Slip Op. 07-176 UNITED STA TES COU RT OF INTER NATIONA L TRADE

____________________________________ : NSK CO RPORA TION, et a l. , : : Pl aintif fs , :

: an d : : FAG ITALIA SpA , et a l. , : : Pl aintif f- Int erv en ors , :

: Be fo re: Ju dit

h M . B arz ilay, Ju dg e. v. : Consol. Court No. 06-00334 : UNITED STA TES, : : De fe nd ant, : : an d : : THE TIMKEN C OMPANY, : : De fe nd ant-I nte rve no r. : ____________________________________: OPINION Crowell & Mori ng, LLP , ( Mat the w P . J

aff e ), Ro be rt A . L ips tei n , Alexa nd er H . S ch ae fer , and Sobia Haque ; Sidley Austi n, LLP , Ne il R . E lli s and Jill Caiazz o fo r P lai nti ff s. Grunfeld Desideri o Lebowitz Silve rman & Klestadt, LLP , ( Max F. Schutzman ), Ad

am M. Dambrov , and

Wil lia m F

. Ma rsh all ; Steptoe & J

ohnson, LLP , He rb ert

C. Sh elley , Al iceA. Ki

pe l , and Susan R. Gihring fo r P lai nti ff -Inter ve no rs. Jef fre y S . B uc ho ltz , A ssi stant A tto rne y G en era l; ( Mar k B . R ees ), David A.J. Goldfine , Ja mes M. Lyons , and Neal J. Reynolds , Office of the General Counsel, United Stat es International Tr ade Commission. Ste wa rt a nd

Ste wa rt , (Er ic P . S

alo ne n ), Ge ert

DePrest , El iza be th A . A rgen ti , and Terence P. Ste wa rt fo r D ef en dant- Int erv en or. December 10, 2007 [Motion for preliminary inj unction grant ed.]Consol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 2

NSK Corporation is a U.S. corpora tion thatproduces ball bearings domestical ly and 1 imports ball beari ngs from its sister companies NSK Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and NSK Europe Ltd., a Briti sh corporat ion. NSK Ltd. is a party t o the above capt ioned case, whil e NSK Europe Ltd. is a par ty to Court No. 06-0036, which has been consolida ted with thi s case pursua nt to U SC IT Ru le 4 2(a ). 2 BARZ ILAY, Judge : Plainti ffs NSK Corporation, NSK Ltd., and NSK Europe Ltd. (c ol le ct iv el y, “N SK” ), move th is co ur t f ora p re li min ary i nj un ct io n t o: (1 ) e nj oi n U. S. Cus to ms and Border Protec tion (“Customs”) from liquidating ent ries of ball be arings (a nd parts the reof) im po rte d d uri ng the eig hte enth p eri od of rev iew(“P OR ”) ( May

1, 20 06 thr ou ghAp ril 30 , 2 00 7); and (2) orderthe U.S. Department of Com merce (“Commerce”) to instruct Customs to suspend liquidat ion of said entri es pending judi cial re view of the underlying l itigat ion. Se e US CI T R ule 65 . D ef en dant- Int erv en or T imke n C om pany(“T im

ke n” ), i s th e o nly

partythat op po ses Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant United State s (the “Government”), ta kes no positi on in this matter. Mot. TRO & Prelim. Inj. The court has jurisdi ction over t his case pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), and may review Plaint iffs’ m otion for a prel iminary injunction pur suant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) . The court finds thatPlaintiffs would be irr eparably har med and have a sufficient lik eli ho od

of su cce ss o n th e m eri ts, an d th ere fo re g rants the ir m oti on fo r a p rel im inary injuncti on. BACKGROUND Si nc e 1 98 9, NS K ha s im po rte d and

pro du ced ba ll b ear ing s th at are s ub jec t to an 1 antidumping order. Se e A nti du mp ing Du ty O rd

ers : B all Be ar ing s, Cy lin dr ica l R oller B ea rings , an d S ph eri ca l P lai n B ea rings an d Par ts T he reo f F ro m t heFe de ra l R ep ub lic of G erm an y, Fran ce, Italy, Japan, Romania, Si ngapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the Unit ed Kingdom , 54 Fed.Consol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 3

Fo r a c on cis e le ga l hi sto ry and explanatio n o f s un set

rev iew s, see NM

B S ing. L td. v. 2 Un ite d S tates , 2 4 C IT 12 39 , 1 24 0-4 1, 12 0 F . S up p. 2d 11 34 , 1 13 7-3 8 (2 00 0) ( “NM B ”). 3 Re g. 20 ,9 00 -91 1 (D ep ’t C om m erc e May 1 5, 19 89 ) (“

ADOr de r ”); Continuation of Ant idumping Du ty O rd ers : C ert ain Be ar ing

s F ro m F ra nc e, Ge rm an

y, Ita ly, Ja

pa n, Singa

po re, theUn ite d Kingdom, and the People's Republi c of China , 65 Fed. Reg. 42,665 (Dep’t Comm erce July 11, 2000). On June 1, 2005, the Int ernationa l Trade Comm ission (“ ITC”) automatically i nitiat ed a
sec on d f ive -ye ar s un set

rev iewof

the ADOr

de r pursuant to s ection 751(c ) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c), covering the same class of ball bearings t hat NSK Corpo ra ti onimp or ts fr om i ts si st erco mpan ie s i n J ap anan d t he Uni te d Ki ng do m. Se e C ert ain 2 Bearings From China, France, Germany, Ital y, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom , 70 Fe d. Re g. 31 ,5 31 (IT C Jun e 1 , 2 00 5); see also § 1675(c). After finding sufficientpartici pation among interested part ies, the I TC commenced a full sunset review in a ccordance wit h 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)
. Se e C

ert ain Be ar ing

s F ro m C hin a, Fran ce, Ge rm an

y, Ita ly, Ja

pa n, Singa

po re, and the United Kingdom , 7 0 F ed . R eg . 5 4, 56 8 (I TC Se pt. 15 , 2 00 5). Ap pro xim ate ly o ne ye ar lat er, the IT C c on clu de d th at r ev oc ati on of the ADOr

de r would likely l ead to a conti nuation or
reoccurr ence of material injury to the domestic indust ry. Se e Certain Bearings From China, France, Germany, Italy, J apan, Singapore, and the Unit ed Kingdom: Investigation Nos. 731-TA344, 391-A, 392-A and C, 393-A, 394-A, 396, and 399-A (Second Review) , 71 Fed. Reg. 51,850 (IT C Aug . 3 1, 20 06 ) (“Fi na l R esu lts ”) In t he un de rly inglit igatio n, NS K c ha lle ng es t he Fi na l R esu lts of

the sec on d s un set review pursuantto secti on 516A(a)(2)( B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as am ended, 19 U S.C. § 1 51 6a (a) (2) (B )(i ii) . C om pl. 3-7 . A s an

int ere ste d p arty f

rom the do m est ic i nd

us try , T imke nConsol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 4

4 did not init iate an administr ative re view for entries made during the eighteent h POR. Se e 19 U. S. C. §§ 15 16 (a) (2) & 16 77 (9) ; see als o § 1 67 5(a ). N SK Lt d. an d N SK

Europ e L td. , h ow ev er, req ue ste d an a dm ini str ati ve rev iewof the su bje ct e ntr ies , b ut s ub seq

ue ntl y w ith dre w the ir request, t hereby causi ng Commerce to partial ly resci nd its revi ew. Se e B all Be ar ing s a nd Pa rts Thereof from France, Germany, It aly, Japan, and the Unit ed Kingdom: Notice of Part ial Resci ssi on of A nti du mp ing

Du ty A dm ini

strati ve Reviews , 7 2 F ed . R eg . 6 4, 57 7 (D ep ’t C om m erc e No v. 16 , 2 00 7). Si nc e th e ad m ini str ati ve rev iewwa s te rm inated , N SK ’s e ntr ies rem ain su bje ct to t he ADOr de r an d w ou ld n orm all y b e li qu idated at the “rate e sta

bli sh ed in t he co m ple ted
rev iewco ve rin g th e m os t re cent pr ior pe rio d o r, i f n o re vie w h as b een co m ple ted , th e ca sh de po sit rat e ap pli cab le at th e ti m e m erc hand ise wa s enter ed .” 19 C. F. R. § 3 51 .2 12 (a) & (c ); see als o N MB , 2 4 C IT at 1 24 0, 12 41 -42 , 1 20 F. Su pp . 2 d at 11 36 , 1 13 8. Ac co rdi ng ly, NS K h as f ile d this appli cation for a pre liminary injuncti on to suspend li quidation of said e ntries pe nding judicial review of its chal lenge to the second sunset r eview. DI SC US SI ON To obtain a prel iminary injunction pr ior to tr ial, the movant must dem onstrate (1) thatthe
m ov an t is lik ely

to s uc cee d o n th e m eri ts at tr ial ; (2 ) th at i t w ill su ff er i rre parab le h arm

if pre lim inary r eli ef

is n ot g ranted ; (3 ) th at the ba lan ce o f t he hards hip s ti ps in t

he m ov ant’s favo r; and (4) thata preliminary inj unction will not be contra ry to the publ ic inter est. See FMC Corp.
v. Un ite d S

tates , 3 F. 3d

42 4, 42 7 (F ed . C ir. 19 93 ). “No on e f act or, tak enind ivi du all y, is
ne ces sar ilydis po sit ive ,” Id ., but if the m ov ant “m ak es a

str on g s ho wi ng of

irr ep ara ble inj ury it faces a lesserburden in provi ng likeli hood of success on the merits, and vic e ve rsa .” SandozConsol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 5

5 Ch em s. Co rp . v . U

nited Sta tes , 17 CIT 1061, 1063 (1993) (not r eported in F. Supp.) ( citing Am. Ai r Parcel

Fo rw ar ding C o. v. Un ite d S

tates , 1 CI T 2 93 , 3 00 , 5 15 F. Su pp . 4 7, 53 (19 81 )). “A s a ba sic pro po sit ion , th e m att er l ies lar ge ly w ith in t he so un d d isc ret ion

of the [c ourt] .” FMC Corp. , 3 F .3 d at 42 7 (c itatio ns om itt ed ). A. Irrep arab le H

ar m NS K c lai m s th at the y w ill su ff er i rre parab le h arm

if the su bje ct e ntr ies are liq

uid ate d prior to t he final disposi tion of this cas e. Specificall y, NSK argues that if the cour t does not issue a pre liminary injuncti on, their ent ries for the e ighteenth POR will be a ssessed ant idumping dutie s b y o pe rat ion

of law . P l. B r. 4 ; see19 C.F.R. § 351.212(a) & (c). Mor eover, NSK contends thatif their motion is denie d, this courtcannot provide a meaningful rem edy in the underlying l itigat ion because a favorable judgment would result i n prospecti ve relie f only and the ref ore have no ef

fe ct o n e ntr ies that have alr ead y b een liq uid ate d. Pl . B r. 4 . In

op po sit ion

to Pl aintif f’ s m oti on , T imke n argu es t hat a c lai m

ch all en gin g th e f

ina l re su lts of

a su ns et r ev iew
ca rr ie s adi ffe re ntev id en ti ary b ur de n, wi th re sp ec t t o s at is fyi ng th e e le mentof i rr ep ar ab le ha rm, than similar cla ims involving administrative reviews. Timken relies on Al tx, Inc . v . U nited Sta tes , 2 6 C IT 73 5, 21 1 F . S up p. 2d 13 78 (20 02 ) (“

Al tx ”), for the proposi tion thatliquidat ion of act ua l entri es c on sti tut es s om e h arm , b ut d oe s n ot am ount t o ir rep ara ble harm , n or d oe s it pre clu de the co urt

fr om pro vid inga m ean ing fu l re m ed y s inc e a c lai m ant’s pro sp ect ive entri es
m aybe ne fi t f

rom a f av ora ble jud gm ent. D ef

.-I nt. Br . 3 -5; seeAl tx , 26 CIT at 737, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 1 38 0-8 1; Ne en ah Fo un dr y C o. v. Un ite d S

tates , 24 CIT 33, 39-40, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 13 14 (20 00 ) (“

Neenah ”). Th is argum ent la ck s m eri t.Consol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 6

6 Th e is su e o f i rre parab le h arm in t he co nte xt o f a

suns et r ev iewha s b een

ad dre sse d in

pa st
cas es and the re i s n o q

ue sti on that N SK wi ll s uf fe r su chharm

if the su bje ct e ntr ies are liq

uid ate d prior to t he final disposi tion of this cas e. Se e N MB , 24 CIT at 1243-44, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 1139- 40 ; seeals o Ze nit

h R ad io C or p. v. Un ite d S

tates , 7 10 F. 2d

80 6, 81 0 (1 98 3). As the Fe de ral Circuit has observed, “the antidumping laws do not contai n a provision pe rmitting the rel iqu idatio n o f e ntr ies or t he rec ov ery

of wr on gf ull y a sse sse d anti dum

pin g d uti es i n th e ev ent a foreign manufacturer or exporte r successfull y challenges an affirmative antidumping de ter m inatio n. ” NM

B , 24 CIT at 1243, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 1139 (cit ing Zenith Radio Corp. , 710 F. 2d at 8 10 ); see19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(1). Here, NSK faces the same dilemm a challengi ng a five-year sunse t review det ermination as it would i n an annual administrat ive revie w. The
su bje ct e ntr ies in t

his cas e f all wi thi n a

dis cre te t im e p eri od

an d “ be cau se t

he antid um pin g o rde r remains in effect, and because the liquidat ion of entr ies is notsuspended during t he pendency of th e P la nt if

fs’ le ga l c ha ll en ge , t he Pl ai nt if fs a re fac edwi th po te nt ia l i rr ep ar ab le ha rm sim ila r to that faced by parties chal lenging an administ rative re view determinat ion in the absenc e of inj un cti ve rel ief

.” NM B , 24 CIT at 1244, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 1140 (emphasis added). Alt hough
suns et r ev iew s co ve r a b roa de r pe rio d o f t im e, the dis po sit ive fa cto r is wh eth er N SK can ob tai n
m ean ing fu l re lie f i f t

he y p rev ail in t

he un de rly inglit igatio n a bs ent a p rel im inary i nju

nc tio n to
en joi n li qu idatio n o f p ast

entri es t hat ar e su bje ct t o th e ADOr

de r . In NM

B , th e co urt

expla ine d that,Consol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 7

7 if [C us tom s] liq

uid ate s th e su

bje ct e ntr ies pri or t o th e co m ple tio n o f f

ina l ju dic ial rev iewan d th e antid

um pin g o rde r is su

bs eq ue ntl y re vo ke d, the [p ]l aintif fs wo uld be without rec ourse to re cover the wrongfully pa id antidumping duties. For jud ici al r ev iewto b e m ean ing fu l, i t m us t be cap ab le o f p rov idi ng a p arty w ith ef fe cti ve rel ief

an d th e ab ili ty t o e nf

orc e it s ri gh ts. Ab sent a p rel im inary injuncti on suspending li quidation, j udicial r eview could not pr ovide the [p ]l aintif fs wi th m ean ing fu l re lie f. Any ju dic ial rem ed y w ou ld b e f

rui tle ss. Id . This is prec isely the type of harm NSK could suffer if the subjectentries are liqui dated prior to resolut ion of the underlyi ng litiga tion. Timken’s reliance on Al txis misplaced, as thatcase was brought by members of the domestic industry to c hallenge an i njury deter mination. Se e A ltx , 26 CIT at 736, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 1379; see also Neenah , 2 4 C IT at 3 8-4 0, 86 F. Su pp . 2 d at 13 13 -15 ; FMC Corp. , 3 F. 3d at 42 5-2 6. Un lik e ca ses in whic h p ast entri es are at is su e, “a n eg ati ve inj ury de ter m inatio n a ff

ect s liquidat ion of all future ent ries, not j ust those made within a spec ific time period.” Sandoz Chems. Corp. , 1 7 C IT at 1 06 3 (c itatio n o m itt ed ). A s a r esu lt, “li qu idatio n o f e ntr ies alo ne do es not constit ute irr eparable ha rm in a challenge broughtby a domestic producer to a negative injury or a less-t han-fair value determination.” Tren t T ub e D iv. , C

ru cib le M ate ria ls C or p. v. Un ite d S tates , 1 4 C IT 58 7, 58 8, 74 4 F . S up p. 11 77 , 1 17 9 (1 99 0). Al tho ug h th e d om est ic pro du cer m ay“su ff

er h arm thr ou ghco nti nu ed

liq uid ati on of [t he im po rte r’s ] e ntr ies , th is potential harm is not irrepar able because [the domestic producer] will st ill have t he possibil ity of pro sp ect ive rel ief

in r eg ard to f utu re e ntr ies
. . . if

the y are s uc ces sf

ul o n th e m eri ts o f t

he ir c ase .” FMC Corp. , 3 F.3d at 430 (quoting FM C C or p. v. Un ite d S

tates , 16 CIT 378, 381, 792 F. Supp. 1285, 1288 (1992)). To demonstrate i rreparable harm in the contextof an injury deter mination, the do m est ic p rod

uc er m ayno t re ly o n li qu idatio n a lon e, but m us t pr ese nt “ ad dit ion al e vid en ceConsol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 8

8 of imm ed iat e ir

rep ara ble harm in o rde r to pre va il o n th eir m oti on .” Id
. Ba sed on Pl aintif fs ’ co m pla int an d m ov ingpa

pe rs, the y are p rim ari ly c on cer ne d w ithpa st entries and their ability t o obtain rel ief if Customs is perm itted t o liquidat e their i mports. Se e Neenah , 2 4 C IT at 3 9 & n .5 , 8 6 F . S up p. 2d at 1 31 4. Furth er, the re i s n o m entio n o f f utu re inj ury in P lai nti ff

s’ m oti on that m ight m od if

y th e ev ide nti ary

req uir em ents n ece ssary t o e sta bli sh irrepar able harm. Se e Tren t T ub e D iv. , 1 4 C IT at 5 88 , 7 44 F. Su pp . at 11 79 . T he ref

ore , Pl aintif fs have pro pe rlyde m on str ate d th at the y w ill su ff er i rre parab le h arm

if the ir m oti on

is denied. B. Li kel iho od

of S uc ces s o n th e Me rit

s As previously mentioned, “al though this r equirement is important, itis not dete rminative
an d m us t be ba lan ced

ag ain st the co m

parat ive inj uri es o f t

he parti es. ” NM

B , 24 CIT at 1244, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 1140. This “balanc ing involves a n inverse r elations hip between the l evel of hards hip the m ov ingpartywi ll s uf fe r if the pre lim inary i nju

nc tio n is de nie d and

the stand ard

that
m us t be m et t o d em on str ate a li ke lih oo d o f s uc ces s o n th e m eri ts. ” Id . at 12 45 . Whe re i t is “clear t hat the moving party will suffer substantial ly greate r harm by the denial of the preliminary injunc tion than t he non-moving party would by its gr ant, it wil l ordinar ily be sufficient that t he movant has raised ‘ serious, subst antial, dif ficult and doubtful ’ qu est ion s th at
are the pro pe r su

bje ct o f l iti gatio n. ” Id . (quoting PP G I nd us . v . U nited Sta tes , 11 CIT 5, 8 (19 87 ) (n ot r ep ort ed

in F . S up p. )) ( em

ph asi s ad de d). Plaintiffs chall enge the final r esults of the se cond sunset re view in which the I TC
co nc lud ed

that re vo cat ion

of the ADOr

de r covering cer tain ball bearings would l ikely lea d to aConsol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 9

9 reo ccu rre nc e o f m ate ria l in

jur y to the do m est ic i nd

us try . A s P lai nti ff

s w ill su ff er f ar g reater harm than that suffered by Defendants if theirmotion is denied, they need onl y present ques tions that are serious, subs tantial , difficult, and doubtful to es tablish a likeli hood of success on the
m eri ts. In P lai nti ff

s’ c om pla int an d m oti on

fo r ju dg m ent on

the ag en cyrec ord , th eyset fo rth
sev era l cl aim s th at q

ue sti on wh eth er the IT C a

pp lie d th e p rop er l eg al s tan dards in m ak ingits determination. Claims of this nature are routi nely consider ed by this Court a nd present se rious
an d s ub stanti al l eg al q

ue sti on s. Al tho ug h li m ite d to fi ve pa ge s, Ti mke n h as n ot r ais ed a sp eci fi c leg al i ssu e in

its bri ef that co m pe ls the co urt

to s eri ou sly

qu est ion the m eri ts o f P lai nti ff

s’ c lai m to the same degree as was nec essary in Co ru s S taa l B V v . U

nited Sta tes , 31 CIT __, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (2007). Therefore, NSK has established a sufficientlikeli hood of success based on the lesser bur den outlined above. C. Ba lan ce o

f H ar ds hip s & P ub lic Intere

st W ithreg ard

to e lem ents ( 3) and

(4) , th e co urt

be lie ve s it

unne ces sar

y to explo re the se issues in gr eat detai l because t he balance of hardshi ps and public i nterestclearl y favor Plaintiffs. If the co urt de nie s P lai nti ff

s’ m oti on , th ey“w ou ld s uf fe r th e p ote nti al unre co ve rab le l os s o f a ll
an tid um pin g d uti es p aid on the liq uid ate d e ntr ies an d th e n eg ati on of the ir s tat uto ry r ight to
m ean ing fu l ju dic ial rev iew .” NM B , 2 4 C IT at 1 24 4, 12 0 F . S up p. 2d at 1 14 0. Th e G ov ernm ent, ho we ve r, t ak es n o p os iti on in t his m att er and

the ref ore do es n ot s uf

fe r any h ard sh ip f

or p urp os es of thi s an aly sis . A ga in c on sid eri ng pa ge lim itatio ns , T imke n h as n ot s ub m itt ed ev ide nc e th at i t will suffer undue hardshi p if the preli minary injunction is granted. Similarly, “ preservi ng [NSK’s] right to meaningful judicial revi ew” serves the public int erest and doe s not undermineConsol. Court No. 06-00334 Page 10

10 other poli cies of equal or gr eater weight
. Id . at 1245, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 1141. Consequentl y, neither of thes e two elements operate a s barrie r to grant ing the prel iminary injunction. CO NC LU SI ON Fo r th e f ore go ingrea so ns , th e co urt is c onvin ced

that P lai nti ff

s h av e p rop erl y e sta

bli sh ed the ne ces sar

y c rit eri a to ob tai n a

pre lim inary i nju

nc tio n. Ac co rdi ng ly, Pl aintif fs ’ m oti on

is GRANTED
.

Dated : De cem

be r 10 , 2 00 7 /s/ Ju dit h M . B arz ilay Ne w Y ork , N .Y
. Ju dg e Ju dit h M . B arz ilay