. 12, 2010), ECF No. 34. As define d by

the Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit in JTEKT C orp. v. United 2 States , 642 F.3d 1378 ( Fe d. Cir. 2011) and in a pr evious dec ision, Dongbu Steel Co. Ltd. v. United States , 635 F.3d 1363 ( Fe d. Cir. 2011), “zeroingis the prac tice whe reby the values of positive dumping marg ins are use d in calculating the ove rall marg in, but neg ative dumping marg ins are inc luded in the sum of marg ins as zeroes.” JTEKT Corp. , 642 F.3d. at 1383-85 (citing Dongbu , 635 F.3d at 1366).Court No. 10- 00286 P age 3

sales of the subject merc handise fr om J apan. Pls.’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-26 ( Fe b. 1, 2011), ECF No. 66. Citi ng deter minations of the World Trade O rg anization (“WTO”), pla intiffs claim 3 that “the De partment’s [zeroing ] m ethodolog y fails to comply

with U.S. law and U.S. obligations under inter

national law.” Id

. Be fore the cour

t is the moti on of plaintiffs and pla intiff-interve nors to stay this case pendingthe final disposition of Union Steel v. U nited States , 36 CI T __, Slip Op. 12-24 (F eb. 27, 2012) ( “ Union Steel ”). Pls.’ & Pl.-I nterve nors’ Partial Consent Mot. for Stay of Procee dings PendingAppea l in Union Steel v. U nited States (Apr. 17, 2012) , ECF No. 81 (“Pls.’ & Pl.-I nterve nors’ Partial Consent Mot.”). Union Steel involves the question of the leg ality of the De partment’s zeroingmethodology as applied to a

n administrative re view of a n antidumping duty

order

. Union Steel , 36 CI T __, __, Slip Op. 12-24, at 2. The judg ment the Court of International Trade enter ed in that ca se is now on appe al bef ore the United States Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (“Court of Appe als”). Def endant- intervenor

the Timken 4 Company (“Timken” ) conse nts to the moti on. Pls.’ & Pl.-Interve nors’ Partial Consent Mot. 6. Def endant United States oppose s the proposed stay . Def .’s Opp’n to Pls.’ & Pl.-I nterve nors’ Mot. for Stay

of Proce eding s Pending A ppeal in Union Steel v. U nited States (May

1, 2012), ECF No. 83 ( “De f.’s Opp’ n”).

Plaintiffs bring two othe r cla ims in t his action. They contest the a

pplication in the 3 revie w of a

U.S. Depar

tment of Commerce policy of issuing duty

assessment and liquidation instructions to U.S. C ustoms and Borde r Protection (“ Customs ” or “ CBP”) f ifteen da y s after the publication of the fina l results of the administrative r eviews. Pls.’ Am. Compl. (Fe b. 1, 2011), ECF No. 66 ¶

¶ 27-32. Joined by

plaintiff-interve nors, they also seek c orre ction of what they claim is a ministerial err or af fec ting the c alculation of the ir cre dit ex penses. Id . ¶¶ 33- 35. The United States f

iled a Notice of Appe al of the judg ment in Union Steel on 4 Marc h 6, 2011. ECF No. 79 ( Consol C t. No. 11-00083). The appea l has bee n dockete d as Union Steel v. U nited States , CAFC Court No. 2012-1248.Court No. 10- 00286 P age 4

For the re asons discussed he rein, the c ourt will gr ant the motion for a sta y . In summary , the pendinglitigation in the Court of Appe als is likely to affe ct the disposition of plaintiffs’ claim challeng ing the Depa

rtment’s zeroingprac tice. Althoug h the ca se at ba r conc erns a

differ ent antidumping duty

order and administrative r eview tha n are involved in Union Steel , both case s raise the same g ener al issue, i.e. , whether the Depa rtment’s application of the zeroing methodology

in an administrative re view of a n antidumping duty

order is permissible under the antidumping law . A stay , there fore , will serve the inter est of judicial ec onomy and conse rve the

resour ces of

the par ties. Moreove r, def

endant ha s failed to show, or e ven alleg e, that the proposed stay

would cause it harm. “[T] he powe r to stay

proce eding s is incidental to the power inhere nt in every

court to control the disposition of the cause s on its docket with economy of time and e ffor

t for itself, for counsel, a nd for litiga

nts.” Landis v. Nort h American Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The decision whe n and how to stay a proc eedingrests “w ithin the sound discretion of the trial c ourt.” CherokeeNation of

Okla. v. U

nited States , 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 ( Fe d. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Although a cknowledg ing that orderinga stay is a matter f

or the c ourt’s exercise of discretion, De f.’s Opp’ n 2, defe ndant ra ises three arguments in opposing the motion for a stay

. Def endant a rgues, first, that the movants fa il to “satisf[y ] t heir burde n to show that they will suffer c lear

hardship by

proce edingwith the litigation.” Id

. . Acc ording to defe ndant, “NTN and JTEKT shift the leg al standar d by sug g esting that a stay

would not harm the de fenda nt or defe ndant interve nor”; de fenda nt submit s that, instead, it is the movants who must show “they will suffer ha

rdship–economic ha

rm, leg al pre

judice or ine quity

–by proce edingwith liti g ation.” Id . at 3. B ut it is defe ndant who misconstrues the sta ndard. A lthough a

party moving f or a stay “must make out a c lear

case of har dship or inequity in being require d to go f

orwa rd, if ther e isCourt No. 10- 00286 P age 5

even a fair possibility

that the stay

for whic h he pra

y s will work damag e to some one e lse,” Landis , 299 U.S. at 255, the cour t fails to see what harm would ac crue to defe ndant should the stay be orde red. In opposing the motion, defenda nt fails to identify

any such har m. SeeDef

.’s Opp’n 3-4. A s defe ndant-interve nor has c onsented to the motion, Pls.’ & Pl.-Interve nors’ Partial Consent Mot. 6, the court see s no prospec t that any party will be harme d by

the proposed sta

y . Second, def

endant a rgues that “the pendingissues in this case do not match a nd will not be re solved by

the litigation in Union Steel” bec ause “ the pendingissue that is releva nt to z eroing is whether N TN and JTEKT exhausted their administrative re medies bef ore the ag ency .” De f.’s Opp’n 4. The rec ord re veals that NTNraised a n issue perta ining to zeroingin its case brie f befor e the De partment. Case Br ief of N TN: J apan- specific Seg ment 5, A-588-804, at 5 (Jun. 1, 2007) (Admin R. Doc. No. 492). It also reve als that J TEKT did not file an administrative ca se brief

. As to NTN’s oblig ation to exhaust admini strative re medies, def endant argues that NTN, in c halleng ing zer oing be low, did not raise the statutory construction issue now befor e the Court of A

ppeals, whic h defe ndant cha rac terizes as “whether

Commerce ma

y interpre t 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) to allow the use of zeroing in the underly

ing a dminist rative r eview involving ave rag e-to-tr ansac tion comparisons while Commerce is not using zeroingin orig inal investigations invol ving a n aver ag e-to-a

vera g e compa

rison methodology .” De f.’s Opp’ n to Pls .’ and Pl.-Interve nors’ Mots. for J. on the Ag ency R. 2 (Mar. 16, 2012) , ECF No. 76. The Court of International Trade “shall, whe re a ppropriate , require the exhaustion of administrative re medies.” 28 U .S.C. § 2637(d) (2006). The Court of International Trade has discretion with re spect to whe ther to re quire e x haustion. See Corus Staal BV v. United States , 502 F.3d 1370, 1381 ( Fe d. Cir.2007) (stating that “apply ing e x haustion principles in trade case s is subject to the discretion of the judge of the Court of International Trade ”). The exhaustionCourt No. 10- 00286 P age 6

require ment has seve ral re cog nized ex ceptions. See Gerbe r Food ( Y unnan) Co. v. United States , 33 CI T ___, ___, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1377 (2009) (indicatingsituations where w aiver of the exhaustion requirement ha s been r ecognized as appropr iate). The court doe s not consider it a prudent use of

the par ties’ re source s and its own resour ces to de cide, a t this t ime, the exhaustion issues raised by

defe ndant. I t is possi ble that the outcome of the Union Steel

litigation will make it unnecessa

ry to rea ch those issues. The ref ore, the court doe s not consider the e x haustion issues prese nted by

this case to be a

sufficie nt gr ound upon which to deny the pendingmotion for a stay

. Finally , defe ndant ar g ues that a stay is inappropriate beca

use this case involves claims other than those pe rtaining to the Depa rtment’s use of

the zeroingmethodology . Def .’s Opp’n 5. Def endant, howe ver, f

ails to identify

any harm that will result to it from a de lay in the court’s adjudication of those othe r cla ims. I n conclusion, the stay

soug ht by

plaintiffs and plaintiff- intervenor s will serve the interests of judicial e conomy and conse rvation of the pa rties’ re source s. No showing of har m resulting from the pr oposed stay has bee n made. The court, ther efor e, will g rant the pe nding motion. ORDER Upon consider ation of the Partial Consent Motion for Stay of Proce eding s Pending Appea l in Union Steel v. U nited States (“Motion for Stay”), a s filed April 17, 2012 by NTN Corporation, NTN B ear ing Corpor ation of Amer ica, NTN-B ower Corporation, Amer ican NTN Be aringManufa cturingCorporation, NTN- BCA Corpor ation, and NTNDrivesha ft, Inc. (collec tively , “NTN ”) a

nd J TEKT Corporation and Koy o Corporation of U.S.A. ( collectively , “JTEKT”), the motion in opposition fil ed by the United States, the c onsent of defe ndant-interve nor, and a ll other pape rs and pr ocee dings he rein, a nd upon due deliber ation, it is herebyCourt No. 10- 00286 P age 7

ORDERED that the Motion for Stay be, and he reby

is, GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case be , and her eby is, stay ed until 30 day s after the final re solution of all appe llate re view proc eeding s in Union Steel v. U nited States , CAFC Court No. 2012-1248. /s/ Timot hy

C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J udg e Dated: June 4, 2012 New Y ork, Ne w York