Slip Op. 12- UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE NSK BEARING S EUROPE LTD., NSK EUROP E LT D., and NSK CORP ORATION,

Plaintiffs,

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

EN COMP ANY, Def endant- Interve nor. Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge

Court No. 10- 00289

OP INION AND ORDER [Granting motion for sta

y of proc eeding s pendingappea l in Union Steel v. U nited States , CAFC Court No. 2012-1248] Dated: June 4, 2012 Alexande r H. Schae

fer and Robert A. Lipstein , Crowell & Moring , L L P, of Washington, DC, for pla intiffs. 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 Shana Hofstetter , 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 NSK B ear ings Eur ope, Ltd., NSK Europe L TD., and N SK Corporation (c ollectively , “NSK” or “plaintiffs” ) conte st an antidumping de termination of the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerc e (“ Commerce” or theCourt No. 10- 00289 P age 2

“De partment” ) that the De partment issued to conc lude the twentieth a dminist rative r eview of antidumping duty

order s cover ing ba ll bearing s and par ts thereof (the “ subject merc handise” ) from F ranc e, Ge rmany , I taly , J apan, a nd the United King dom. Ball Bearings and Parts T hereof From France

, Germany

, Italy, Japan, and theUnited Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping 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). Plaintiffs’ complaint conta ins a single claim challeng ing Commerc e’s use of “zeroing ” in the re view of the order , wher eby U.S. sales of subject merc handise fr om the United King dom above nor mal value a

re a ssigne d a dumping marg in of zero, instead of a neg ative mar g in, in the calculation of the weig hted-avera g e dumping marg ins. Compl . ¶ 10 (Sept. 23, 2010), ECF No. 6. NSK ar g ues that zeroingin an administrative re view violates the U .S. antidumping laws a nd is inconsistent with i nternational obligations of the United States. Id . ¶¶ 11- 13. Be fore the cour

t is plainti ffs’ motion to stay this case pe nding the final disposition of Union Steel v. U

nited States , 36 CI T __, Slip Op. 12-24 (Fe b. 27, 2012) (“ Union Steel ”). Pls.’ Mot. for Stay

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

2, 2012), ECF No. 45 ( “Pls.’ Mot.”). Union Steel involves the question of the leg ality of the De partment’s zeroing methodology

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 enter ed by the Court of International Trade in that case is now on appea l before the United States Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (“Court of Appe als”). Def endant United States a

nd defe ndant-interve nor the 1 Timken Company

(“Timken” ) oppose the pr oposed stay . Def .’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to St ay

The United States f

iled a Notice of Appe al of the judg ment in Union Steel on Marc h 6, 1 2011. ECF No. 79 ( Consol C t. No. 11-00083). The appea l has bee n dockete d as Union Steel v. United States , CAFC Court No. 2012-1248.Court No. 10- 00289 P age 3

(May 21, 2012), ECF N o. 46 (“D ef.’ s Opp’n”) ; The Timken Co.’s Resp. in Opp’n to NSK’s Mot. to Stay Procee dings ( May

21, 2012), ECF N o. 47 (“D ef- Interve nor’s Opp’ n”). 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. While the case at bar conce rns a diff

ere nt antidumping duty

order and administrative r eview tha n are involved in Union Steel , both case s raise the same g ener al issue of whe ther the D epar tment’s application of the zeroing methodology in an administrative re view of a n antidumping duty

order is lawful. A stay , there fore , will serve the intere st of judicial economy and conse rve the resour ces of the par ties. Moreove r, def

endant and def endant- intervenor

have f ailed to show, or e ven alleg e, that the pr oposed stay would cause them 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). I n makingthis decision, the court must “we igh c ompeting inter ests and maintain an even ba lance .” Landis , 299 U.S. at 257. In opposing the motion for a stay , defe ndant and de fenda nt-intervenor

argue that the issue befor e the c ourt is whether NSK exhausted its adminis trative re medies bef ore the ag ency , not whether Commerce r easona

bly interpre ted the antidumping law to per mit z eroingin the twentieth administrative re view. De f.’s Opp’ n 3-4; Def -Interve nor’s Opp’ n 4. The re cord

reve als that NSK raise d an issue per taining to zeroingin its case brie f bef ore the Depa

rtment.Court No. 10- 00289 P age 4

Case B rief of

NSK, A-100-001, at 1-5 (Jun. 3, 2010) (Admin R. Doc. No. 28). As to NSK’s obligation to ex haust administrative re medies, def endant a nd defe ndant-interve nor ar g ue that NSK, in challeng ing zer oing be fore the ag ency , did not raise the statutory interpre tation issue now bef ore the Court of Appea ls which they char acte rize as an inconsistent interpr etation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) in investigations and in administrative review s. Def.’ s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for J. upon the Ag ency

R. 8 (Nov. 1, 2011), ECF No. 38; Resp. Br . of the Timken Co. Opposing the R. 56.2 Mot. of NSK Be aring s Europe, Ltd., et. al. 6-7 (N ov. 7, 2011), ECF N o. 39. The Court of International Trade “shall, whe re a ppropriate , require the exhaustion of administrative re medies.” 28 U .S.C. § 2637(d) (2006). In trade case s, the court ha s discretion with respec t to whether to re quire e x haustion. See Corus Staal BV v. United States , 502 F.3d 1370, 1381 (F ed. Cir.2007) (stating that “ applying e x haustion principles in trade case s is subject to the discretion of the judge of the Court of International Trade ”). The exhaustion requirement 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) ( indicating situations where w aiver of the e x haustion require ment has bee n rec og nized as appropr iate). B eca use it is possibl e that the outcome of the Union Steel

litigation will make re achingthe exhaustion iss ues ra ised by defe ndant and defe ndant-interve nor unnec essar y , the cour

t does not consider it a pr udent use of the parties’

resour ces a

nd its own resourc es to dec ide the exhaustion issues at this t ime. These issues, there fore , are an insuffic ient basis upon which to deny the pending

motion for a stay

. Def endant a rgues that “N SK is not entit led to a stay beca use it has not satisfied its burden to show that it will suffe r cle ar ha rdship by proce edingwith the litigation.” De f.’s Opp’ n 1. The Gover nment submits t hat “NSK shifts the leg al standar d by sug g esting that a stay

would not harm the de fenda

nt or defe ndant interve nor” when it is the movant who must show that “it willCourt No. 10- 00289 P age 5

suffe r har dship--ec onomic harm, leg al pre judice or ine quity --by

proce edingwith liti g ation.” Id . at 3. Def

endant misconstrue s the standar d. A par ty 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 is eve n a fa ir possibili ty 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. Howeve r, the c ourt fails to see what har m would acc rue to de fenda nt should the stay

be orde red, and def endant, in opposingthe motion, does not identify any such har m, seeDef

.’s Opp’n 3- 4. Def endant- intervenor

makes the a

rgument that unlike other c ases stayed by this court pendingthe re solution of Union Steel , this case is under submissi on and aw aiting the court’s judgme nt. The adva

nced sta g e of this litigation does not pre clude a stay , and defe ndant-interve nor has f ailed to identify

any harm that a

stay would cause

. In conclusion, the stay

soug ht by

plaintiffs serve s the interests of judicia l economy and

conser vation of the pa

rties’ re source s. No showing of har m resulting f

rom the propose d stay

has been ma de by

defe ndant or de fenda

nt-intervenor . The c ourt, there fore , will gr ant the pending motion. ORDER Upon consider ation of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay of Proce eding s Pending A ppeal in Union Steel v. U

nited States (“Motion for Stay”), a s filed on May 2, 2012 by

NSK Be aring s Europe, Ltd., NSK Europe Ltd., and NSK Corporation (collectively , “NSK”) , the motions in opposition filed by

the United States and de fenda nt-intervenor

the Timken Company , and all other pa pers a nd proce eding s here in, and upon due de liberation, it is hereby 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