JTEKT CORP ORATION and KOYO

CORP ORATION OF U .S.A. ,

Plaintiffs,

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

EN COMP ANY , Def endant- I nterve nor.

Slip Op. 11-92 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Consol. Court No. 06-00250

OP INION AND ORDER [Affirming in pa

rt and re manding in part a r emand r edete rmination in an administrative re view of an antidumping duty

order on ball bear ings] Dated: July 29, 2011 Sidley Austin, LLP

( Neil R. Ellis and Jill Caiazz o ) for plaintiffs J TEKT Corporation and Koy o Corporation of U.S.A. Bake r & McKenzie

, LLP (Washington, District of

Columbi a and Chica g o, I llinois ) ( Kevin M. O’B rien , Kevin J. Sullivan , Diane A. Mac Donald , Christ ine M. Streatfeild , and Sonal Majmudar) for

plaintiffs FY H B ear ing Units USA, I nc. and N ippon Pil low Bloc k Company L td. Crowell & Moring, LLP

( Matthew P. Jaffe , Alexande r H. Schae fer , Nicole M. Je nkins , and Robert A. Lipstein ) for plaintiffs NSK Corporation, NSK L td., and NSK Prec ision America, I nc. Bake r & McKenzie , LLP (Washington, District of

Columbi a and Chica g o, I llinois ) ( Kevin M. O’B rien, Christi ne Streatfeild, and Diane A. Mac Donald ) for plaintiffs Americ an NTN Be aringManufa cturingCorp., NTN B ear ing Corpor ation of Amer ica, NTN B ower Corporation, NTN Corporation, NTN Drivesha ft, Inc., and N TN-B CA Corporation.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 2

O’Me lveny

& Mye rs, LL P

( Grey son L. Bryan and Nausheen Hassan ) for plaintiffs Nac hi Tec hnology , I nc., Na chi-F ujikoshi C orporation, and Nac hi America , Inc. Tony W 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 ( Claudia Burke ); Jennifer I . Johnson , Hardee

p Josan , Natasha Robinson , Sapna Sharma , Myk

haylo Gryzlov , Jonathan Zielinksi , and Deborah R. King , Offic e of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United St ates De partment of Commerc e, of c ounsel, for defe ndant. Stewart a nd Stewart ( Gee rt M. De Pre st , TerenceP. Stewart , W illiam A. Fennell , and Lane S. Hurewitz ) for

plaintiff and de fenda

nt-intervenor

The Timken Company

. Stanceu, Judge : Be fore the cour t is the redete rmination (“Rema nd Redeter

mination”) issued by the United States De partment of Commerc e (“ Commerce,” or the “ Depa rtment”) pursuant to the cour

t’s rema nd order in JTEKT Corp. v. United States , 33 CI T __, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (2009) ( “

JTEKT ”). F inal Results of Redetermination (“ Remand Redete rmination”). In JTEKT , the cour t ordere d rec onsideration of c erta in decisions in the Depa rtment’s published deter mination (“F inal Results”) conc luding the sixteenth administrative revie ws (“A FB s 16”) of antidumping duty

order s on ball bear ings a nd parts ther eof ( “subjec t mercha ndise”) f rom Fr ance , Ger many , I taly , J apan, a

nd the United King dom. See J TEKT , 33 CI T at __, 675 F . Supp. 2d at 1263-64; Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, &the United Kingdom: Final Results of Anti dumping Duty Admin. Re views , 71 Fe d. Reg . 40,064 (Jul y 14, 2006) (“ Final Results ”). The revie ws applied to entrie s of subject mer chandise made dur ing the period of Ma

y 1, 2004 throug h April 30, 2005 (“pe riod of re view” or “POR”). Final Results , 71 Fe d. Reg . at 40,064. This action conc erns the r eview of the antidumping or der pe rtaining to subject merc handise fr om J apan, in whic h Commerce a ssigne d weig hted-a vera g e dumping marg ins to J apane se re spondents J TEKT Corporation (“JTEKT”), Na chi-F ujikoshi C orporationConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 3

(“N achi” ), Nippon Pillow Block Company , L td. (“NPB ”), N SK L td. (“NSK” ), and N TN Corporation (“ NTN” ), all of whic h are plaintiffs in this case. Id . at 40,066. B eca use the Remand Redeter mination complies only

in part with the re mand orde r in JTEKT and with applica

ble law, the cour t affir ms the Remand Redete rmination in part and issues a second r emand or der. I n the Remand Rede termination, Commerce addre ssed the five issues the court identifie d in its remand orde r in JTEKT , 33 CI T at __, 675 F . Supp. 2d at 1263-64. Remand Redeter mination 1. On three of

those issues, Commerce did not cha ng e its positions but provided a dditional ex planation. Those issues a rose f rom NPB’ s proposal duringthe re view to expand the choice of months for sampled tra nsactions, NTN’ s proposal to incorpor ate a dditional bear ing de sign ty

pes in the De partment’s mode l match methodolog y , and the c laim of petitioner The Timken Company

(“Timken” ), a pla intiff and def endant- intervenor

in this consolidated action, that Commerce should have used U .S. interest rate s, not J apane se intere st rates, to calc ulate a por

tion of cer

tain responde nts’ inventory car rying c osts. Id. On the re maining two issues, Commerce ma de cha ng es to the F inal Results in response to the cour t’s rema nd order

. Id

. at 26-31. Commerc e re deter mined the weig hted-avera g e antidumpingduty marg in for NTNafte r

rec alculatingNTN’s f

reig ht expense to base the e x pense on r ate r ather than value, a

nd it rede termined the ma

rg in for Na chi upon limiti ng its previous application of f acts other wise available and adve rse infe renc es to instances of err ors in cer

tain repor ting oc curr ing dur ing the revie w. Id. Challeng ing the Remand Redete rmination are NPB a nd NTN. Pls. Nippon Pil low Bloc k Co. L td. and FY H B ear ing U nits USA, I nc.’s Comments on the Fina l Results of Redetermination (“N PB Comments”); Comments of NTN Corp., NTNBe aringCorp. of Amer ica, Ame rica n NTNConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 4

Be aringMfg . Corp., NTN-B CA Corp., NTN-B ower Corp., and NTNDrivesha ft, Inc. on F inal Results of Redetermination (“NTN Comments”). Also befor e the c ourt is NTN’s motion for a stay pendingfurther

administrative ac tion on, or alter natively for f urther br iefingon, the issue of whe ther or not it was la wful for Commerce to apply its “zeroing” proce dure in the c alculation of a weighted-avera g e dumping marg in, under which Commerce assig ned to U.S. sales made above nor mal value a

dumping mar g in of zero, instead of a

neg ative mar g in, when ca lculating weig hted-avera g e dumping marg ins. Pl .’s Mot. to Stay Fur ther Proce eding s Pending the Finality of Ne w Antidumping Ma rg in Methodology

or, in the Alternative, Mot. to Allow Further Br iefing(“N TN Mot. to Stay ”). The court c onstrues NTN’s motion as a motion for r econside ration of the c ourt’s dec ision in JTEKT aff irming the Depa rtment’s use of

the zeroingproce dure in the F inal Results. Defenda nt and def

endantintervenor

oppose NTN’ s motion. Def.’s Opp’ n to Mot. to S tay ; The Timken Co.’s Opp’n to NTN’s Mot. for

Stay , or, Alternatively , Fur ther B riefing . NTN filed a motion to reply

to defe ndant’s and de fenda

nt-intervenor ’s opposition. P l.’s Unopposed Mot. for L eave to File a Reply to Def.’ s Opp’n to the Mot. to Stay (“N TN Mot. to Reply ”). The c ourt aff

irms the decisions made in the Re mand Redete rmination to rejec t NPB’s proposal to expand the choice of months for sampled tra nsactions, to use U.S. rathe r than J apane se intere st rates in ca lculating the inventory car rying c osts, to reca lculate NTN’s fr eig ht expenses based on w eig ht rather than value, a

nd to limi t the application of f acts other wise available and adve rse infe renc es to instances in whic h Nac hi made er rors in re porting . The c ourt

rema nds the Remand Rede termination for r econside ration of the D epar tment’s decisions to reje ct NTN’ s proposal on additional bea ring desig n ty

pes and to a

pply zeroing in determining theConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 5

marg ins for JTEKT, Nachi, NPB , and NTN . Due to its order ed re consideration of the zeroing decision, the c ourt dec lines to order a stay or additional brief

ing on that issue. I. B A C K G R O U N D I n JTEKT , the cour t remande d the Fina l Results, di rec ting Commerc e to addr ess the five issues previously

identified. JTEKT

, 33 at CI T __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1263-64. T he cour t’s opinion and order

associate d with the rema nd provides deta iled background informa tion. See id. at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1213- 14. Commerce issued a draf t version of the Rema

nd Redeter mination (“Dra ft Remand Results”) on Ma rch 22, 2010, upon which NPB, N TN, and Timken commented. Rema nd Redeter

mination 2. Com merc e submitted the Remand Redeter mination to the court on May 17, 2010. On J anuar

y 28, 2011, NTN filed its motion for a stay pendingfurther

administrative action on, or f

or fur ther brie fingon, the zeroing issue, which def endant a nd defe ndant-interve nor oppose. NTN Mot. to Stay ; Def.’ s Opp’n to Mot. to St ay ; The Timken Co.’s Opp’n to NTN’s Mot. for Stay , or, Alternatively , Fur ther B riefing . On Fe bruar y 18, 2011, NTN filed its motion for lea ve to re ply

to Timken’s and de fenda nt’s opposition t o its mot ion to stay or for further briefing . NTN Mot. to Reply

. II. D I S C U S S I O N The c ourt will affirm the Re mand Redete rmination if it complies with the remand or der, rests on finding s supported by substantial rec ord evide nce, a nd is otherwise in ac corda nce w ith law. See Tarif

f Ac t of 1930 (“T ariff

Act” or the “Ac t”), § 516A( b)(1) (B )(i), 19 U .S.C. § 1516a(b) (1)( B) (i) (2006) ; Consol

. Edison Co. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938) (substantialConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 6

evidenc e is “such r eleva

nt evidence as a r easona

ble mind might ac cept a s adequate to support a conclusion”) ; JTEKT

, 33 CI T at __, 675 F . Supp. 2d at 1263-64. A. Challeng es to the Application of the Depa rtment’s Z eroingMethodolog y Commerce a

pplied its “zeroing” methodology in AFB s 16, under whic h it assigne d to U.S. sales made a

bove norma l value a dumpingmarg in of zero, instead of a neg ative mar g in, when c alculatingweighted-a vera g e dumpingmarg ins. Issues &Dec ision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iews of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, Japan, &the United Kingdom for the Period of Rev iew May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005 , at 11-12 (July

14, 2006) (“

Dec ision Mem. ”). JTEKT, Nac hi, NPB, and N TN cha lleng ed the use of this zeroingmethodology in AFB s 16, arguing tha

t use of the zeroing

methodology

in an administrative r eview violate s the U.S. antidumping law s and is inconsistent with international oblig ations of the United States. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. of Pls. J TEKT Corp. & K oy o Corp. of U.S.A. for J . on the Ag ency

R. 44-47 (“JTEKT Mem.”) ; Mem. in Supp. of the Mot. for J. upon the Ag ency R. Subm itted by

Pls. Nippon P illow Block Co. L td. & F YH Be aringUnits USA, I nc. 28-30 ( “NPB Mem.”); Rule 56.2 Mot. & Mem. for J. on the Ag ency R. Submit ted on beha lf of Pls. NTN Corp., NTN B ear ing Corp. of Americ a, Amer ican NTN Be aringMfg . Corp., NTN-B CA Corp., NTN-B ower Corp., & N TN Drive shaft, Inc. 5-11 ( “NTN Mem.”); B r. of Pls. Nac hi-Fujikoshi Corp., Nac hi America , I nc. & Nac hi Technology , Inc. in Supp. of Rule 56.2 Mot. for J . on the Ag ency R. 13-18 (“N achi Me m.”). Refer ring to a Fe dera l Reg ister notice published in late 2010 by the Depa rtment on the discontinuation of zeroing in administrative revie ws, NTN moves f or a stay of this case pending a fina l notice of the D epar tment’s decision to eliminate zeroingin administrative revie ws, or,Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 7

alternatively , the opportunity to submit additional briefingon the zeroing issue. NTN Mot. to Stay 1-2 (c iting Antidumping Procee dings: Calculation of the W eighted Av erage D umping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proce edings , 75 Fe d. Reg . 81,533 (De c. 28, 2010) ( “Proposal ”)) . Def endant a nd defe ndant-interve nor oppose this motion on the g rounds, inter alia , that the cour t is bound by

prec edents of the Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit (“Court of Appe als”) to uphold the De partment’s a pplication of zeroingand that the modification contemplate d by the Depa rtment’s F eder al Reg ister notice will not aff ect, retroa ctively , the entrie s at issue in this case. De f.’s Opp’ n to Mot. to S tay ; The Timken Co.’s Opp’n to NTN’ s Mot. for Stay , or, Alternatively , Fur ther B riefing

. I n the Fe dera l Reg ister notice to which N TN re fer s in its m otion, Com merc e propose d

cer tain chang es to the method by which it calc ulates we ighte d-ave rag e mar g ins in periodic and sunset revie ws, in response to a dverse World Trade O rg anization (“WTO”) de cisions concluding that zeroing is contrar

y to the WTO Antidumpi ng Ag ree ment. Proposal , 75 Fe d. Reg . at 81,534- 35. Wit h respe ct to periodic r eviews, the Depa rtment proposes to “modify its methodology

for calc ulating w eig hted ave rag e mar g ins of dumping a nd assessment rates to provide off sets for non-dumped c omparisons while using monthly aver ag e-to-a

vera g e compa

risons in reviews in a

manner that para llels the WTO-consistent methodology the Depa rtment curr ently

applies in orig inal investigations.” Id. at 81,534. Commerce proposes to ame nd its reg ulations, codified at 19 C.F.R. § 351.414, to chang e its pref ere nce f rom the use of

aver ag e-to-tr ansac tion comparisons in periodic re views to the use of monthly aver ag e-to-a

vera g e compa

risons. Id. at 81,534-35. Commerce ha s not issued a final re g ulation on the zeroing issue.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 8

I n JTEKT , the cour t upheld the Depa

rtment’s use of

zeroing

. JTEKT

, 33 CI T at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1214-18 ( citing Koyo Seiko Co. v. U nited States , 551 F.3d 1286, 1291 ( Fe d. Cir. 2008); NSK L td. v. United States , 510 F.3d 1375, 1379- 80 (F ed. Cir. 2007); Timken Co. v. United States , 354 F.3d 1334, 1343- 45 (F ed. Cir. 2004)). A fter the issuance of JTEKT and the Depa rtment’s Remand Rede termination, and a fter the opportunity for the pa

rties to comment on the Remand Rede termination, the Court of Appe als issued two dec isions holdi ng that the final results of an a dminist rative r eview in whic h zeroing was used must be r emande d for a n explanation of the Depa

rtment’s interpr eting the languag e of 19 U .S.C. § 1677(35) inconsistently with respec t to the use of zeroingin investigations and the use of zeroingin administrative revie ws. JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378, 1383- 85 (F ed. Cir. 2011) (“ JTEKT Corp. ”); Dongbu Steel Co. v. U nited States , 635 F.3d 1363, 1371- 73 (F ed. Cir. 2011) (“ Dongbu ”). B ased on c onclusions that Comm erc e had not pr ovided a satisfactory explanation for the dif fer ing inter

pretations in t he two conte x ts, the Court of Appea ls in JTEKT Corp. and Dongbu held that the judg ment of the Court of International Trade aff irming the use of zeroingin the administrative re views at issue in those ca ses must be set aside. JTEKT C orp. , 642 F.3d at 1384-85; Dongbu , 635 F.3d at 1372-73. In Dongbu , the Court of Appe als rea soned that “[a]lt houg h 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) is ambiguous w ith respec t to z eroingand Commerce play s an important role in re solving this g ap in the statute, Commerc e’s discr etion is not absolute” and conclude d that “Commerce must provide an explanation for why the statutory

lang uag e supports its inconsist ent interpre tation.” Dongbu , 635 F.3d at 1372. I n JTEKT Corp. , the Court of Appea ls further dir ecte d that “in orde r to satisfy the re quirement set out in Dongbu , Commerce must ex plain why

these (or other) dif

fer ence s betwee n the two phase s [us ing zer oing inConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 9

administrative re views, but not in investigations] make it rea sonable to continue zeroingin one phase, but not the other .” JTEKT Corp. , 642 F.3d at 1385. The c ourt construe s NTN’s motion for a stay pendingfurther

administrative ac tion on, or alternatively

for f urther br iefingon, the zeroing issue as a motion for r econside ration of the court’s de cision in JTEKT , 33 CI T __, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1206 to uphold the use of zeroing

. Although only

NTN ha s filed such a

motion, the court, in its dis cre tion and in consideration of the holdings in JTEKT Corp. and Dongbu , will reconsider sua sponte its decision upholding the Depa rtment’s use of

zeroingin the Final Results in determiningthe marg ins for JTEKT, Nachi, and NPB as we ll as NTN. In doing so, the court c oncludes that a rema nd is appropriate in this

case to direct Commerc e to provide the explanation contemplated by the Court of Appe als in Dongbu and JTEKT Corp ., both of which de cisions questioned the leg ality of the De partment’s construction of 19 U .S.C. § 1677(35) and dec lined to affir m the judgme nt of the Court of I nternational Trade upholding the use of zeroing

. See J TEKT Corp. , 642 F.3d at 1383-85; Dongbu , 635 F.3d at 1371-73. The c ourt on second r emand will direc t Comm erc e to re consider its decision to apply

zeroing when de termining the marg ins for JTEKT, Nachi, NPB , and NTN

. The De partment, on re mand, must alter that dec ision or set forth an e x planation of how the lang uag e of 19 U .S.C. § 1677(35) as applied to the zeroingissue permissibly may be construe d in

one wa y with respec t to investigations and the opposite w ay with respec t to administ rative revie ws. See JTEKT Corp. v. United States , 35 CI T __, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1364 (2011)

. The c ourt does not ag ree with the argument of def endant a nd defe ndant-interve nor that the cour t is bound by

Court of Appea ls prece dent to uphold the use of zeroingin this case. In Dongbu , the Court of Appe als applied the two- step ana ly sis outli ned in Chevron, U.S.A., I nc. v.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 10

National Resource s DefenseCouncil, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984) ( “ Chevron ”). See Dongbu , 635 F.3d at 1369-73. Distinguishing prior holding s in which it had upheld the Depa rtment’s use of

zeroing , the Court of Appe als stated in Dongbu that “while we have repe atedly

upheld Commerce ’s use of zer oing in a dminist rative r eviews, w e have never considere d the re asonable ness of interpr eting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) in differ ent way s depending on whether

the proc eedingis an investiga tion or an administrative re view.” Id. at 1370. Observingthat “Commerce is no longe r using a consistent interpr etation” of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35), the Court of

Appea ls reasone d in Dongbu that “we are not bound by the prior c ases and apply the Chevron step two ana ly sis anew.” Id. at 1371. In JTEKT Corp ., the Court of Appea ls did, however, c onsider itself bound by its holdi ng in Dongbu , concludingthat “ Dongbu require s us to vacate and re mand” ba sed on a c onclusion that the explanation offer ed by Commerce w as inade quate unde r step two of a Chevron analy sis. JTEKT Corp. , 642 F.3d at 1384. Be cause the cour

t is remandingfor f

urther e x planation the De partment’s de cision to apply the zeroing methodology , the cour t sees no nee d for a

stay as soug ht by

NTN. Also, bec ause the parties will have the opportunity to comment on the re sults the Depar tment issues in response to the sec ond rema

nd, the cour

t does not perc eive the ne ed for other, sepa

rate briefingon the zeroing issue at this tim e. F or these r easons, the c ourt also will deny , as moot, NTN’s motion for leave to file a re ply

to defe ndant’s and de fenda nt-intervenor ’s opposition to t hat motion.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 11 B. N PB’s Proposal to Expand the Choice of Sample Months I n the re view, Commerce resor ted to sampling of

transac tions for NPB ( and similarly situated responde nts) beca use NPB e ntere d into a relatively high volume ( 10,000 or more) of constructe d export price sale s in the United States and 10,000 or more transac tions in t he home marke t, during the POR. JTEKT , 33 CI T at __, 675 F . Supp. 2d at 1224 (citing Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, & the United Kingdom: Prelim. Re sults of Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iews , 71 Fe d. Reg . 12,170, 12,172-74 (Ma r. 9, 2006)) . For

a responde nt such as NPB , Commerce r eviewe d the individual U.S. sales occur ring in six “sample

wee ks,” ea ch of w hich Commerce chose f rom one of the six two-month periods in the POR, and endea vored to matc h these individual sales with home mar ket transa ctions in “sampled months.” Id . Commerce f

irst chose a s the sample month the month in which the sample we ek (a nd U.S. sale) oc curr ed, but if no matche s were found duringthat month, Com merc e also looked to the prec eding home marke t sample month and to the subsequent home ma rket sample month. Id . at 1225. Be cause Commerce se lected only eig ht sample months, the sample month for an individual U.S. sale was not in all case s the immediately previous or immediate ly

subsequent month. Id . I n the Remand Rede termination, Commerce ref err ed to the cor

respondingwindow 1 period a s “the 30/30-da

y sample window pe riod.” Remand Re deter mination 4. I n its challeng e to the F inal Results, NPB claimed that Commerc e impermissibly confine d its searc h for possible matche s to the desig nated sample months. Id . NPB objec ted that “the

The home- marke t sample months in the administ rative r eview w ere Fe bruar y , J une, 1 Aug ust, September, and N ovember of 2004, and F ebrua

ry , Marc h, and May

of 2005. Remand Redeter mination 7.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 12

Depa rtment sear ched only

in immediately

adjac ent sample months, so that a U.S. sale ha d only three potential months in which to find a normal value match.” N PB Mem. 27. NPB argued that this method compares unf avora bly to the method the Depa

rtment uses abse nt sampling, whic h potentially

examines home market sa les duringa per iod of up to three months prior to, or up to two months later than, the month in which the U.S. sale occur red. Id. In the Remand Redeter mination, the Depar

tment refe rs to this normal period, established by 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e) (2) ( 2009), as the “ 90/60-day window per iod.” Remand Redete rmination 3. 2 As NPB state d in their brief , “[t] o corr ect this, NPB sug g ested that the D epar tment increa se the

sear ch window a

round sampled sa les by

an additional month in either dire ction, for a total of two months on each side of

the sampled month.” NPB Mem. 27 (citing Letter from Baker & McKenzie

, LPP to Dep’t of Commerc e 20-22 (Apr . 25, 2006) (Admin. R. Doc. N o. 259)). Reasoning that § 351.414(e) (2), whic h define s the rea sonably corr esponding contempora

neous month as “ normally ” the 90/60-da y window per iod, did not preclude

For purposes of c omparingU.S. and home mar ket sales, the r egulation defines the 2 “conte mporane ous month” as follows: (2) Contempora

neous month. Normally , the Secr etar y will select as the contempora

neous month the first of the f ollowing whic h applies: (i) The month during w hich the par ticular U.S. sale unde r consider ation was made; (ii) I f there are no sales of the fore ign like pr oduct duringthis mont h, the most rec ent of the thre e months prior to the month of the U.S. sale in whic h there was a sale of the fore ign like pr oduct. (iii) I f there are no sales of the fore ign like pr oduct duringany of these months, the earlier

of the two months followingthe month of the U.S. sale in which ther e wa s a sale of the fore ign like pr oduct. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e) (2) ( 2009). This regulation applies in the “avera g e-to-tr ansac tion method” that Commerce normally employ s in an administrative re view. See id. § 351.414(c) (2).Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 13

Commerce f

rom exercisingdiscretion to selec t a month outside of the def inition of “comparison month” should circumstanc es so re quire, the c ourt held in JTEKT that Commerce e rre d in concludingthat the re g ulation require d reje ction of NPB’ s proposal. JTEKT , 33 CI T at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1226; see Dec ision Mem. 86 (“G iven the fa ct that sample home- marke t months are se parated by

a month or more be tween e ach othe r in either dir ection, extending the window per iod by

a month in eac h direc tion often results in extending the window pe riod beyond the time period our r egulation allows.”). I n the Remand Rede termination, the De partment take s the position that “[ o]ur 30/30-day sample window pe riod is a re asonable interpre tation of section 773(a )(1) (A) of the Act a nd 19 C.F.R. [§] 351.414(e) (2) a nd NPB doe s not demonstrate other wise.” Rema

nd Redeter mination 12. Com merc e def ends its use of the 30/30-da y sample window pe riod in AFB s 16 as consistent with its practice in ear lier AF Bs r eviews a nd as a r easona

ble method of reduc ing the administrative burde n of ca lculating individual marg ins where larg e volume of transac tions are involved. Id. at 11-12. As the D epar tment expl ains, [d] ue to the extremely

larg e number

of transa ctions that occur red dur ing the revie w per iod and the re sulting administrative burde n involved in calculating individual marg ins for all of the tr ansac tions in t he proc eeding s conce rning ball bear ings a

nd parts ther eof f

rom various c ountries, the use of the 30/30-day

sample window per iod has bee n an esta blished prac tice for

two deca des since AFBs 1. Remand Redete rmination 12 (citing Antifriction Bearings (Othe r Than T apered Roller Be arings) and Parts thereof from Japan; Pre lim. Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews &Partial Termination of Anti dumping Duty Admin. Re views , 56 Fe d. Reg . 11,186, 11,187 (Mar . 15, 1991) (“ AFBs 1 ”))

.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 14

NPB is cor

rec t that under the 30/30-da y sample window pe riod “a U.S. sale had only three potential months in which to find a normal value match.” N PB Mem. 27. NPB draw s a compar ison with the ordinary 90/60-day

window per iod, under whic h six , rathe r than thre e, compar ison months pot entially are available in which Commerce may sear ch for

a match. Id. Howeve r, NPB’ s objection does not suffic e as a g round by

which the c ourt could hold the challeng ed methodolog y

to be unre asonable and ther efor e contr ary to law. As Commerce

corr ectly points out i n the Remand Rede termination, “[t] he statute doe s not define the ‘re asonably

corr esponding ’ conte mporane ous period.” Re mand Redete rmination 11 (citing section 773(a )(1) (A) of

the Tar iff Ac t, 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1) (A)) . The statute a ffor ds the Depa rtment discre tion in sampli ng transac tions and in selectinga re asonably corr esponding contempora

neous per iod. That discre tion may have a llowed Commerce to adopt a proposa l such as that put forth by

NPB, but the c ourt ca

nnot conclude that Comm erc e wa s require d to use a differ ent method of sampling than the one it used this ca se. Althoug h NPB’s pr oposal or a simil ar me thod of expanding the contempora neous per iod could be expected to r esult in more numerous matche s, the Depa rtment is also entitled to consider its past prac tice and the deleter ious effe ct on its resourc es we re it re quired to sea rch a dditional months for home ma rket sales. F or these r easons, the c ourt ca nnot ag ree with NPB that Commerce ’s method, when considere d acc ording to the new justification off ere d in the Remand Redete rmination, was

unrea sonable. There fore , the cour t affir ms the Remand Redete rmination in reg ards to this issue. 3 Observingthat the proposal of FYH Be aring

Units USA, I nc. and N ippon Pil low Bloc k 3 Company L td. (collec tively , “NPB ”) c ould result in the use of sample months outsi de of the ordinary 90/60-day

window per iod, the Remand Redete rmination also states that “we do not find that NPB’s pr oposal satisfies the c ontemporane ity require ment in section 773(a) (1)( A) of the Act (continued...)Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 15 C. Redetermination of NTN’s F reig ht Ex pense I n JTEKT , the cour t set aside as unla

wful the De partment’s de cision to realloca te only NTN’s f reig ht cost as opposed to the fr eig ht cost of all similarly -situated re spondents. JTEKT , 33 CI T at __, 675 F . Supp. 2d at 1263-64. The c ourt held that Commerce ’s dec ision to reallocate only NTN’s f reig ht expense acc ordingto weig ht was impermissibly arbitra ry beca use Commerce did not require a

ny other re spondent to comply with the Depa

rtment’s newposition t hat valuebased a llocations are distortive per se a nd beca use Commerce postponed to a future administrative re view its application of its new position to all respondents other than NTN w ho used a va lue-ba sed allocation. Id. at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1240. The court c oncluded, f urther, that Commerce e rre d in basing its decision to reallocate only NTN’s f reig ht expense on its finding that only

NTN’s data wer e suitable for conductinga re allocation eve n though othe r responde nts also used value- based a llocations, which Commerce no longe r consider ed to satisfy its reg ulatory

require ment, as set for

th in 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g ), that allocation methods not be distortive. Id. at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1239- 40. I n addition, the court obser ved that, contr ary

to the Depa rtment’s statements, Commerc e did not have on the rec ord for NTN a complete se t of product we ight data with which to re allocate NTN’s f reight expense acc ording to weig ht. Id. (obser ving that Comm erc e ig nored the rec ord fa ct that Commerce had we ight da ta for only

some of NTN’ s models and re sorted to its own methodology of estimating shipping we ights for others

(...continued) 3 and 19 CFR 351.414(e )(2) .” Remand Rede termination 13. The c ourt finds questionable, but also superf

luous, this additi onal rationale for r ejec tion of NPB’s pr oposal. The c ourt aff irms the Depa rtment’s use of

the 30/30-day

window per iod for the r easons the c ourt has stated.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 16

of NTN’ s models (citing Mem . from Financial Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, to The File 7-9 (Ma

r. 2, 2006) ( Admin. R. Doc. No. 222)) ). I n the Remand Rede termination, Commerce stated that it disag ree d with the court’s or der “to ca lculate NTN’s fr eig ht expenses in a manner consistent with [ Commerce’ s] t reatment of other re spondents’ re ported fr eig ht allocations wher e, diffe rent fr om other re spondents, [C ommerce ] had certa in weig ht information for NT N on the re cord.” Remand Redeter mination 27. Com merc e, howe ver, did re allocate NTN’s f reig ht expense “in a manne r consistent with our treatment of other r espondents’ r eporte d fre ight a llocations” and r eca lculated NTN’s ma

rg in using the f

reig ht expense data a s repor ted orig inally

by NTN. Id . at 27, 31. NTN’s ma

rg in was re vised from 9.32% to 8.02%

. Id . at 31. No par ty commented on the D epar tment’s revised c alculation of N TN’s fr eig ht expense in the Depa

rtment’s Dra ft Remand Results, nor did any party comment on the issue bef ore the court. See id . at 27, 31. Under these c ircumstance s, the court r easona bly may infer that the parties c oncur in the Rema nd Redeter

mination. See W

uhan BeeHealthy Co. v. U nited States , 32 CI T __, __, Slip Op. 08-61, at 12 (May 29, 2008) (“ Under

such circ umstances, Commerc e ‘may well be e ntitled to assume that the silent party has dec ided, on re flec tion, that it concurs in the ag ency ’s [remand re sults] ,’ and the court will uphold the parties’ concur renc e.” ( quoting AL Tech Spec ialty Steel Corp. v. United States , 29 CI T 276, 285, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1245 (2005)) ). Ac cording ly , the cour t affir ms this aspect of the Rema nd Redeter

mination.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 Page 17 D. Nachi’s Errors in Reporting Physical Bearing Characteristics In JTEKT , the court set aside as unlawful the Department’s decision to apply facts otherwise available and adverse inferences to all of Nachi’s sales based on the Department’s finding that Nachi erred in reporting physical characteristics for certain sampled sales. JTEKT , 33 CIT at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1252-54. The Remand Redetermination characterized the court’s order as requiring it to “revise [its] analysis to use facts available only for the portion of Nachi’s reported information that is the subject of a finding that is supported by substantial evidence on the record i.e., those models for which the physical characteristics we found to have been misreported and to redetermine Nachi’s margin accordingly.” Remand Redetermination 27. In the Remand Redetermination, the Department stated that it “ceased using facts otherwise available for Nachi in connection with physical characteristics that the Department did not examine and re-calculated the margin for Nachi using the reported data as corrected for specific verification findings.” Id . at 31. No party commented on the Department’s revised calculation of Nachi’s antidumping duty margin in AFBs 16 in the Draft Remand Results, nor did any party comment on this revised calculation before the court. See id . As stated above, under such circumstances, the court reasonably may infer that the parties concur in the Remand Redetermination. See Wuhan Bee Healthy Co. , 32 CIT at __, Slip Op. 08-61, at 12. Accordingly, the court affirms this aspect of the Remand Redetermination.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 18

E. Use of J apane se Intere st Rates to Calculate a Portion of the A djustment for I mputed I ntere st Carry ing Costs When Deter

mining Constructed Export Prices for NTN a nd Nac hi I n JTEKT , the cour t directe d that Commerce r econside r its decision to use J apane se interest rates when c alculatingU.S. inventory car rying c osts with respect to Na chi and NTN. JTEKT , 33 CI T at __, 675 F . Supp. 2d at 1262-63. Althoug h reje cting various g rounds upon which Timken c halleng ed that dec ision, the court conc luded that the De cision Memorandum did not respond to Timken’s a rgument, made dur ing the revie w, that the use of J apane se intere st rates instead of U.S. intere st rates wa s a depa rture f rom a pra ctice or

established methodolog y . Id. at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1262. On r emand, the c ourt direc ted Commerce “to provide a n analy sis respondingto Timken’s argument conce rning a depa rture f rom an a lleg ed pra ctice or methodology .” Id. at __, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1264. I n the Remand Rede termination, the De partment did not cha ng e its calc ulation methodology

for Na chi’s and N TN’s inventory -ca rry ing c osts incurred in the United States. I nstead, the D epar

tment, citing va

rious past administrative dec isions, ex plained that its use of J apane se intere st rates c onformed w ith its long- standing prac tice and did not constitute a depar ture fr om an established pr actice or methodolog y . Remand Redete rmination 25-26. The Depa rtment stated as f

ollows: [w] hile we r ecog nize that there may be exceptions, it has g ener ally been ourlongstanding prac tice that, if the pa y ment terms that the par ent company extends to i ts U.S. subsidiary , in combination with the time the mercha ndise rema ins in the U.S. subsidiary ’s inventory , indicates that the pa rent c ompany

bear s the cost of car rying the merc handise for a portion of time the mer chandise is in inventory in the United States, we use the pa rents compa

ny ’s short-ter

m interest rate to calc ulate that portion of the inve ntory -ca rry ing c ost. Id. at 25 (footnote omitted). F urther, the Depa rtment explained that in previous administrativeConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 19

revie ws of the a

ntidumping duty

order s on ball, cylindrical roller , and spher ical plain bea ring s from Japan, it used J apane se yen-ba sed intere st rates for the portion of the inventor y -ca rry ing period in which the pare nt company bore on be half of its U.S. subsidiary the cost of c arr

ying the inventory in the United States. Id. (footnote omitted). No par ty commented on the D epar tment’s explanation. Id . at 26. Her e also, the c ourt

rea sonably

may infer that the parties c oncur in the r esolution of the intere st rate issue a s set forth in the Remand Redete rmination. See W uhan BeeHealthy Co. , 32 CI T at__, Slip Op. 08-61, at 12. Acc ording ly , the cour t affir ms the resolution of this issue in the Remand Redeter mination. F. NTN’s Proposal for

Additional Ba ll Bea

ring Design Ty

pes NTN c laimed that Commerce err ed in re fusingto rec og nize and apply the additional ball bear ing de sign ty

pes that NTN pr oposed for use in the model matchingproce ss. NTN Mem. 26-30. NTNargued that the se ven ball bea ring desig n ty

pes that Commerce identified, i.e. , angular c ontact, self- alig ning, de ep g roove, integ ral shaf t, thrust ball, housed, and insert, a re overly broad a nd fail to ac count for sig nificant phy sical cha rac teristics. Id. at 27. NTN a lso

4 objected that “Commerce ’s desig n codes do not take into account be aring s, which fa ll into m ore than one c ateg ory , such as be aring s that are both ‘angular c ontact’ a nd ‘dee p g roove’ .” NTN

I n the AF Bs 16 r eviews, Commerc e adopte d, in response to NTN ’s objection, only one 4 additional desig n ty

pe, “hub units incorpor ating angular c ontact bea ring s.” Issues &Dec ision Mem . for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iews of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany , Italy, Japan, &

the United Kingdom for the Period of Rev iew May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005 , at 77 (July 14, 2006) (“ We do find, howeve r, that NTN pr ovided evidenc e . . . that demonstrates that NTN’s hub units incorpora ting a ngular c ontact bea

ring s are signific antly differ ent from standa

rd angular c ontact bea

ring s as well as house d bear ings to wa rra nt a bear ing- desig n desig nation distinct and separ ate f rom the seve n bear ing- desig n ty pes we identified in our questionnaire .”). Commerc e took the position that to include an additional desig n ty pe in its model matching proce ss, it had “to be satisfied that the classification is substantially

differ ent from e ach of

the desig n ty

pes” a lrea dy

included. Id

.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 20

Mem. 28. I n JTEKT

, the cour t observed that the Dec ision Memorandum did not address, a nd defe ndant did not discuss in it s briefs, NTN’s objec tion that some bearing s are descr ibed by more than one de sign ty

pe. JTEKT

, 33 CI T at __, 675 F . Supp. 2d at 1229. The cour t directe d Commerce to e x plain how Commerce applied its model-matchingmethodology to those of NTN’s be aring s that appea r to fall within more than one desig n ty pe. Id . (conc luding that “ the

answe r to this question is relevant to the cour t’s consideration, in the entirety , of Commerce ’s decision to reje ct all of NTN ’s proposed de sign ty pes other tha

n the desig n-ty

pe categ ory

for hub units incorporatingangular c ontact bea ring s.”). Commerce disc ussed in the Remand Rede termination the question of whe ther a desig n ty pe categ ory

was ne eded f

or combination bea

ring s comprised of two a

ng ular c ontact bea

ring s or an angular c ontact bea

ring and a de ep g roove be aring . Remand Redete rmination 16-19. Commerce de cided a g ainst the nee d for a dditional design ty pes for combination bear ings be cause it found, first, that NTN re ported c ombinations of two ang ular c ontact bea ring s as an a

ng ular contac t bear ing, a

nd, second, that NTN did not have a ny repor ted combination bea

ring s comprised of

an angular c ontact bea

ring and a de ep g rove be aring

. Id. at 17. NTN did not contest these f

indings in its comments to the court. SeeNTN Comments. The cour t concludes, there fore , that Commerce did not er r on re mand in concludingthat no additional desig n ty pe cate g ories we re ne eded f

or combination bea

ring s. I n the Dra ft Remand Results, Commerce c oncluded that it should add two newdesig n ty pes, “thrust ba ll/angula

r conta ct” a

nd “housed/de ep groove,” to “pre vent produc t overlap.” Remand Redete rmination 17. Howeve r, in the Remand Rede termination, Commerce conclude d “in light of

comments [C ommerce ] receive d in response to [its] draf t remand r esults” that “theConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 21

curr ent model-matc h methodology alre ady has wa y s to handle the be aring s that NTN re ported may fall within more than one desig n-ty pe categ ory” and tha

t “[a]ccording ly , there is no need to add additional desig n ty

pes.” Id. at 17-18. Commerce a cknowledg ed in the Remand Rede termination that, as NTNclaimed, “ there is an ‘over lap’ be tween the ‘thrust ball’ and ‘ angular c ontact’ de sign ty pes that we have established in our que stionnaire . . .” but c oncluded that no ne w desig n ty pe wa s nece ssary beca use re cord e vidence supported a f inding that the two groups of produc ts as repor ted by NTN, angular c ontact thrust ball bea ring s and plain thrust ball bea ring s, “have differ ent load dire ctions” and ther efor e would not be c ompare d with eac h other unde r the model-match methodolog y . Id. at 18-19. In its comments on the Remand Redeter mination, NTN does not contest this specific finding , nor does it demonstrate that, despite the finding , a new desig n ty pe for angular c ontact thrust ball bear ings is nee ded for the re view at issue in this case

. SeeNTN Comments. The court c oncludes that Commerc e, althoug h failing in the Final Results to addre ss the problem NTN identified a s to ang ular c ontact thrust ball bea ring s, has offe red on r emand a n explanation to support its decision not to adopt angula r conta ct thrust ball bear ings a s a new desig n ty pe for purposes of the Remand Redete rmination. Be cause NTN’s c omments do not contest the Depa rtment’s finding as to load direc tion and do not demonstrate why this finding and explanation should not support a dec ision to decline to adopt the propose d new de sign ty pe, the court a ffirms that dec ision. I n the Remand Rede termination, Commerce also reve rsed its plan, as de scribed in the Dra ft Remand Results, to create a de sign ty pe for “housed/de ep g roove” ball bear ings. Commerce stated there in that “NTN c laims that there is an ove rlap in the ‘house d bear ing’ andConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 22

‘dee p g roove’ desig n ty

pes bec ause c erta in bear ings c an be c hara cter ized as both a ‘housed bear ing’ desig n ty

pe and a ‘dee p g roove’ desig n ty

pe” but c oncluded that “ [t ]hi s is, in fact, not the ca se.” Rema

nd Redeter

mination 18. I n support of this conclusion, Commerce asser ts in the Remand Redete rmination that, in acc ordanc e with instructions at pag e V- 6 of its questionnaire dated July

5, 2005, responde nts were to report a s housed bea ring s any housed bea

ring s that are also dee p g roove be aring s and that only deep groove be aring s that were not housed bea ring s or insert bea ring s were to be re ported a s deep g roove be aring s. Id. The c ourt finds this ex planation inconsistent with the rec ord evide nce to whic h Commerce c ites, i.e. , pag e V- 6 of the July 5, 2005 questionnaire. Contra

ry to the Depa

rtment’s cha

rac terization, that pag e of the cited docume nt sheds no light on wha

t a re spondent is to do when conf ronted with the task of

classify ing a housed dee p g roove ba ll bearingacc ording to the Depa rtment’s established de sign ty pe cate g ories. See U

nited States Dep’t of Comme rce I mport Admin., Reque

st for Information, Antifriction Bearings (Othe r Than T apered Roller Be arings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany , Italy, Japan, Singapore, and theUnited Kingdom, V-6 (July 5, 2005). As NTNpoints out in its comments on the Remand Rede termination, the questionnaire “does not include direc tions for a re porting hiera rchy amongdesig n ty

pes.” N TN Comments 5. The re cord evidenc e on which the Depa rtment relies f

ails to support the finding in the Re mand Redeter mination that “there is no overlap be tween the ‘dee p g roove’ desig n ty pe and the ‘housed bear ing’ desig n ty

pe.” Re mand Redete rmination 18 (footnote omitted). Commerce ma de a f

inding in the Rema

nd Redeter

mination, which NTN doe s not contest in its comments to t he cour t, that bear s on the issue of whe ther housed de ep groove ba ll bearing s should be rec og nized as a sepa rate desig n ty

pe for purposes of this re view. Commerce found thatConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 23

NTN, in re porting its bearing s to Comm erc e for model-match pur

poses, applied the Depa rtment’s “house d bear ing” desig nation to the bear ings N TN desc ribed a s falling into both the housed a

nd deep g roove de sign ty

pe categ ories. Remand Rede termination 17. Commerce also noted that it found no re cord e vidence that NTN sold housed be aring s that were not housed deep g roove be aring s. Id. at 18 n.2. The c ourt conc ludes from the r ecor d evidenc e and N TN’s comments on the Remand Rede termination that Commerce err ed in conc luding that ther e wa s no overla p betwee n housed and de ep groove be aring s, but the court is not able to conc lude from the

rec ord evide nce that this error a ctually cause d NTN’s house d deep groove ba ll bearing s to be matched w ith any

bear ings tha

t were not housed dee p g roove ba ll bearing s or whethe r a r elated

err or occ urre d in the matching of NTN’ s bear ings. Howeve r, it is not the role of the c ourt to 5

rea ch a f inding that no suc h mismatches occ urre d. Be cause Commerce’ s analy sis of the housed deep g roove be aring

issue is flawed f

or the re ason the c ourt has identified, a rema nd is appropr iate on this issue. I n summary , the cour

t concludes that Comm erc e ac ted re asonably in resolving the issue,

as ra ised in JTEKT

, of NTN’ s bear ings that may be desc ribed by

more than one desig n ty

pe, with the exception of the housed be aring/deep- g roove be aringissue discussed above . On re mand, Commerce must re view the r eleva nt rec ord evide nce to de termine whe ther a ny of NTN’ s housed deep g roove be aring s were matched w ith bearing s other than house d deep groove be aring s, and whether any other e rror

involving matchingof housed or deep groove be aring s occur red, suc h as matching of any

NTN non-house d deep groove be aring s that may have be en included in the

NTN doe s not contend in its comments that any bear ings it may

have c lassified for 5 repor ting pur poses as de ep g roove be aring s (rather than a s housed bea ring s) ac tually

wer e housed bear ings, a

nd the cour

t finds no rec ord evide nce that this occurre d. SeeNTN Comments.Consol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 24

revie w with housed bea

ring s or with any

bear ings that were not non-housed dee p g roove bear ings. I f any

mismatches ar e re veale d by this analy sis, Com merc e must addre ss them throug h addition of one or mor e new desig n ty pe categ ories or a

nother a ppropriate reme dy

. III. C O N C L U S I O N For the re asons discussed in the for eg oing, the court will aff irm in part, and r emand in part, the Rema

nd Redeter

mination. ORDER Upon consider ation of all pape rs and pr ocee dings he rein, it is here by ORDERED that the Fina l Results of Redetermination (“ Remand Redete rmination”), submitt ed by

the United States De partment of Commerc e (“ Commerce” or the “ Depa rtment”) on May 17, 2010, be, and he reby is, affirme d in part and r emande d to Comm erc e in par t; it i s further ORDERED that, for the r easons se t forth in this Opinion and Order , the following decisions and de terminations by Commerce in the Re mand Redete rmination, be, and he reby are , aff irmed: (A) the Depa

rtment’s dec ision not t o adopt NPB’ s proposal to expand the choice of sample months; (B) the Depa rtment’s dec ision to use J apane se intere st rates to ca lculate a portion of the a djustment for imputed interest ca rry ing c osts when ca lculatingconstructe d export prices for NTN and Na chi; (C) the re deter mination of NTN’s f

reig ht expense based on we ight r ather than value; a

nd (D) the Depa

rtment’s dec ision not t o apply fac ts otherwise available a nd adver se infere nces to substitute for infor mation that Nachi submitted on phy sical bea ring char acte ristics, except for the spe cific infor mation submit ted by

Nac hi that Comm erc e dete rmined duringits verific ation proce dure to be incorre ct; it is further ORDERED that Commerce, on r emand, sha ll reconsider its decision to apply

its z eroing methodology

in determining the marg ins for JTEKT, Nachi, NPB , and NTNand either alter that decision or se t forth an e x planation of how the lang uag e of 19 U .S.C. § 1677(35) as applied to the zeroing issue permissibly may be construe d in one way

with respec t to investigations and the opposite way

with respec t to administ rative r eviews; it is further ORDERED that NTN’s Motion to Stay Fur ther Proce eding s Pending the Finality of Ne w Antidumping Mar g in Methodology or, in the Alternative, Motion to All ow Fur ther B riefingbe, and her eby

is, DENI ED and N TN’s Motion for L eave to File a Re ply to defe ndant’s and defe ndant-interve nor’s opposition to NTN’s Motion to St ay be, and he reby

is, DENI ED as moot; it is furtherConsol. Court No. 06-00250 P age 25

ORDERED that Commerce, on r emand, sha ll reconsider NTN’s pr oposal to incorporate into the model-match methodolog y additional desig n-ty

pe categ ories to the extent nece ssary to corr ect a ny err ors re veale d by

the Depa rtment’s re view of the rec ord evide nce to de termine whether any of NTN’ s housed dee p g roove be aring s were matched w ith bearing s that were not housed dee p g roove be aring s and whe ther a ny other e rror

involving matchingof housed or deep g roove be aring s occur

red dur ing the revie w; it is further ORDERED that Commerce sha ll redete rmine the we ighte d-ave rag e dumping marg ins of plaintiffs, as appr opriate, in c omply ing w ith this Opinion and Orde r; it is further ORDERED that Commerce sha ll have ninety (90) da y s from the date of this Opinion and Orde r in which to file its rede termination upon rema nd (“Sec ond Remand Redete rmination”), which shall comply

with all directives in this Opinion and Orde r; it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) da y s from the filingof the Sec ond Remand Redete rmination in which to file comments there on; and it is further ORDERED that defe ndant and de fenda nt-intervenor

may file comments within have thirty (30) da y s from the filingof plaintiffs’ c omments.

/s/ Timot hy

C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J udg e Dated: July

29, 2011 New Y ork, Ne w York