S KF US A I NC. , S KF FRANCE S .A. , S KF

AE RO S PACE FRAN CE S .A. S ., S KF Gm bH, an d SKF INDUSTRIE S.p .A. ,

Pla int if fs , v . UN ITED STA TES , De fe nd ant,

and THE T IMK

EN COMP ANY , Def endant- Interve nor.

Slip Op. 09-148 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 08- 00322

OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [R emandingin part, and a ffirmingin part, the fina l results of administrative re views of antidumping duty

order s and holdingunlawful the policy , rule, or pr actice of the United States Depa rtment of Commerce to issue liquidation i nstructions fiftee n day s after the publication of the final re sults of an administrative re view] Dated: De cembe r 21, 2009 Ste pto e &J oh ns on LLP

( Herbe rt C. Shelley , Alice A. Kipel , Susan R. Gihring , and Lau ra R. Ar dito ) f or pla int if fs
. Ton yW est , Assistant Attorney

Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice (

L. M ish a Pre he im ); J

oa nn a V . Th e iss , Offic e of the Chief Counsel for I mpo rt Ad min istratio n, Un ite d St ate s D e pa rtme nt o f C omm e rc e , o f c ouns e l, f or de fe nd ant. Ste war t an d S

te war t ( Ge e rt M . D e Pr est , Te re nc e P. Ste war t , W ill iam A. Fe nn e ll , and Lan e S. Hu re witz ) for

defe ndant-interve nor.Court No. 08- 00322 P age 2

Stanceu, Judge : Plainti ffs SKF USA Inc., SKF F ranc e S.A., SKF Ae rospac e F ranc e S.A.S., S KF G mbH, and SKF I ndustrie S.p.A. (collec tively , “SKF” or “pla intiffs”) c ontest a final deter mination that the I nternational Trade Administration, United States Depar tment of Commerce ( “Commerce ” or the “De partment” ) issued in the eig hteenth administrative r eviews of antidumping duty

order s on ball bear ings a nd parts ther eof f

rom Fr ance , Ger

many , I taly , J apan, and the United K ingdom ( the “F inal Results”). Plaintiffs claim, first, that Commerce acte d contra ry to law in reque sting a ctual cost of pr oduction (“COP”) data f or use in dete rmining the constructe d value ( “CV”) of subject mer chandise that SKF GmbH pur chase d from an unr elated manufa cture r of ba ll bearing s and exported to the United States. Second, pla intiffs claim that Commerce unla

wfully invoked fa cts otherwise available and dre w an a dverse infere nce a fter plaintiffs’ unaf

filiated supplier fa iled to submittimely the COP data that Commerce had
re qu e ste d. Th ir d, pla int if fs ob je c t to Comme rc e ’s us e of “ zer oin g ” me tho do logy

to c a lc ulate their dumping marg ins in the reviews, unde r which Commerc e, whe n calc ulating a weig htedaver ag e dumpingmarg in, deems sales of subject merc handise made in the United States at price s
a b o v e n o r m a l v a l u e t o h av e i n d i v i d u a l d u mp i n gm ar g i n s o f

z e r o r ath e r

th ann e g at i v e m ar g i n s . In their four th claim, plaintiffs cha lleng e the De partment’s de cision to issue duty assessment and liquidation ins tructions to United States Custom s and B order Protection (“Customs” or “ CBP”) fi ft e e n d ay s a ft e r t

he pu bli c atio n o f t

he fi na l r e su lts of

the a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie ws . On plaintiffs’ f

irst claim, the cour

t concludes that Comm erc e ac ted lawf ully in reque sting and obtainingCOP data from plaintiffs’ unaff iliated supplier to calc ulate the c onstructed va lue of the merc handise obtaine d from that supplier. The court c oncludes, howe ver, that Comm erc e acte d contra

ry to law in draw ing a

n infere nce a dverse to SKF GmbH upon the f ailure of theCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 3

un a ff ili ate d s up pli e r t o ma

ke a tim e ly su bmi ssi on of the re qu e ste d CO P data . With r e sp e c t to plaintiffs’ third cla im, the court af firms the De partment’s use of the zeroingmethodology as used in the eig hteenth administrative r eviews. A s to plaintiffs’ fourth c laim, the court c oncludes that Commerce’ s policy , rule, or pr actice of issuing liquidation instructions fifteen da y s after publication of the fina l results of an a dminist rative r eview, which it stated in the Fe dera l Reg ister notice announc ing the Final Results and in F eder al Reg ister notices pe rtainingto other re views of antidumping duty

order s, was not in acc ordanc e with law.

I. B ACKG ROUND Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) (2006) , Commerce initiated the e ighte enth administrative revie ws of the a

ntidumping duty

order s on imports of ball bear ings a nd parts ther eof f

rom Fr an ce , Ge rm an y , I t al y , J ap an , an d th e U n i t edKi n gd o m , fo r t h e p er i o d M ay 1 , 2 0 0 6 th ro u gh April 30, 2007 (the “ period of r eview” or “POR”)
. See I nitiati on of Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Admin. Rev iews, Request for Rev ocation in Part & Deferral of Admin. Rev iew , 72 Fe d. Reg . 35,690 (June 29, 2007). On May 7, 2008, Commerce published the preliminary

results of the a dminist rative r eviews. Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany , Italy, Japan, &the United Kingdom: Prelim. Re sults of Ant idumping Duty Admin. Re v ie ws &In te nt to R esc ind Re v ie ws i n Par t , 73 Fe d. Reg . 25,654 (May 7, 2008) (“

Prelim. Re su lts ”). O n September 11, 2008, Commerc e issued the c ontested dete rmination. Ba ll Bearings &Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, &the United Kingdom: Final Re su lts of A nti du mp ing

Du ty Ad mi n. Re v ie ws &Re

sc iss ion of R e v ie ws i n Par t , 7 3 Fe d
. R eg. 52,823 (Sept. 11, 2008) (“ Fi na l R esu lts ”). I

n the Fina l Results, C ommerce assig ned to SKF GmbH a we ighte d-ave rag e dumpingmarg in of 4.15%. Fi na l R esu lts , 7 3 F e d
. R e g . at5 2 , 8 2 5
. InCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 4

c a lc ulatin gthe 4. 15 % r ate , Co mme rc e , invo kin gfa c ts o the rw ise ava ila ble and an a dv e rs e infere nce pur suant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (2006), applied a rate of 17.66% to the sa les of subjec t
merc handise that SKF GmbH purc hased f rom the unaf

filiated supplier be cause reque sted COP information per

taining to that supplier w as not timely submitt ed to Commerce duringthe re view. Id. at 52 ,8 24 ; Is su es &De c isi on Me m. for theAn tid um ping D uty

Ad mi n. Re v ie ws o

f B all Bearings &Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, &the United Kingdom for the Period of Rev iew May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007 , at 57 (Sept. 4, 2008) ( “ Dec ision Mem. ”). Also, in the Final Results, Commerce c alculate d SKF GmbH’ s weig hted-avera g e dumping marg in by

assig ning dumpingmarg ins of zero to individual sales made in the United States at price s above nor

mal value. Fi na l R esu lts , 7 3 F e d. Re g . at 52 ,8 26 ; Dec ision Mem. 10. Be fore the court is plaintiffs’ motion under U SCI T Rule 56.2 for judg ment upon the ag ency rec ord, in which p l ai n t i ff s s ee k a r em an d d i re ct i n g C o m m er ce t o re d et erm i n e S KF Gm b H’ s we i gh t ed -a v er age dumping mar g in without usi ngCOP data from the una ffiliated ba ll bearingsupplier, without utiliz ing f acts other wise ava ilable or a

n adver se infer ence , and without zeroing neg ative antidumping mar g ins. Also before the cour t is plainti ffs’ motion for judg ment upon the ag ency
rec ord under

USCI T Rule 56.1 challeng ing the Depa rtment’s dec ision to i ssue liquidation ins tr uc tio ns to C us tom s f

if te e n d ay s a ft e r t

he pu bli c atio n o f t

he F ina l Re su lts , whic h it
announce d in the Fe dera l Reg ister notice by which it published the Fina l Results. Fi na l R esu lts , 73 Fe d. Reg . at 52,825. II. D I S CUS S I ON Th e c ourt e xer c ise s su

bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (c ) ( 20 06 ) i n adjudicatingplaintiffs’ cla ims challeng ing the Depa rtment’s re quest for the unaff iliatedCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 5

The c ourt held in SKF USA Inc. v . United States tha t juri sd ic tio n o ve r a

c la im 1 challeng ing the previous fifte en-da y policy does not fall under

28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), e x plaining that “[t] he languag e in the F eder al Reg ister notice to which pla intiffs direct the c ourt’s attention is a statement of a present intention on the part of Commerc e to take, w ithin fifteen day s of the publication of the F inal Results, the future a c tio n o f i ns tr uc tin gCus tom s to liq

uid ate , in acc ordanc e with the F inal Results, the affe cted e ntries.” SKF USA Inc. v . United States , 31 CI T 405, 409 (2007) ( “ SKF I ” ). Th e c ourt

re a c he d th e same c on c lus ion re g ard inga

c la im challeng ing the Depa

rtment’s re vised fiftee n-day policy
. SKF USA Inc. v . United States , 3 3 C IT __, __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 17-18 (Oc t. 27, 2009) (“ SKF III ”). su pp lie r’ s CO P data

to d e te rm ine c on str

uc te d v a lue , th e De pa

rtme nt’ s a

pp lic atio n o f f

a c ts otherwise a

vailable with an a dverse infere nce, a nd the Depa

rtment’s re liance on zer oing methodology . 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Ac cordingto 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), the c ourt has jurisdiction t o re v i ew ac t i o n s co m m en ce d un d er 1 9 U. S
. C
. § 1 5 1 6 a ( 2 0 0 6 ), i n cl u d i n g an ac t i o nco n t es t i n g a final dete rmination in an administrative re view issued under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). See id. In adjudicatingeac h of these thr ee c laims, the court will hold unlawful a de termination, finding , or
c on c lus ion

fo un d to be un su

pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e on

the re c or d o r o the rw ise no t in
acc ordanc e with law. See19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1) (B )(i). Th e c ourt e xer c ise s su

bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (i ) o ve r p la int if fs ’ claim cha lleng ing the Depa rtment’s dec ision to i ssue liquidation inst ructions to implement the Final Results fiftee n day s after publication of the F eder al Reg ister notice. See28 U. S.C. § 1 58 1( i) ; SKF USA Inc. v . United States , 31 CI T 405, 409-10 (2007) (“ SKF I ”) (c i t i n g Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States , 355 F.3d 1297, 1304- 05 (F ed. Cir. 2004), a nd Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States , 348 F.3d 997, 1002- 03 (F ed. Cir. 2003)). The c ourt revie ws the fifte en-da y 1 policy as provided in 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2006). 28 U .S.C. § 2640(e) (2006) . Under the Administrative Procedur e Ac t (“APA” ), 5 U.S.C. § 706, the court must “hold unlawf ul and setCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 6

Duringthe fiftee nth administrative revie ws (2003-2004) , Commerce f irst announce d 2 that, when a

ppropriate in future r eviews, it would re quest that all responde nts who boug ht and resold bea

ring s from unaf

filiated produc ers pr ovide COP data obtained f rom the unaf

filiated produce rs. See Br . in Supp. of SKF’s Rules 56.1 & 56.2 Mot. for J. upon t he Ag ency R. 8-9 (“Pls.’ B r.”) (citingto Pls .’ B r., Attac h 3, at 4-6 (se tting for th Mem . from Dir., Office 5, AD/CVD Enforceme nt, to Acting Deputy Assistant Sec’y for Imp. Admin. ( M ay 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) ) )
. S u b s e qu e n t l y, duri ngthe se ve nte e nth

re vie ws (2 00 5- 20 06 ), Comme rc e fi rs t r e qu e ste d th at SKF Gm bH ob ta in COP data from its unaff

iliated supplier bec ause Commerc e dete rmined that such data would have a sig nificant impac t on marg in calculations and there w as no compa rison-marke t sale of the fore ign like pr oduct ava ilable for ma rg in-ca lculation purposes in this reseller transac tion. Pl s.’ (continued...) a sid e a g e nc y

a c tio n . . . fo un d to be
. . . a rb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or

oth e rw ise not in accor dance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)( A). A. Commerce L awf

ully Sought to Obtain the Una ffiliated Supplier’s D ata on Cost of Production Duri ngthe re vie w, Comme rc e re qu e ste d th at a ll r e sp on de nts re po rt CO P data

fo r i mpo rt s of subject be aring s. See Dep’ t of Commerce, R equest for Information (Aug . 1 4, 20 07 ) ( Ge n. I ss. AR Doc. 22). O n September 4, 2007, SKF GmbH re sponded by submitt ing its own a cquisition costs for be aring s it obtained from an unr elated supplier
. Le tte r from Ste pto e &J oh ns on LLP to Commerce (Sept. 4, 2007) (A dmin. R. Doc. No. 90). On Nove mber 6, 2007, the D epar tment reque sted that SKF GmbH “ repor t actual COP and CV data from the una ffiliated supplier which
wa s th e larg e st s up pli e r, me a sure d b y the va lue of

SKF ’s [ i.e. , SKF GmbH’ s] U.S . sales.” Mem

. from Program Manager, AD /CVD Enforceme nt, to Dir., Offi ce 5, A D/CVD Enforceme nt 2 (Nov. 6, 2007) ( Admin. R. Doc. No. 105). Commerc e’s r ationale wa s that a substantial portion of SKF Gm bH ’s U. S. s a le s and

so me of its ho me mark e t sa le s w e re sa le s o f m e rc ha nd ise produce d by

unaff iliated suppliers. Id. SKF objec ted that Commerce was de partingfrom its previous methodolog y of re lying on SKF Gm bH ’s a c qu isi tio n c os ts i n d e te rm ini ngthe c on str uc te d v a lue fo r s ub

je c t be ari ng s. See

2Court No. 08- 00322 P age 7

(...continued) 2 Br ., Attach 16, at 47 (setting f orth Issues &Dec ision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iews of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, Singapore, &the United Kingdom for the Period of Revie w May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006 (Oc t. 4, 2007)). Letter from Steptoe &Johnson LLP to Commerc e (Nov. 14, 2007) ( Admin. R. Doc. No. 107). Commerce c oncluded that “ we c ontinue to find that requiringcost data f rom unaff iliated suppliers produce s more ac curate COP and CV information, as a cquisition costs alone do not captur e all of the actua l costs of the manufa cture r supplying the bear ings to the r eseller .” Dec ision Mem. 59. Plaintiffs argue that it was unlaw ful for Commerc e to depa rt from the me thodology

used in six teen pr ior sets of re views and, spe cifica lly , that “Commerce did not provide compelling
rea sons for cha

ng ing the methodology

in the 17th review , continued to not provide c ompelling
rea sons in the 18th review a nd has fa iled to support its m ethodolog y chang e with substantial evidenc e.” SeeBr . In Supp. of SKF’s Rules 56.1 & 56.2 Mot. for J. upon t he Ag ency R. 9 (“Pls.’ Br .”). The court re

jected this ar g ument when SKF raised it in contestingthe final re sults of the sevente enth re views, conc luding that SKF , in arguing that compelling r easons we re r equire d, misstated the burden that an ag ency must meet to justi fy

a cha ng e in established pr actice
. SKF USA v. U nited States , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 9 (Oc t. 27, 2009) (“ SKF III ”). Commerce g ener ally

is free to chang e its methodology provided that it states its rationale f or doing so a

nd the stated ra

tionale is rea sonable. See Koy o Seiko Co. v. United States , 36 F.3d 1565, 1575 (F ed. Cir. 1994). In adher ing to its cha ng ed methodolog y , Commerce r easone d that

“ we c on tin

ue to f ind that r e qu ir ingc os t da

ta fr om u na ff ili ate d s up pli e rs pr od

uc e s mo re a c c ur ate COP and CV information, as ac quisiti on costs alone do not ca pture a ll of the ac tual costs of theCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 8

manufa cture r supplying the bear ings to the r eseller .” Dec ision Mem. 59. Although Commerc e has authority

to use ac quisiti on cost, it is not required to do so in ever y case . As the cour

t stated in SKF III

, [t ]he statute expressly

includes in the construc ted value c alculation “the cost of materia ls and fabr ication or other proce ssing of

any kind” used in produc ing the su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise . 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 77 b( e )( 1) . Wh e re a c qu isi tio n c os t is us e d in the no rm a l va lue c a lc ulatio n, the c os t of pr od uc tio n is no t de te rm ine d s e pa rate ly from the e lements of prof it and g ener al expenses. Under the plain meaningof § 1677b(e) (1), Commerc e has a uthority to examine the actual c ost of production. SKF III , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 9. On the r ecor d of this case as we ll, the court conclude s that Commerce a cted within its authority in reque sting the COP data of the unaf filiated supplier. Plaintiffs also argue that, under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2) and (f )(3) , Commerce ma

y disreg ard c osts, including ac quisiti on costs, provided by a re spondent only

betwee n affili ated persons when suc h transac tions were not at arm’s length or otherw ise did not reflect marke t valuefo r t

he g oo d o r m a

jor inp ut p ur c ha se d. Pls. ’ B r. 9- 12 . T he c ourt a lso re je c te d th is argument in SKF III

, on the g round that “[t] he two statutory provisions plaintiffs cite in support of this argument addre ss the question of when tr ansac tions between affili ated persons may

be disreg arde d and thus do not bear on the issue under

consideration.” SKF III

, 3 3 CI T at __ , Sl ip Op. 09-121, at 10. Neither pr ovision requires the D epar tment to use acquisition cost, rather than actua l production cost, in deter mining construc ted value simply beca use the a cquisition cost was based on pr ices ne g otiated betwe en unaffili ated pe rs on s. Citi ngvarious other

provisions within 19 U.S .C. § 1677b, SKF argues that Commerce must use acquisition cost data bec ause the se we re data of the e x porter unde r examination,Court No. 08- 00322 P age 9

wher eas the COP data wer e data of a pr oducer

that was not a pa

rty to the revie ws. Pls.’ B r. 12 -1 3 ( c iti ng19 U. S.C. § 1 67 7b (b )( 3) , ( e )( 2) (A ) & (B )( 1) , a nd (f )) . A s th e c ourt

state d in SKF III , [n] one of the provisions relied upon by SKF addr esses the na

rrow que stion of wh e the r C omm e rc e c ou ld u se the data of a no n- pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din gin de te rm ini ngc os t of

pr od uc tio n f or purp os e s o f § 16 77 b( e )( 1) , und e r whic h, in contra st to various other provisions in the section, Commerce is not li mited to the use of infor

mation provided by

the par ty under e x amination or the use of i n fo rm at i o np ro v i d edb y

o th er p art i es t o th e p ro ce ed i n g. SKF III , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 10. The statute pr ovides as a g ener al rule that for purposes of § 1677b( e), “ [c] osts shall normally be ca lculated ba sed on the re cords of the exporter or produc er of

the merc handise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1) (A). I n 19 U.S.C. § 1677(28), Congr ess def

ined the ter

m “exporter or pr oducer ” g ener ally to mean “the exporter of the subjec t
me rc ha nd ise , th e pr od

uc e r o f t he su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise , o r b oth

wh e re a pp ro pr iate .” 19 U. S.C. § 1677(28). The same provision also states that [f] or purpose s of Section 1677b of this title, the term “e x porter or produce r” inc lud e s b oth

the e xpor

te r o f s ub je c t me rc ha

nd ise and the pr od uc e r o f t he same subject merc handise to the e x tent nece ssary to acc urate ly

calc ulate the total amou nt i nc ur re d a nd re a lize d f

or c os ts, e xpe ns e s, and

pr of its in c onne c tio n w ith production and sa le of that mer chandise
. Id. Fur ther, the Stateme nt of Administrative Action ac company ing the Uruguay

Round Agre e me nts Ac t ( “ SAA ” ) c lari fi e s th at “ [t]he purp os e of [19 U .S. C. § 16 77 (2 8) ], w hic h is consistent with curre nt Comm erc e pra ctice, is to cla rify that wher e diffe rent fir

ms perfor m the production and se lling func tions, Com merc e may include the c osts, ex penses, a nd profits of ea ch firm in calc ulating c ost of production and c onstructed va lue.” TheUrugua yRo un d A gr e e me nts Act, Stateme nt of Administr ative Ac tion , H.R. Doc. No. 103- 316 (Vol. 1), at 835 (1994), asCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 10

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less T han Fair Value; Hone

y From 3 Argentina , 6 6 F e d. Re g . 5 0, 61 1 ( Oc t. 4 , 2 00 1) ; Fi na l D e te rm ina tio n o f Sa le s a t Le ss T ha n F air Value: Fre

sh &Chill ed Atlantic Salmon from Norway , 56 Fe d. Reg . 7661 (F eb. 25, 1991); Notice of Final Results of Anti dumping Duty Admin. Re view: I ndividually Quick F

rozen Red Ra sp be rri es F

ro m C hile , 70 Fe d. Reg . 6618 (F eb. 8, 2005). re pr inte d in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4172 (“ SAA ”). N othing in the statute c onfines C o m m er ce ’s i n qu i ry

t o th e C OP re co rd s o f ap arty t o th e p ro ce ed i n g. Finally , plaintiffs argue that Commerce does not have “‘a long sta nding pr actice ’ of using
a c tua l pr od

uc tio n c os ts o f u

na ff ili ate d s up pli e rs ” be c a

us e “ Comme rc e ha s n ot c on sis te ntl y
a pp lie d th is r e qu ir e me nt i n o the r p ro c e e din g s” and “ ins tanc e s in

wh ic h Co mme rc e imp os e d th is require ment are easily

distinguishable f

rom the [antifriction bear ing] revie ws.” Pls.’ Br . 13-14. Plaintiffs argue, spec ifically , that Commerce ha s a pra ctice of reque sting a

nd using a ctual COP data fr om a n una ff ili ate d p art

y on ly in r e vie ws inv olv ing“ a g ri c ult ur a l pr od uc ts” and no t th os e involving “non- ag ricultural pr oducts.” See id. at 14-15. The court finds this line of ar g ument meritless. First, the c ourt finds nothing in the statute or Commerce’ s regulations requiringthat Commerce tr eat a g ricultural pr oducer s differ ently from non-a g ricultural pr oducer s for purpose s of de te rm ini ngc on str

uc tiv e va lue , a

nd pla int if fs c ite to n o s uc h a

uth or ity . With r e sp e c t to plaintiffs’ ar g ument conce rningan alleg ed Commerce prac tice, for which plaintiffs c ite various administrative pre cede nts, the cour t notes that Commerce, on at least one oc casion, ha s 3 reque sted ac tual COP data from a non-agricultural pr oducer who was una ffiliated with a responde nt in an administrative re view. See E lemental Sulfur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Finding Admin. Review , 61 Fe d. Reg . 8239 (Mar . 4, 1996).Court No. 08- 00322 P age 11

Findingunconvincingthe var ious arguments SKF ra ises to the contra ry , the cour

t conclude s that the Depa

rtment ac ted ac cordingto law in seekingto obtain the COP data of the unaff iliated supplier. B. Commerc e Ac ted Contrary to L aw in Usingan Infer ence Adver se to SKF GmbH Plaintiffs claim that Commerce unla wfully invoked fa cts otherwise available and unlawfully

drewan adve rse infe renc e for the untimely

submissi on of the COP data that Commerce ha d reque sted. Pls.’ Br. 16. D efe ndant re sponds that due to the fa ilure of the unaff iliated supplier to submit t he COP data prior to the deadline f

or submission, C ommerce was authorized, first, to use fa cts otherwise available under 19 U .S.C. § 1677e(a) ( 2006) and, se cond, to invoke an adve rse infe renc e in ac corda nce w ith 19 U.S.C . § 1677e(b) due to the unaf filiated supplier’s fa ilure to coope rate . Def .’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for J. upon t he Ag ency R. 18-30 (“ De f. ’s Re sp .” ). Th e c ourt c on c lud e s th at Co mme rc e ha d th e a uth or ity to r e so rt to f a c ts otherwise a

vailable unde r 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a ) bec ause the reque sted COP information was not tim e ly su bmi tte d. Ho we ve r, the c ourt a lso c on c lud e s th at Co mme rc e a c te d c on tr ary to l aw i n it s choice of fa cts otherwise available and in dra wingan adve rse infe renc e under § 1677e(b)
. 1. Comme rc e Ac te d Within its Autho ri ty

in D e te rm ini ngthat th e Af fi liate d Su

pp lie r’ s CO P Data Was Not Timely

Submit ted The followingfac ts, as disclosed by rec ord docume nts in thi s case , are not in disput e. Pursuant to Comm erc e’s r equest that SKF GmbH obtain COP information from its unaffiliated supplier, SKF’ s counsel sent a letter to counse l for the supplier r equestingthat the COP data be submitt ed to Commerce
. Letter from Steptoe &Johnson LLP to Commerc e 5 (Nov. 14, 2007) (A dmi n. R. D oc . N o. 10 7) . SK F the n s e nt a

le tte r t o Co mme rc e repo rt ingthat it ha d c on ta c te d it sCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 12

unaff iliated supplier but that it was havingdifficulty with respec t to Com merc e’s infor mation reque st. Id. SKF’s letter explained that in previous ora l discussions and corre spondence betwee n counsel for SKF and counsel for

[t he unaf filiated supplier,] . . . counsel for [t he unaf filiated supplier] stated that “it would not be in a position to provide SKF w ith any such POR 18 information.” While SKF now ha s reiter ated its reque st to [ the unaf filiated supplier], the Depar

tment should recognize that it appears hig hly unlikely that su c h in fo rm atio n w ill be fo rt hc omi ngand

it w ill no t ot

he rw ise be on

the re c or d in th i s p ro ce ed i n g. Id. On Novembe r 28, 2007, Commerce sent a re quest for the information direc tly to the
s u p p l i e r s ’ c o un s e l , r e qu e s t i n gth atth e i n f o r m at i o nb e s u

b m i t t e d t o C o m m e r c e b y T hur s d ay, J anuar y 3, 2008. See Le tte r from Com me rc e to Gru nfe ld D esid e rio (N ov . 2 8, 20 07 ) ( Ad min . R. Doc. No. 112) . When the due date arr ived, Commerce had y et to rec eive the data and ha d not been c ontacted by

the supplier’s c ounsel for a n extension of tim e. See Le tte r from Com me rc e to Grun fe ld D esid

e rio (Jan. 31, 2008) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 136). On Monday , J anuar

y 7, 2008, the Depa

rtment’s ana ly st responsible for r eviewingSKF GmbH’s information, Ms. J anis Kalnis, telephone d the unaf filiated supplier’s c ounsel to note the passingof the de adline and to inquire whether the supplier intended to submit the reque sted COP data, to which the supplier’s counse l responded that “it did indeed intend to submit t he re quested data” and that Commerce would rec eive it the followingday
. See Le tte r from Grun fe ld Desiderio to Commerc e 2 (F eb. 1, 2008) ( Admin. R. Doc. No. 137). The supplier’s counse l submitt ed the r equeste d COP data to Commerce the following day , J anuar y 8, 2008, three business day s after

the dea dline. See Letter from Grunfe ld Desiderio to Commerce (Jan. 8, 2008) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 126) . Despite having ma de the e ffor t to contact counse l for the una ffiliated supplier and having se cure d an under standing that the information would be submitted theCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 13

The four conditions apply

to situations i n which an inter ested pa rty or any other pe rson: 4 (A) w ithholds i nformation that has be en re quested by the administering authority . . . under this subtitle, (B ) fa ils to provide such information by the dea dlines for submission of the information or in the for

m and manner

reque sted, subject to subsections (c )(1) and (e) of sec tion 1677m of this t itle, (C) sig nificantly

impedes a pr ocee ding unde r this subtit le, or (D) pr ovides such information but the information cannot be ve rified a s provided in sec tion 1677m(i) of this tit le . . . . 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (2) ( 2006). following day , Commerce r ejec ted the COP data submission as late-f iled information. See Letter from Commerceto Grunfeld Desiderio (Jan. 31, 2008) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 136). T he supplier’s counse l submit ted an e x planation for the lateness of the submission and requeste d that Commerce r econside r its rejec tion. See Letter from Grunfeld Desiderio to Commerc e (F eb. 1, 2008) (Admin. R. Doc. N o. 137). Commerce responde d by aff irming its dec ision to ex clude the submitt ed COP information from the r ecor d. See Le tte r from Com me rc e to Gru nfe ld D esid e rio (Mar . 3, 2008) (Admin. R. Doc. N o. 143). Subsection (a) of § 1677e a llows Comm erc e to use “ the fa cts otherwise available ” whe n

“ ne c e ssa ry inf or matio n is no t ava ila

ble on the re c or d” or

wh e n a ny of fo ur c on dit ion s sp e c if

ie d in
su bp ara g ra ph(a )( 2) is m e t, i nc lud ing , a c c or din gto s ub pa ra g ra ph(a )( 2) (B ), the c on dit ion in wh ic h a pe rs on fa ils to p ro vid e re qu e ste d in fo rm atio n b y the de a dli ne fo r s ub mis sio n. 19 U. S.C. § 1677e(a ). The statute pr ovides, in that event, that Commerc e shall, subject to § 1677m(d),

4

“ us e the fa c ts o the rw ise ava ila ble in r e a c hin gthe a

pp lic a ble de te rm inatio n. ” 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 7e (a ). In th e F ina l Re su lts , Co mme rc e c on c lud e d th at th e late su bmi ssi on of CO P data satisfied the c ondition of subparagraph ( a)( 2)(B ) as a failure to provide re quested infor mation by the applica

ble dea dline. See Fi na l R esu lts , 73 Fe d. Reg . at 52,824.Court No. 08- 00322 P age 14

As noted pre viously , the re cord shows that Comm erc e itself re quested that c ounsel for the unaff iliated supplier submit the COP data to Com merc e no later than J anuar

y 3, 2008, see Letter from Commerceto Grunfeld Desiderio (Nov. 28, 2007) ( Admin. R. Doc. No. 112), a nd that the information was submitted on J anuar y 8, 2008, three business day s after the dea dline. See Letter from Grunfeld Desiderio to Commerc e (Jan. 8, 2008) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 126). Commerc e deter mined under 19 U .S.C. § 1677e(a) that this i nformation wa s untimely submitt ed. See Letter from Commerceto Grunfeld Desiderio (Jan. 31, 2008) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 136). D efe ndant argues that “the re is no re quirement in the statute that Commerc e ac cept data which is late, reg ardle ss of whethe r data was submitted months after the deadline or three day s late.” D ef.’ s Re sp . 2 3. Sub

je c t to e xce pti on s n ot h e re a pp lic a ble , th e statut e pla inl y

pr ov ide s w ithre sp e c t to late-f iled information that Commerce “shall . . . use the f acts other wise ava ilable in rea chingthe applicable deter

mination under this subtit le.” 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677e(a ), 1677m(d). Commerc e has broad a uthority to set, and extend, its deadlines for submission of reque sted information, but on the unconteste d fac ts of this case it ac ted within its authority in deemingthe COP data an untimely submissi on. 2. Comme rc e ’s Us e of

an A dv e rs e Inf

e re nc e Whe n Se le c tin gF ro m A mon gthe F a c ts O the rw ise Available Was B ased on a n Impermissible Construction of the Statute and Was an Abuse of

Discre tion When selectingfrom amongthe fa cts otherwise available , Commerce “ may use an infere nce that is adverse to the interests of” an “inter ested pa rty” that “ha s failed to coope rate by
no t a c tin gto t

he be st o f i ts a

bil ity to c omp ly

wi th a re qu e st f or inf or matio n. ” 19 U. S.C. § 1677e(b) . Ba sed on a f inding that the una ffiliated supplier f ailed to coope rate as re quired byCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 15

Had Commerc e ac tually

made a finding that any

SKF entity

failed to c ooperate to the 5 best of its ability

with respec t to the reque st for the COP data, it is unlikely that such a f

inding could have been uphe ld as supported by substantial evidence on the re cord of this procee ding. The re cord de monstrates not only that SKF GmbH a

nd the supplier we re una ffiliated ( and we re in fac t competingbear ing ma nufac turers) , but also that plaintiffs eng ag ed in communications with counsel for

the unaf filiated supplier, made and re iterate d a re quest for the COP data, and informed Commerc e af

ter lea rningthat the supplier likely would ref

use to coope rate . Moreove r, the re cord e vidence establishes that the untimely submissi on of the COP data, upon whic h Commerce ba sed its finding of a fa ilure to coope rate under 19 U .S.C. § 1677e(b), occ urre d afte r Comme rc e ha d ta

ke n it up on its e lf to r e qu e st that th e un a ff

ili ate d s up pli e r s ub mit

the CO P data direc tly to Comm erc e. In its response to SKF’ s Rule 56.2 motion for judgment upon the a g ency rec ord, 6 defe ndant implied that Comm erc e base d its decision to use an adve rse infe renc e par tly on SKF’s failure to cooper ate a s require d by 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). See, e .g. , Def .’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for J . upon the Ag ency

R. 19 (“De f.’s Resp.” ) (“ SKF and its supplier . . . fa iled to provide information re quested by

Commerce by

the dea dline for submission. . . .”), 22 (“ SKF did not reque st assistance a

nd did not request an e x tension of any deadline or

a modification of the require ments.”). At or al ar g ument on plaintiffs’ motion for judg ment upon the ag ency rec ord, counsel for

defe ndant ar g ued, similarly , that “Commerce based the rate also on SKF’s a ctions.” Tr . 4 7, Se pt. 23 , 2 00 9. Ho we ve r, in r e sp on se to q ue sti on ingfr om t

he c ourt at th e or a l argume nt, c ouns e l f or de fe nd ant c on c e de d th at Co mme rc e ma de no fi nd ingtha t SKF ha d f

a ile d to cooper ate to the be st of their ability
. Id. at 47, 49. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b), Commerc e applied, a s an adve rse infe renc e, a r ate of 17.66% to sales of subject bea

ring s that SKF GmbH purc hased f rom its unaffiliated supplier. Dec ision Mem. 57. The F inal Results do not st ate a finding that SKF GmbH or any other of the plaintiffs failed to re spond to the best of its ability in respondingto an information re quest by Commerce. No r i s su c h a

fi nd ingstate d in

the De c isi on

Me mor and

um, wh ic h th e F ina l Re su lts inc or po rate by ref ere nce. Thus, the only

finding of a f

ailure to c ooperate on which Commerc e may be 5 considere d to have invoked its authority under § 1677e (b) is that of the una ffiliated supplier, which did not act to the be st of its abilit y in submit ting the COP data
. Se e Fi na l R esu lts , 73 Fe d. 6 Re g . at 52 ,8 24 (i n whic h Co mme rc e fo un d it “ a pp ro pr iate to u se fa c ts o the rw ise ava ila ble wi th an adve rse infe renc e for

cer tain U.S. sales made by

SKF Ge rmany

for whic h SKF Ge rmany wasCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 16

not the produce r and f

or which the produce r fa iled to provide cost-of -produc tion information by the de a dli ne fo r s ub mis sio n o f t he inf or matio n” ); see also De cision Mem. 56 (findingthat “lac k of coope ration by

the produc er of

the subject mer chandise has made it impos sible for the Depa rtment to calc ulate the a ctual and a ccur ate COP of the subjec t mercha ndise for the unaff iliated supplier/produce r under section 773(b) of the Ac t”). The unaff iliated supplier was not a par ty to the administrative re views proc eedingand, ther efor e, wa s not in a position t o be assig ned a ma

rg in refle ctingan adve rse infe renc e. The 17.66% rate Commerce chose w as adver se to SKF GmbH, a s Commerce a cknowledg ed. See D ecision Me m. 57 (s tatin gthat “ thi s AFA[ i.e. , “ a dv e rs e fa c ts a va ila ble ” ] rate is t

he highe st r ate e ve r c a lc ulate d f or SKF Ge rm any

in any seg ment of the proc eeding ,” fr om the third period of a dminist rative r eviews of subject bear ings) . Commerce’ s discussion in the Decision Memora ndum indicates that the De partment’s motivation was to induce future cooper ation of the una ffiliated supplier by using a rate that was adver se to the supplier’s c ustomer, SKF GmbH. Id. This case raises the issue of whe ther Commerc e has a uthority under 19 U .S.C. § 1677e(b) to use an infe renc e that is adve rse to a pa rty to the proce edingabsent a fac tual finding that such party “fa iled to cooper ate by

not actingto the best of its ability to comply

with a re quest for information.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) . The c ourt conc ludes that Commerce lacks this authority
. Fur ther, the c ourt conc ludes that eve n wer e it to presume that suc h authority could be invoked on some hy pothetical set of f

acts, the use of an infe renc e adve rse to SKF G mbH, on the unconteste d
rec ord fa cts of this case , was a n abuse of

the discre tion provided to Commerce by § 1677e(b)
. Th e c ourt re vie ws Comme rc e ’s c on str uc tio n o f t

he statut e it i s c ha

rg e d w ith
a dm i n i s t e r i n ga c c o r d i n gt o th e d e f e r e n c e r e qu i r e d

b y Chevron U.S.A. I

nc. v. Natural Resource

sCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 17

In 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 77 e (b ), the statut e pr ov ide s: 7 I f the a dminist eringauthority or the Commission (as the case may be) f inds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by no t a c tin gto t

he be st o f i ts a

bil ity to comply with a re quest for infor

mation from the administeringauthority or the Commi ssion, the administering a uthority or the Commission (as the case may be), in rea chingthe applica

ble deter mination under this subtit le, may usean inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in s e le c tin gfr om a mon gthe fa c ts otherwise a

vailable. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) (e mphasis added)
. DefenseCouncil, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984). See Pesquera M ares Australes Ltda. v. United States , 266 F.3d 1372, 1379- 82 (F ed. Cir. 2001). Unde r Chevron , th e c ourt fi rs t mu st consider “ whether

Congr ess has dire ctly

spoken to the pre cise que stion at issue. I f the intent of Congr ess is clea

r, that is the end of

the matter; for

the cour t, as well as the a g ency , must give eff ect to the una

mbiguously

expressed intent of Cong ress.” Chevron , 467 U.S. at 842-43. I f, howeve r, “the statute is silent or ambiguous w ith respec t to the specific issue, the question for the court is whethe r the a g ency ’s answe r is based on a permissible construc tion of the statute.” Id. at 843. As defe ndant points out, the plain lang uag e of 19 U .S.C. § 1677e(b) states that Commerce ma

y use an infe renc e that is adve rse to an “ interested pa rty” who f

ails to coopera

te,
an d th e s t atu t e d o es n o ts t at e t h atth e i n t er es t edp arty mu s tb e ap arty

t o th e p ro ce ed i n g. See 7 De f. ’s Re sp . 2 7- 30 . D e fe nd ant a lso is c or re c t in po int ingout th at th e te rm “ int e re ste d p art

y ” is define d by

19 U.S.C. § 1677(9) of the statute to include any “for eig n manufa cture r, produc er, or exporter . . . of subjec t mercha ndise.” SeeDef

.’s Resp. 27 (c iting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9) a nd stating that “[p] ut simpl y , the ac tions of an intere sted party , which includes the produce r pursua nt to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9), may result in Commerce’ s application of f acts available” ). B eca

useCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 18

§ 1677e(b) does not expressly require that the non-c ooperating pa rty ag ainst whom an infer ence is drawn a lso be a pa

rty to the proce eding , the cour t concludes that the statute is silent or ambig uous on the prec ise question posed by this case. How ever , in applying the second step of th e an a l ys i s r e qu i r e d

b y Chevron , the cour

t is unable to acc ept Commerce ’s construc tion of the statute as a r easona

ble one. Al low ingan inte re ste d p art y ’s fa ilure to c oo pe ra

te to a ff e c t a dv e rs e ly

the dumpi ngmarg in of anothe r intere sted party who is a par

ty to the proce eding , about whom Commerce did not make a finding of non-c ooperation, violates the Depa rtment’s oblig ation to treat fa irly ever y participa nt in an administrative proc eeding . As is any g overnme nt ag ency , Commerce is unde r a duty to acc ord fa irness to the par ties that appea

r bef ore it. Althoug h 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) doe s not expressly

state that Commerce may not adver sely

aff ect a party to a proc eedingbased upon
ano the r i nte re ste d p art

y ’s fa ilure to c oo pe ra

te , a c on str uc tio n p e rm itt ingsu c h a

n a bs ur d r e su lt makes a mocker y of any notion of fairne ss. I n the spec ific conte x t of the antidumping laws, a party that did not fail to meet its obligation to cooper ate, a s imposed by § 1677e(b) , is entitled by § 1 67 5( a ) a

nd re late d p ro vis ion s o f t

he anti dumpi nglaw t o h ave its marg in d e te rm ine d a c c ur ate ly and ac cordingto the rele vant information on the r ecor d of the a dminist rative r eview. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1) -(2) (re quiring g ener ally that Commerce de termine the a mount of antidumping duty

acc ordingto normal value a nd export price or c onstructed e x port price of ea ch
e ntr y of su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise ); Rhone Poulenc

, Inc. v . United States , 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 ( Fe d. Cir. 1990) (statingthat “the ba sic purpose of the [antidumpi ng ] st atute [is] deter mining cur

rent marg ins as acc urate ly

as possible”). Y et, Commerce openly acknow ledg ed that it chose the 17.66% rate bec ause that rate w as adve rse to SKF G mbH. See Dec ision Mem . 57 (choosing“theCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 19

highe st rate e ver c alculate d for SKF Ger many in any seg ment of the proc eeding ” fr om the third period of a dminist rative r eviews of subject bea

ring s). That Commerc e alluded to its motivation to i nd uc e futur e c oo pe ratio n o f t he un a ff ili ate d s up pli e r d oe s n ot c ha ng e the fa c t th at th e ra

te chosen w as, and w as intended to be , adver se to SKF GmbH. Id. Th e c ourt c ann ot a c c e pt a
c on str uc tio n o f 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 77 e (b ) u nd e r whic h th e pa

rt y wh o s uf fe rs the e ff

e c t of the a dv e rs e infere nce is not the pa

rty who fa iled to cooper ate. Th e SAAis i nf

or mativ e on the c or re c t un de rs tand ingof

the c on g re ssi on a l pu

rp os e underlying § 1677e (b). The SAA instructs that “[w] here a par ty has not coope rate d, Commerce and the Commission m ay employ adver se infer ence s about the missing infor mation to ensure that the par ty does not obtain a more favor able re su lt by failingto cooper ate than if it had cooper ated fully .” SAA at 870, as re

pr inte d in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199 (emphasis adde d). The Depa rtment’s construc tion of § 1677e(b) in this case is antithetical to the c ong ressional purpose
. Under that construction, a pa

rty to the proce edingcan obta in, para dox ically , a “r esult,” e.g. , a marg in or deposit rate , that is less favora ble than that which w ould have r esulted “if it had cooper ated f

ully ,” eve n though Commerc e neve r found that the pa rty did not “cooper ate f

ully ” as require d by

§ 1677e(b)
. Id. F or the re a so ns dis c us se d a

bo ve , th e c ourt

re je c ts d e fe nd ant’ s c on str

uc tio n o f 1 9 U .S. C. § 1677e(b) as impermissible, both beca use it is contrary

to basic principles of

fairne ss and beca use it is inconsistent with t he funda mental purpose of

the antidumping la

w. Howe ver, e ven
we re the c ourt

to c on c lud e that su c h a

c on str uc tio n c ou ld b e re a so na

ble wh e n a

pp lie d to so me hy po the tic a l se t of

fa c ts, it s til l w ou ld b e c omp e lle d to c on c lud e tha t, u nd e r t he un c on te ste d f

a c ts of thi s c a se , Co mme rc e a

bu se d th e dis c re tio n th at is ind ic ate d b y the us e of

the wo rd “ may ” inCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 20

§ 1677e(b)
. See19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) (pr oviding that “ the administeringauthority or the Commi ssion (as the ca se may be), in re achingthe applica ble deter mination under subtitle, may use an infe renc e that is adve rse . . .” (empha sis added)) . Commerce must exercise that discretion in order to a chieve the under lying pur pose of § 1677e (b), a s expl ained by the SAA. In this case, Commerce intende d to, and did, adver sely aff ect SKF GmbH, eve n though the appar ent targ et of the ac tion taken under

§ 1677e(b) was the una ffiliated supplier, f or whom Commerce hoped, throug h the use of a

n infere nce a dverse to that supplier’s customer, to “ induce c ooperation in the future.” Dec ision Mem. 57 . A lth ou g h in du c ingthe c oo pe ratio n o f i nte re ste d p art ie s is a worthwhile objec tive, Commerce ma y not further

this objective by

abusingits discretion. Although Commerc e, for rea sons discussed ea

rlier, ha d discretion to re fuse to admit the COP data of the una ffiliated supplier to the r ecor d due to the untimely submissi on, once it had done so, it place d itself in the position of having to de termine the c onstructed va lue of subjec t
merc handise a ccor ding to other rec ord information, including the “ fac ts otherwise available.” As state d in the SAA , whe n invo kin g19 U. S.C. § 1 67 7e (a ), “ Comme rc e and the Commis sio n mu st
make the ir

de te rm inatio ns ba se d o n a ll e vid e nc e of re c or d, we ig hin gthe re c or d e vid e nc e to de te rm ine tha

t w hic h is most probative of the issue under c onsideration .” SAA at 869, as
re pr inte d in 19 94 U. S.C. C.A .N . at 41 98 (e mph a sis a dd e d) . T he SAAa dd s th at be c a us e it i s impossibl e to compar e fa cts ava ilable with missing information, Commerce need not pr ove that the fa cts selec ted ar e the be st alternative f acts. Id. at 869-70, as re

pr inte d in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N.
at 41 98 -9 9. Ne ve rt

he le ss, “ the fa c ts a

va ila ble are inf

or matio n o r i nf

e re nc e s w hic h a

re re a so na

ble to use under the circ umstances.” Id. at 869, as re pr inte d in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4198. On the
rec ord as it stood at the time Commerce reje cted the untimely -submitted COP data, the rec ordCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 21

Def endant- Interve nor Timken maintains that the COP data pe rtained to the pr evious 8 period of r eview. See Resp. of the Timken Co. to the Rule 56.2 Mot. of SKF USA Inc., et a l. 7 (“D ef.- Interve nor’s Resp.” ). Howe ver, Commerc e did not reje ct the information as unresponsive to i ts r e qu e st a

nd ins te a d r e

je c te d it so le ly on the g ro un d o f u

nti me ly su bmi ssi on . E ve n if Timken’s asse rtion is corre ct, the information sti ll would have some probativity with respec t to a deter mination of constructe d value. information and “ fac ts otherwise available” included the r ecor d data pe rtainingto the acquisition costs incurre d by

SKF GmbH, a

source of information that Com merc e had de termined wa s
rea sonable a

nd appropr iate for

deter mining construc ted value in numer ous previous re views of the antidumping duty

order
. See Letter from Steptoe &Johnson LLP to Commerc e (Sept. 4, 20 07 ) ( Ad

min . R. Do c . N o. 90 ) ( SKF Gm bH su bmi tte d a c qu isi tio n c os ts f or su bje c t be ari ng s in response to Comm erc e’s initial reque st for information). Commerce a lso had discre tion to readmit to the rec ord, and c onsider usingas fa cts otherwise available , the pre viously -re jected COP data, whic h arr ived only

three business day s late, a de lay that was so short that it must be presumed to be immaterial to the timely completion of the re view. B oth the COP data and the
a c qu isi tio n c os t data

ha d th e vir

tue of be ari nga pr ob ativ e re latio ns hip to t he su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise Commerce w as attemptingto value. The same cannot be said for the information Commerce 8

a c tua lly c ho se a s f

a c ts o the rw ise ava ila

ble , whic h w a s in fo rm atio n und e rl yingthe highe st r ate
ever calc ulated for

SKF GmbH in any

seg ment of the proc eeding , from the third pe riod of administrative re views of subjec t bear ings. Commerc e chose this rate not bec ause it wa s probative on the constructe d value de termination, but beca use it would be adve rse to SKF Gm bH , a pp are ntl y on the the or y that th e un a ff

ili ate d s up pli e r w ou ld b e inf lue nc e d in

the futur e to avoid similar such har

m to its own customer. O n rema nd, Commerce must re calc ulate SKF GmbH’s mar g in after

rede termining the construc ted value of the subject mer chandise SKFCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 22

Gm bH ob ta ine d f

ro m th e un a ff

ili ate d s up pli e r. Ab se nt a fi nd ingof

fa c t th at SKF Gm

bH fa ile d to cooper ate in fulfillingthe Depa rtment’s re quest for infor mation, Comm erc e must rede termine the
c on str uc te d v a lue a c c or din gto t he ava ila ble re c or d e vid e nc e , w ith out us ingan in fe re nc e a dv e rs e to SKF GmbH. C. Pl aintiffs’ Ar g uments Challeng ing Z eroingConflict with Cont rolling Pre cede nt P l ai n t i ff s ch al l en ge t h e D ep art m en t ’s u s e o f z er o i n g i nca l cu l at i n g th e w ei gh t ed -a v er age dumping mar g in for SKF G mbH. Pls.’ Br. 35- 38. To ca lculate a weig hted-avera g e dumping marg in in an administrative re view, Commerce first must determine two va lues for e ach e ntry of subject merc handise fa lling within the per iod of revie w: the normal va lue and the e x port price (“ EP” ) ( or

the c on str

uc te d e xpor

t pr ic e (“ CEP ” ) i f t

he EP c ann ot b e de te rm ine d) . 1 9 U .S. C. § 1675(a) (2)( A)(i) . Commerce the n deter mines a marg in for ea ch entr y by takingthe amount by
w h i c hth e n o r

m a l v a l u e e x c e e d s th e E P o r C E P
. 1 9 U
. S
. C
. § § 1 6 7 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i i ) , 1 6 7 7 ( 3 5 ) ( A )
. If
n o rm al v al u e d o es n o tex ce edE P o r C E P , C o m m er ce , wh en d et erm i n i n g a w ei gh t ed -a v er age dumping mar g in, assigns a value of zero, not a neg ative value , to the entry . Finally , Commerce
a g g re g ate s th e se va lue s to c a lc ulate a we ig hte d- ave ra g e dumpi ngmarg in. 19 U. S.C. § 1677(35)( B)
. Plaintiffs argue that “zer oing” is neither re quired by the antidumping statute nor consistent with the statute when c onsidered in its entirety
. SeeCompl. ¶ 14. Pl aintiffs insist that “Commerce leg ally

err ed in ca lculatingthe weighted-avera g e dumpingmarg ins, assessment rate s and deposit rates for SKF by not givingfull cre dit to sales made to or in the United States at prices above nor mal value” and ther eby

unlawfully

distorted the weighted-avera g e dumpingmarg ins. Com pl. ¶ 1 4; seePls.’ Br. 7 ( stating that the weig hted-avera g e mar g ins assigne d to plaintiffs ofCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 23

11 .0 9% on

ba ll b e a ri ng s f ro m F ra nc e , 4 .1 5% on

ba ll b e ari ng s f

ro m G e rm any , a

nd 7. 05 % o n b a ll bear ings f rom I taly , would have be en -13.17% , -25.38%, a nd -38.04%, r espec tively , if ca lculated without z eroing ). Pla int if fs a lso argue that Co mme rc e mus t inte rp re t th e anti dumpi ngstatut e c on sis te ntl y with international oblig ations of the United States, a s set forth in dec isions of the World Trade Org anization’s (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement Body , under which zeroinghas bee n reje cted. Com pl. ¶ 1 6; P ls. ’ B r. 35 -3 8; seeAg ree ment on I mplementation of Article VI of the Ge nera l Ag ree ment on Tarif

fs and Tr ade 1994, A

pr. 15, 1994, Mar

rake sh Ag ree ment Establishing the World Trade O rg anization, Annex 1A, 1868 U.N.T.S. 201 (1994) (“Antidumping Ag ree ment”). Relying, at least in part, on the doc trine orig inating in Mu rra yv . Th e Sc ho on e r Ch ar

mi ng Be tsy , 6 U .S. (2 Cr anc h) 64 , 1 18 (1 80 4) , p la int if fs argue tha

t th e U. S. G ov e rnme nt s ho uld c omp ly wi th decisions of the WTO which ha ve found “ the U.S. zeroing prac tice to be inconsistent with the International Antidumping Ag ree ment.” Pls.’ Br . 37. Plaintiffs point t o statements by the United States expressing intent to take a ction on the zeroingissue. Id. Plaintiffs also point out t hat since the la st p e ri od

of re vie ws of

su bje c t be ari ng s, “ Comme rc e c ha ng e d it s me tho do logy

in
anti dumpi nginv e sti g atio ns wi th r e sp e c t to the c a lc ula tio n o f t he we ig hte d- ave ra g e marg in i n
aver ag e-to-a

vera g e compa

risons to no longe r zero out the ef fec t of sales sold above fair va lue.” Id. at 36 (c iting to Implem entation of the Findings of t he W TO Panel in United States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Ec uador: Notice of Dete rmination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round A greem ents Act &Rev ocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen W armwater Shrimp from Ecuador , 7 2 F e d. Re g . 4 8, 25 7 ( Au g . 2 3, 20 07 )) ; see also Antidumping Procee dings: Calculation of the W eighted-Av erage D umping Margins During An AntidumpingCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 24

Duty Inv estigation: Final Modification , 7 1 F e d. Re g . 7 7, 72 2 ( De c . 2 7, 20 06 ); Antidumping Procee dings; Calculation of the W eighted-Av erage D umping Margins In Antidumping Inve stigati ons: Change in EffectiveDate of Final Modification , 72 Fe d. Reg . 3783 (Jan. 26, 2007) (e ff e c tiv e F e b. 22 , 2 00 7) . Pl a int if fs a dd that “ Comme rc e imp le me nte d th is n e w m e tho do logy in
sever al investig ations, resulting in the revoc ation of orde rs ag ainst nine companie s.” Pls.’ Br . 36. The c ourt reje cted similar ar g uments by SKF cha lleng ing the application of Commerc e’s zeroing methodology

in administrative revie ws. See SKF I II , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121,
at 14 -1 6; SFK USA Inc. v . United States , 33 CI T__, __, Slip Op. 09-32, at 7-16 (Apr . 17, 2009) (“ SKF II ”). SKF III

and SKF II

a ff ir me d th e De pa

rtme nt’ s u se of

zer oin gto d e te rm ine pla int if fs ’ weig hted-avera g e dumpingmarg in in the final results of a dminist rative r eviews f or the pre vious two period of r eviews, Ma y 1, 2005 throug h April 1, 2006 and May 1, 2004 throug h April 1, 2005. See SKF III

, 3 3 CI T at __ , Sl ip O p. 09 -1 21 , at 14 -1 6; SFK II , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-32, at 7-16. The court a lso addresse d the re asons why rec ent deve lopments related to WTO dec isions do not provide a ba sis on which the cour t may depar t from binding pr ece dent of the Court of Ap pe a ls, wh ic h u

ph e ld a s r e a so na

ble the De pa

rtme nt’ s st atut or

y int e rp re tatio n th at ze ro ingin administrative re views is permissible. See Union Steel v. U nited States , 33 CI T __, __, Slip Op. 09-105, at 17-19 ( Sept. 28, 2009) (re lying upon Corus Staal BV v. United States , 502 F.3d 1370 (F ed. Cir. 2007), whic h upheld as re asonable Commerce’ s use of zeroingin an administrative revie w of a

n antidumping duty

order on hot-rolled stee l, and NSK L td. v. United States , 510 F.3d 1375 (F ed. Cir. 2007), whic h reje cted the a rgument that use of zeroingshould be held unlawf ul based on a

decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement B ody and on stateme nts by

the United StatesCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 25

ind ic atin gtha

t th e Un ite d St ate s w ou ld c omp ly wi th t hat de c isi on ). Th e Court

of Ap pe a ls conclude d that “until Comm erc e aba

ndons zeroing in a dminist rative r eviews suc h as this one, a rema nd in this case would be una vailing. T here fore , beca

use Commerce ’s zeroing prac tice is in acc ordanc e with our we ll-established pre cede nt, until Commerc e off ic ial ly ab an do ns theprac tic e pu rsu an t to thesp e c ifi e d s tatuto ry sc he me , we affirm it s continued use in this case. ” Union Steel , 3 3 C I T at_

_ , S l i p Op
. 0 9 -1 0 5 , at1 8 -1 9 (qu o t i n g NSK , 5 10 F .3 d at 13 80 ) ( e mph a sis added) . Plaintiffs have fa iled to advanc e a ne w ar g ument direc ted at Commerce ’s use of zer oing that is not forec losed by

the binding pr ece dents of the Court of A ppeals. F or these va

rious
rea sons, the court must aff irm the Depa

rtment’s dete rmination to apply zeroing in the administrative re views at issue in this case
. D. Commerce ’s Policy , Rule, or Prac tice of I ssuing L iquidation I nstructions Fiftee n Day s after Publication of the Fina l Results of an Administrative Review I s Contrary to L aw Plaintiffs’ final cla im challeng es the De partment’s de cision to issue liqui dation instructions to Cus toms fifteen da y s after the publication of the F inal Results. P ls.’ Br . 2. In the notice settingforth the F inal Results, publi shed on September 11, 2008, Commerce stated that “[w]e intend to is sue appr opriate a ssessment instructions directly to CBP 15 day s after

publication of these f inal results of re views.” Fi na l R esu lts , 73 Fe d. Reg . at 52,825. In stating that Commerce w ould issue the instructions “15 day s after publication,” the F eder al Reg ister notice de sc ri be d a

pr oc e dure at va

ri anc e wi th a

20 02 po lic y

state me nt, in whic h Co mme rc e sa id i t w ou ld issue liquidation ins tructions to Custom s, pursuant to administrative re views conduc ted under 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 5( a )( 1) and (a)( 2) , “ wi thi n 1 5 d ay s o f p ub lic atio n o f t he fi na l r e su lts of

re vie w i nCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 26

In it s e nti re ty , th e 20 02 ann ounc e me nt p ro vid e d a s f oll ow s: 9 Th e De pa

rtme nt o f C omm e rc e ann ounc e s th at, e ff e c tiv e imm e diate ly , it intends to issue liqui dation instructions pursuant to administrative revie ws c on du c te d und e r s e c tio n 7 51 of the Ta ri ff Ac t of 19 30 , a s ame nd e d [19 U. S.C. § 1675], t o the U.S. Customs Service within 15 day s of publication of the f inal results of re view in the Fede ral Register or any ame ndme nts the re to. Th is announce ment applies to revie ws conduc ted under sections 751(a )(1) and (2) of the Ta ri ff Ac t. I f you have a

ny questions, please c ontact the staf f member identified in the notice of f

inal results of re view published in the Fede ral Register
. Announce ment Conce rning Issuance of Liquidation Instr uctions Reflecting Re sults of Admin. Re v ie ws , Aug . 9, 2002, http:// ia.ita.doc.g ov/download/liquidation-announce ment.html (updated Aug . 14, 2002) (last visited Dec . 21, 2009) (“ Announce ment ” ); seePls.’ Br., Attac h. 14. the Fede ral Register

or any amendments ther eto.” Announce ment Conce rning Issuance of 9 Liq uid ati on In struc tio ns Re

fle c ting R esu lts of A dm in. Re v ie ws , Aug . 9, 2002, htt p:/ /ia .it a .d oc .g ov/do wn loa d/l iqu idatio n- ann ounc e me nt. htm l ( up date d Aug . 1 4, 20 02 ) ( la st visited Dec. 21, 2009) (“

Announce ment ” ); seePls.’ Br., Attac h. 14. Plaintiffs commence d this action on September 23, 2008, twe lve day s after publication of the F ina l Re su lts . Pl a int if fs mov e d f

or a pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n o n Se pte mbe r 2 6, 20 08 to p ro hib it Customs from liquidating pla intiffs’ entrie s made duringthe per iod of revie w. SKF’ s Consent Mot. for a Pre lim. I nj. to Enjoin L iquidation of Entries. The United States consented to issuanc e of a pr eliminary

injunction before the end of the fiftee n-day

period, a nd this court g rante d plaintiffs’ motion for a pr eliminary injunction day s later. Or der 1, Sept. 30, 2008. Unde r the preliminary

injunction order, liquidation of entrie s of plaintiffs’ mer chandise will remain enjoined duringthe pende ncy

of this liti g ation, including a ll remands and a ppeals. Id. In SKF II , the cour t held that Commerce’ s previous 2002 policy of issuing liquidation ins tr uc tio ns with in fiftee n day s of publication violated 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c )(2) “bec ause thatCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 27

p o l i cy al l o ws l i qu i d at i o nt o o cc ur a l m o s ti m m ed i at el y u p o n p u b l i ca t i o nra th er

th an p ro v i d i n g a min ima lly

re a so na ble tim e duri ngwh ic h a

pa rt y may se e k to ob ta in a

n in jun c tio n a g a ins t liquidation.” SKF II

, 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-32, at 27. The c ourt deter mined that the pre vious 2002 policy

“induce s an absur d, and unnec essar y , ‘ra ce to the c ourthouse’ that burdens imp e rm iss ibl y

the ri g ht o f a

pr os pe c tiv e pla int if

f t o s e e k th e inj un c tio n th at Co ng re ss contemplated in e nacting§ 1516a(c )(2) and fr ustrates the pur

pose of that pr ovision.” Id. at __, Slip Op. 09-32, at 24. In SKF III , th e c o urth e l d

th atth e D e p art m e n t ’ s a dh e r e n c e t o a n e wp o l i c y, rule, or pr actice , under which it waited fifte en day s befor e issuing liquidation instructions (“ne w fiftee n-day

policy ”) w as contra

ry to law bec ause the Depa

rtment failed to c onsider the r eleva nt fac tors in adopting that policy , rule, or pr actice
. SKF III , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 24. A threshold issue is whethe r SKF ha s standing to c halleng e Commerce ’s dec ision to i ssue liq uid atio n in str

uc tio ns fi ft e e n d ay s a ft e r p ub lic atio n, and the un de rl yingpo lic y

tha t w a s th e ba sis of that dec ision, despite havingobtained an injunction ag ainst liquidation of its entries. See id. at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 17. In SKF III , th e c o urth el d

th atS KF h ads t an d i n g t o ch al l en ge Commerce’ s new fif

teen- day policy , even though SKF did not suffe r the ha rm ca used by liquidation of its entries prior to its obtaining an injunction. Id. at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 17-18. Th e c ourt re a so ne d th at a

c la im m ay

pr e se nt a n a c tua l c a se or

c on tr ov e rs y

if the a c tio n o ri g ina lly complained of

is capa ble of re petition, y et eva ding r eview. Id. at __ , Sl ip O p. 09 -1 21 , at 17 ; see als o , SKF II

, 3 3 CI T at __ , Sl ip O p. 09 -3 2, at 20 -2 2; SKF USA Inc. v . United States , 31 CI T 405, 411-12 (2007) (“ SKF I

”). The ref

ore, the first question with respec t to standing is whethe r Commerce w ill apply

its new fiftee n-day

policy in future r eviews. The court take s judicial notice that Co mme rc e is a

pp lyingits ne w f

if te e n- da y po lic y in m ult ipl e a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie ws ,Court No. 08- 00322 P age 28

including Commerc e’s most rec ent re view in which SKF was a party to the proce eding
. See Ba ll Bearings &Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, &the United Kingdom: Final Re su lts of A nti du mp ing

Du ty Ad mi n. Re v ie ws &Re v oc ati on of a n O rd e r in Pa rt , 7 4 Fe d
. R eg. 44 ,8 19 , 4 4, 82 1 ( Au g . 3 1, 20 09 ); se e als o Certain Cased Pencils from the People’ s Republic of China: Am. Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Review , 74 Fe d. Reg . 45,177, 45,178 (S e pt. 1, 20 09 ); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Re sin From Italy: Am. F

inal Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iew , 7 4 F e d. Re g . 1 9, 93 1, 19 ,9 32 (A pr . 3 0, 20 09 ). Th e a dv e rs e eff ect of the new f ifteen- day policy , as the c ourt found to existin SKF III , is, theref ore, c apable of repe tition. The second question with respe ct to standing is whether the court’s grantingof a judgme nt in SKF III

on SKF ’s c la im c ha lle ng ingthe po lic y ha s th e e ff

e c t of pr e ve nti ngha

rm to SKF fr om future a

pplications of that policy . The judg ment g rante d in SKF III was a decla ratory judgme nt. SKF III

, 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 24. In a dec laratory judgme nt, a cour

t “may decla re the rig hts and other leg al re lations of any interested pa

rty seekingsuch dec laration, whether or not furthe r re lief is or could be soug ht.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) ( 2006). SKF did not seek f urther r elief on the claim it broug ht in SKF III challeng ing the new f

ifteen- day policy
. Th e re fo re , th e de c la

rator y jud g me nt, sta

nd inga lon e , c ann ot e ns ur e that Co mme rc e wi ll n ot a g a in
a pp ly the ne w f if te e n- da y po lic y to S KF , c a

us ingSKF to f

ile wi thi n th e fi ft e e n d ay

pe ri od its summons, complaint, and motion for injunction aga inst li quidation and, should the g overnme nt not consent to such an injunction within that period, a lso to seek and to obtain a te mporary restra ining or der. The ty

pe of ha rm that occ urre d to SKF, as re cog nized by the cour t in SKF III

, 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 17-18, 22-23, ma y occur ag ain from Commerc e’s c ontinuedCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 29

application of the new f

ifteen da y policy . The c ourt conc ludes, there fore , that SKF has standing to challeng e the ne w fiftee n-day policy in this l itigation. The ne x t issue is whether the c ourt’s adjudication of SKF’s c laim challeng ing the new fiftee n-day

policy is affe cted by

the established pr inciples of re s judicata or c ollatera l estoppel. Under res judicata, or “ claim pre clusion,” “‘ a fina l judgment on the me rits bars fur ther c laims by parties or their privies ba sed on the same cause of ac tion.’” Brown v. Felsen , 442 U.S. 127, 131 (1 9 7 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Montana v. United States , 4 40 U. S. 1 47 , 1 53 (1 97 9) ). He re , h ow e ve r, SKF is
su ingon a ne w c a us e of a c tio n. Al tho ug h th e fi ft e e n- da y po lic y tha t is the ba sis of

SKF ’s fo ur

th claim in this li tigation is t he same policy that SKF cha lleng ed, succ essfully , in SKF III , SK F is
c ha lle ng ingin t

his c a se no t on ly

the po lic y

its e lf but th e sp e c if

ic de c isi on

by the De pa rtme nt t o continue apply

ing that policy , a dec ision that Com merc e announc ed in the F eder al Reg ister notice by wh ic h th e F ina l Re su lts we re pu bli sh e d. Pls. ’ B r. 32 -3 5; see Fi na l R esu lts , 7 3 Fe d
. R eg. at 52,825. That de cision, which is separ ate a nd distinct from the dec ision challeng ed in SKF III , is s ub je c t to c ha lle ng e un de r t

he APA . T he c ourt

c on c lud e s, the re fo re , th at SKF ’s fo ur th c la im i n this case is not the same c ause of action on which it sued in SKF III , which ca

use of a ction was merg ed into the judg ment issued in SKF III . Res judicata, ther efor e, does not a pply to SKF’s fo ur th c la im i n th is c a se or

to t he de fe ns e the g ov e rnme nt h a s r a ise d to that c la im. The c ourt rea ches the opposite conclusion, howeve r, with respe ct to the doctrine of collater al estoppel, or “ issue prec lusion.” “Unde r collate ral e stoppel, once a court ha s decide d an issue of fa ct or lawnece ssary to its j udg ment, that decision may prec lude re litigation of the issue in a suit on a diffe rent c ause of action involving a

party to the first ca se.” Al le n v . M c Cur ry , 449 U. S
. 9 0 , 9 4 (1 9 8 0 ) ( ci t i n g Montana , 440 U.S. at 153). This ca se pre sents issues of law pe rtainingCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 30

to the new f

ifteen- day policy that are identical to those dec ided in SKF III and tha t aro se in essentially

the same f

actua l circumstanc e. The parties in this case are the same pa rties that appea red in SKF III

. F or the re a so ns dis c us se d b e low , th e c ourt c on c lud e s th at pl a int if

fs , in support of their c laim challeng ing the new f ifteen- day policy , raise c erta in issues that were decide d ag ainst them in SKF III and that may

not be re litigated he re. To cha lleng e the ne w fiftee n-day policy as applied in this revie w, plaintiffs first ar g ue that thi s n e w p oli c y

“ vio late s a

pa rt y ’s statut or

y ri g hts a s to jud ic ia l r e vie w” a s se t f or th i n 1 9 U .S. C. § 1516a(a )(2) , which plaintiffs c onstrue to g rant a party the rig ht to wait thirty

day s after pu bli c atio n b e fo re fi lin gits su mmo ns and

an a dd iti on a l th ir

ty da y s, a ft e r t hat f ili ng , to fi le its complaint. Pls.’ Br. 33. Sec ond, plaintiffs argue that the ne w policy violates USCI T Rule 56.2(a) “as to the timing for f

iling motions for pre liminary injunctions in cases brought under § 1516a .” Id . Third, plaintiffs ar g ue that the ne w policy conflicts with a pr ior dec ision of the Court of International Trade
. Id. at3 4 -3 5 (c i t i n g Tianji n Mach. I mp. &Exp. Corp. v. United States , 28 CI T 1635, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (2004) , aff’d mem. , 146 Fe d. Appx. 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ( per curiam)). The court c onsidered, a nd reje cted, a ll three of the se ar g uments by SKF in SKF III

. See SKF III , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 19-20. As SKF III

conclude d, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a) (2) doe s not specifica lly state that Commerce must wait thirty

day s after

publication, or any

other spec ific time period, be fore the issuance of liquidation ins tructions. See id. at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 19. To the contr ary , the provision
re qu ir e s a pa rt y c ha lle ng ingthe fi na l r e su lts of an a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie w t o f ile a summo ns wi thi n thirty day s of the publication of the final re sults and to file a complaint within thirty day s after

the filing of the summons. Id. As the cour t also decide d in SKF III

, plaintiffs’ ar g ument underCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 31

USCI T Rule 56.2(a) is without m erit. See SKF I II , 3 3 CI T at __ , Sl ip O p. 09 -1 21 , at 20 . T he ru le does not addre ss the question of the minimum ti me a pa rty is gr anted to move f

or the injunction or the question of how longCommerce must wa it before issuing liquidation instructions. Id. Plaintiffs’ third argument, which re lies on Tia nji n , was re jected in SKF III

beca use the c onclusion
re a c he d in

tha t c a se pe rt a ini ngto t

he pr e vio us fi ft e e n- da

y po lic y wa s dic ta beca

use it was not eff ectuated in the judg ment enter ed in the ca se. Id. ; see Tia nji n , 28 CI T at 1650-51, 353 F . Supp. 2d at 1309-10. In challeng ing the new f

ifteen- day policy , plaintiffs also ar g ue, more g ener ally , that the time period ava ilable for the ir prepa ringand filingtheir summons, complaint, and motion for a preliminary

injunction is i nadequate to allow them to exercise their rig ht to judicial review. Plaintiffs submit that “Cong ress . . . re cog nized that these ty pes of c ases a

re c omplex and plaintiffs nee d some minimal amount of time to make decisions as to the ba sic para meters of the jud ic ia l r e vie w the y

wi ll s e e k. ” Pls. ’ B r. 34 . N oti ngtha t Tia nji n , 2 8 C I T at16 50 -51 , 3 53 F. Supp. 2d at 1309, stressed the ne ed for Commerce to avoid imposi ngfinanc ial burdens on litigants in the for

m of incre ased attorney ’s fe es and c ourt costs, plaintiffs asser t that beca

use of th e n ew fi ft ee n -d ay

p o l i cy “S KF h adt o fo re go i t s s t atu t o ri l y -p erm i t t edp er i o d fo r f i l i n g a summons and complaint and the additional time per mitted under this Court’s Rules for moving for a preliminary

injunction, all in order to ensure that the Court would not lose jurisdiction over SKF’s c halleng e to the Fi na l R esu lts .” Id. at 35. De fe nd ant r e sp on ds that “ Comme rc e ’s po lic y is i n c on fo rm anc e wi th t

he statut e , a

nd is a
rea sonable method of f

ulfilling the statute.” Def .’s Resp. 33 (“ Commerce’ s liquidation pol icy as state d in its Fi na l R esu lts g ives parties a n opportunity

to file a motion for a

preliminary

injunctionCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 32

Def endant- intervenor

makes only

one ar g ument in response to SKF ’s claim cha lleng ing 10 the new f ifteen- day policy : that the new f

ifteen- day policy does not have the ef

fec t rejec ted by

the court a s unlawful in SKF II (which involved the previous fifte en-da y policy ). De f.-Interve nor’s Resp. 33-34. This is the same a s one of the a rguments defe ndant ra ises with respec t to SKF II
. befor e the issuanc e of c ustoms ins tructions. Put si mply , Commerce’ s liquidation pol icy addre sses the ver y conce rn ra ised by

the Court in SKF [ II

] – na me ly , th at pa

rt ie s b e g ive n a

‘m ini ma lly
re as o n ab l e t i m e’ t o o b t ai nan i n j un ct i o n . ” ( qu o t i n g SKF II , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-32, at 27)). 10 As they did in SKF III

, plaintiffs argue that the ne w fiftee n-day policy is unreasona

ble and burdens imper

missibl y a par ty ’s opportunity

to seek judicial re view. See SKF I II , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 21. The cour t concluded that the administrative re cord in that c ase did not demonstrate that Comm erc e conside red a ll releva nt fac tors when it dec ided to apply the new fiftee n-day

policy and, in par

ticular, that the r ecor d did not disclose “whethe r Commerce considere d the importance of an or derly administration of the statutory scheme , under which aff ecte d parties may

exercise f

ree ly their rig ht to seek and obta in meaning ful judicial revie w, and the ne e d f or Comme rc e to a c hie ve its re g ulator y ob je c tiv e s w ith out im

po sin gunne c e ssa

ry c os ts and burde ns on aff

ecte d parties.” SKF III

, 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 22. The c ourt conclude d that the new f

ifteen- day policy is contrar y to law bec ause Commerc e, in adoptingthe policy , failed to c onsider the r eleva nt fac tors, as re quired by

the standar d the Supreme Court established in Citi

zens to Preserv e Ov erton Park, Inc . v. Volpe , 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971) and subsequent ca se law. Id. at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 22-23. In deciding , in the neg ative, the issue of whether Commerce a cted in ac corda nce w ith law in a do pti ngthe ne w f

if te e n- da y po lic y , th e c ourt

se ttl e d a n is su e of law b e tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s th at is imp or tant t o th is c a se and

that, i n th e pr e vio us c a se , a ro se on fa c ts e sse nti a lly

ide nti c a l to the fa c tsCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 33

in t his c a se . In th e iss ue s and de c isi on me mor and

um f or the fi na l r e su lts of

the se ve nte e nth administrative re views, Commerce stated, in response to SKF’s comment objec ting to the ne w fiftee n-day

policy , that it “will continue to issue our liquidation inst ructions 15 day s after publication of the fina l results of re view unless we are awa re tha n an injunction has bee n filed or is imm inent.” Is su es &De c isi on Me m. for theAn tid um ping D uty

Ad mi n. Re v ie ws o

f B all Bearings &Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, Singapore, &the United Kingdom for the Period of Revie w May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006 , at 65 (Oc t. 4, 2007) (“ POR 2005- 2006 Dec ision Mem. ” ). Comme rc e ma de the same state me nt i n th e De c isi on Me mor and

um i n this case. Dec ision Mem. 64 . In b oth the se ve nte e nth

and the e ig hte e nth

a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie ws , Commerce justified the f

ifteen- day policy acc ordingto the same two re asons, which we re “ the six -month deeme d-liquidation require ments of 19 USC 1504(d) and CB P’s stated nee d to have a signific ant portion of that time to complete liquidation of numerous e ntries such a s those cover ed by these a ntidumping duty

order s,” statingin both that it “will continue to is sue our liquidation instructions 15 day s after publication of the fina l results of re view unless we are awa re that an injunction has been f

iled or is imminent.” POR 2005-2006 D ecision Me m. 65 ; Dec ision Mem. 64. B e c a us e , in the ins tant c a se , th e iss ue of wh e the r t he ne w f if te e n- da y po lic y wa s la wf ull y adopted ha s arisen a g ain, it may be ar g ued that, ac cordingto the rule of c ollatera l estoppel, the issue may not be re litigated he re. Acompetingconsideration, however , is that the g overnme nt’s char acte rization of the administrative re cord in the c ase at bar, a s that rec ord re lates to the consideration of the rele vant fa ctors, is distinctly differ ent in this case. At or al ar g ument, counsel for de fenda

nt made an a

rgument that was not made in SKF III , which is that the De partment’s choice of fifte en day s was the r esult of the De partment’s e mploy ing a “bala ncingtest” thatCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 34

considere d “on the one hand providingparties with time to g et an injunction but on the other ha nd Comme rc e do e s h ave de a dli ne s. I t’ s g ot t he six mo nth

de e me d li qu idatio n a

nd it d oe s ta ke tim e for the e ntries ac tually

to be liquidated, for instruc tions actually to be sent to Customs and for Customs to act . . .” T r. 73, Sept. 23, 2009. The c ourt conc ludes that collater al estoppel a pplies to the issue of whethe r the De partment impermissibly

failed to c onsider the r eleva nt fac tors in its decision. The “ba lancingtest” to which counsel for

defe ndant alluded dur ing or al ar g ument would be dire ctly rele vant to the cour

t’s adjudication of SKF ’s fourth c laim, and would pre clude a pplication of collate ral e stoppel, were there any indication of the De partment’s a pplication of this balancingtest on the administrative
rec ord in this case. The court finds no such indication. I nstead, the c ourt finds that the brief discussion of the new f

ifteen- day policy in the Dec ision Memorandum is the sole portion of the administrative re cord, a s filed by the Depa rtment, rele vant to a conside ration of the f actor s by which the De partment made its decision. As stated in SKF III , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-121, at 21, “the c ourt is require d . . . to examine the ag ency ’s ac tion upon the administrative rec ord . . . .” Even we re c ollatera l estoppel dee med not to apply to the issue of whe ther the f ifteen- day po lic y is unla wf ul f or the De pa rtme nt’ s f a ilure to c on sid e r t

he re le va nt f a c tor s, the c ourt

sti ll would be compe lled to conclude, on the merits, that the Depa rtment’s newfiftee n-day

policy , and the sp e c if ic de c isi on

to c on tin ue to a pp ly tha t po lic y in t he c on te xt of

the e ig hte e nth administrative re views, we re c ontrary to law. Her e, as be fore , the re cord f ails to indicate that Comme rc e c on sid e re d a

ny re le va nt f a c tor s c omp e tin gwi th t

he tim e de a dli ne se t by

19 U. S.C. § 1 50 4( d) and

the re su lti ngne e d f

or Cus tom s to have a

signif ic ant p or tio n o f t hat ti me to c omp le teCourt No. 08- 00322 P age 35

liq uid atio n o f t

he e ntr ie s. Th is s ho rt c omi ngwo uld re qu ir e the c ou

rt to c on c lud e that th e po lic y is unlawful unde r the “ arbitra ry , capr icious” standar d of re view. See28 U. S.C. § 2 64 0( e ); 5 U .S. C. § 706(2)( A). He re, a s in SKF III , the re cord doe s not disclose any consideration of the nee d for a n
or de rl y a dmi nis tr atio n o f t

he statut or

y sc he me fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w o r t he ne e d f or Comme rc e to achie ve its regulatory

objectives without imposing the unne cessa ry costs and burde ns on aff

ecte d parties that r esult from the De partment’s policy , rule, or pr actice
. See SKF I II , 3 3 CI T at __ , Sl ip Op. 09-121, at 22-23. Absent is any evidenc e that the De partment c onsidered a lternatives unde r which par ties would not be as burde ned as the y are under the fiftee n-day time period. As requir ed by

the principle of

collater al estoppel, a

nd as the c ourt would have conclude d
e ve n w e re tha

t pr inc ipl e no t to a

pp ly , th e c ourt

ho lds tha t Co mme rc e a c te d c on tr ary to l aw i n adoptingits new fiftee n-day policy and in dec iding to maintain that policy when implementingthe F ina l Re su lts
. III . C ONCL US I ON On plaintiffs’ f

irst claim, the cour

t concludes that Comm erc e lawf ully soug ht to acquire the COP data of plaintiffs’ unaff iliated supplier to deter

mine the construc ted value of subject
merc handise obtaine d from that supplier. In response to plaintiffs’ sec ond claim, the cour t
rema nds the Fina l Results wit h the direc tive that Commerce r edete rmine the c onstructed va lue of that merc handise. In adjudicatingplaintiffs’ third cla im, the court af firms Commerce ’s dec ision in the Final Results to assig n a value of zero to neg ative dumpingmarg ins on indivi dual sales that plaintiffs made a

bove norma l value. F inally , the cour t concludes, on pla intiffs’ fourth c laim, that Commerce’ s new fif

teen- day policy , and the de cision to apply it in thi s case , are contra

ry to law, by a pp lic atio n o f t

he pr inc ipl e of

c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l.Court No. 08- 00322 P age 36 OR DE R Upon re view of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof From France, G ermany , Italy, Japan, & theUn ite d Ki ng

do m: Fi na l R esu lts of A nti du mp ing Du ty Ad mi nis tra tiv e Re v ie ws &Rescission of Re v ie ws i n Par t , 73 Fe d. Reg . 52,823 (Sept. 11, 2008) (the “F inal Results”), plaintiffs’ motion for jud g me nt u

po n th e a g e nc y

re c or d, the re sp on se s o f d e fe nd ant a nd de fe nd ant- int e rv e no r, and a ll paper s and proc eeding s here in, and upon due de liberation, it is hereby OR DE RE D that th e F ina l Re su lts be , a nd he re by are , a ff ir me d in pa rt and re mand e d in part; it is further OR DE RE D that Co mme rc e ’s de te rm inatio n o f t he c on str uc te d v a lue of

the me rc ha

nd ise that SKF GmbH obtaine d from its unaff iliated supplier, and the r esulting dumpingmarg in applied to SKF GmbH, be, a

nd here by are , held to be contr ary

to law and se t aside; it is further OR DE RE D that Co mme rc e sh a ll r e de te rm ine the c on str uc te d v a lue of

the me rc ha

nd ise that SKF Gm

bH ob ta ine d f

ro m it s una ff

ili ate d s up pli e r i n a c c or da nc e wi th t he pr inc ipl e s st ate d in this Opinion and Order

and ac cording ly

shall rede termine a

weig hted ave rag e dumpingmarg in for SKF GmbH; it is further OR DE RE D that th e F ina l Re su lts be , a nd he re by are , a ff ir me d in the us e of

zer oin g ; it

is further OR

DE RE D that Co mme rc e sh a ll s ub mit its re de te rm inatio n u

po n r e mand

wi thi n n ine ty (90) da y s of the date of this Opinion and Orde r; and it is further OR DE RE D that plaintiffs and de fenda nt-intervenor

shall have thirty

(30) da y s from the submissi on of Commerce ’s re mand re deter mination in which to file with the court comments on the re mand re deter

mination.
/s/ Timot hy C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d g e
Dated: Dec ember

21, 2009 New Y ork, Ne w York