Slip Op. 11-54 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x : NSK CORPOR ATI ON, et al. , : : Plaintiffs, : : and : : FAGI TAL I A S.p.A., et al. , : : Plaintiff-Interve nors, : : v. : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Jud ge : Consol. Court No. 06-00334 UNI TED STATES, : : Def endant, : : and : : THE TI MKEN COMPANY, : : Def endant- I nterve nor. : :

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x OP INION & ORDER [The court denie s The Timken Company ’s motion to st ay .] Dated: Ma y 13, 2011 Crowell & Moring LLP

( Matthew P. Jaffe , Robert A. Lipstein , and Carrie F. Fletcher), for Plaintiffs NSK Corporation, NSK L td., and NSK Europe L td. Sidley Austin LLP

( Neil R. Ellis and Jill Caiazz o ), for Plaintiffs JTEKT Corporation and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &Klestadt, L LP ( Max F. Sc hutzman and Andrew T. Schutz ), for

Plaintiff-Interve nors FA G I talia S.p.A., Schaef fler G roup USA, Inc., Schae ffler KG, The B arde n Corporation (U.K .) L td., and The B arde n Corporation.Consol. Court No. 06-00334 P age 2

Steptoe &Johnson (

Herbe rt C. Shelley

and Alice A. Kipel), for Plaintiff-Interve nors SKF Aer oeng ine B ear ings U K and SKF USA, Inc. United States International Trade Commission , Jame s M. Lyons (Ge nera l Counsel), Neal J. Rey nolds (Assistant Gene ral Counsel for L itigation), a

nd David A.J. Goldfine , Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel, for

Def endant United States. Stewart and Stewart

( TerenceP. Stewart , Eric P. Salonen, Elizabeth A. Argenti , and Philip A. Butler), for

Def endant- I nterve nor The T imken Company

. BA RZI L AY, Judge: On A pril 26, 2011, Defe ndant-Interve nor The T imken Company (“Timken” ), with the conse nt of Def endant United States, move d to stay the cour t’s final judgme nt in NSK Corp. v. United States , Slip Op. 11-43, 2011 W L1491346 (CI T Apr. 20, 2011), which sustaine d the U.S. International Trade Commi ssion’s neg ative injury deter mination on antidumping duty

order s cover ing the subject merc handise fr om J apan a nd the United King dom, pending a fina l decision on appe al at the F eder al Circuit. Specifica lly , Timken alleg es that it will s uffe r irre para ble har m in the upcoming third sunse t reviewin the absenc e of the order s, that a re vocation of the order s would run af oul of the statutory

scheme , and that public interest fa vors a stay . Timken Mem. of P. & A. 4-21. To avoid potentially improvident ag ency action, the c ourt g rante d Timken’s motion in part and tempora rily stay ed the e ffe ct of the judgme nt until all parties could fully comment on the issue. NSK C orp. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 06-00334 (CI T Apr. 28, 2011) (orde r g rantingtemporar y stay ). Plaintiffs J TEKT Corporation, Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., NSK Corpor ation, NSK L td., and NSK Europe L td. (collec tively , “Plaintiffs”) subse quently have f iled a joint response, where in they contend that the U.S. Depar

tment of Commerce (“Commerc e”) has a c lear statutory duty to revoke the antidumping duty

order s and that Timken fa iled to sufficiently demonstrate the four f

actor s toConsol. Court No. 06-00334 P age 3

g rant a stay of the c ourt’s final judg ment. Pls.’ J oint Opp’n 4-22. Toda y , the cour

t gr anted Timken leave to file a re ply

. NSK Corp. v. United States , Consol. C ourt No. 06-00334 ( CI T May 13, 2011) (or der grantingleave to file reply ). I n that document, Timken more thoroug hly discusses the four

fac tors neede d to ear

n a stay

. See ge nerallyTimken Reply Mem. Be cause Timken fails to satisfy

the applica

ble test, the cour

t lifts the temporary

stay and orde rs re vocation of the re levant antidumpingduty order s. To succe ed in its claim, Timken must prove the following : “(1) the threat of immediate irrepa rable harm; (2) the likelihood of succe ss on the merits; (3) [that] the public intere st would be better serve d by

the re lief re quested; and ( 4) [that] the balanc e of ha rdship on all the par

ties favor s [t he movant].” GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States , 32 CI T ___, ___, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1284 (2008) ( citation omitted). First, Timken has not shown that it likely will suffer the requisite “pr esently

exis ting, a ctual” ir

repa rable harm, Zenith Radio Cor p. v. United States , 710 F.2d 806, 809 ( Fe d. Cir. 1983), but instead posits only a spec ulative injury

in an ag ency proce edingthat has not y et commenc ed. More over, Timken f ails to meaning fully

discuss the second pr ong , offe ringsubstantial evidence arguments best suited for mer it briefs on appe al at the Fe dera l Circuit, see Timken Reply Mem. 5-11, and thus doe s not demonstrate that it has at least “a fair c hance of succ ess on the mer its.” U.S. Ass’n of Imps. of Textiles &Apparel v. United States , 413 F.3d 1344, 1347 ( Fe d. Cir. 2005). Thirdly , Timken’s re quest would have the cour t ignor e the c lear

languag e of the rele vant statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2) (explaining that Commerce must re voke antidumping duty order absent a ffirmative injury deter mination), and to g rant such a

demand would r

un ag ainst the public interest. See Ne enah Foundry Co. v . UnitedConsol. Court No. 06-00334 P age 4

States , 24 CI T 33, 43, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1317 (2000) . Finally , the cour t does not view the balanc e of the hardships to weigh in favor of Timken. A stay

would deny

Plaintiffs the statutory relief provided by

Congr ess and subjec t their imports from J apan a nd the United King dom to an undue fina

ncial burde n when no va lid orders e x ist, wherea s in the absenc e of a stay Timken would still enjoy

the continued suspension of imports ente red into the United States pr ior to the rele vant neg ative dete rmination dates. The ref ore, upon r eview of

the documents submitted by the par ties on the issue of a sta

y , the cour

t’s previous opinions, and all other pe rtinent pape rs, the court he reby ORDERS that Timken’s motion is DENIED ; ORDERS that the tempora ry stay issued on April 28, 2011 is VACATED ; and furthe r ORDERS that Commerce sha ll revoke the antidumping duty order s cover ing subje ct

merc handise fr om J apan a nd the United King dom and take a ll necessa ry action to ef

fec t the court’s f inal judgme nt issued on April 20, 2011 by comporting with the rele vant statutes and prec edents of this Court and the F eder al Circuit.

Dated: Ma

y 13, 2011 /s/ J udith M. Barzil ay New Y ork, NY J udith M. Barzil ay , J udg e