Slip Op. 12- UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 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- Interve nor. Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge

Consol Court No. 06-00250

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 Neil R. Ellis and Jill Caiazz o , Sidley Austin, L L P, of Washington, DC, for pla intiffs J TEKT Corpora

tion and Koy o Corporation of U.S.A.. Kevin M. O’

Brien , Kevin J. Sullivan , Christ ine M. Streatfeild , and Sonal Majmudar , Ba ker & McKe nzie, L L P, of Washington, DC, and Diane A. Mac Donald , Ba

ker & McKe nzie, L L P, of Chicag o, I L , for plaintiffs F YH B ear ing Units USA, I nc. and N ippon Pil low Bloc k Company L td.. Alexande r H. Schae

fer and Robert A. Lipstein , Crowell & Moring , L L P, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs NSK Corpor ation, NSK L td., and NSK Prec ision America, I nc.. Kevin M. O’

Brien , Christ ine M. Streatfeild , and Diane A. Mac Donald , Ba

ker & McKe nzie, L L P, of Washington, DC, and Chicag o, I L , for plaintiffs A merica n NTN B earing Manufa cturingCorp., NTN B ear ing Corpor ation of Amer ica, NTN B ower Corporation, NTN Corporation, NTN D riveshaf t, I nc., and N TN-B CA Corporation. Nausheen Hassan and Grey son L. Bryan , O’Melve ny & Myers, L L P, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs N achi Te chnolog y , Inc., Na chi-F ujikoshi C orporation, and Nac hi America , Inc..Consol Court No. 06-00250 P age 2

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 Deborah R. King , Offic e of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of Commerce. Gee rt M. De Pre

st , TerenceP. Stewart , and W illiam A. Fennell , Stewart a nd Stewart, of Washington, DC, for pla intiff and def endant- intervenor

the Timken Company

. Stanceu, Judge : I n this consolidated action, plaintiffs JTEKT Corporation and Koyo 1 Corporation of U.S.A. ( collectively , “JTEKT”), F YH B earing Units USA, I nc. and N ippon Pill ow B lock Company

L td. (collec tively , “NPB ”), N SK Corporation, NSK L td., and NSK Precision Amer ica, Inc. (c ollectively , “NSK”) , Americ an NTNBe aringManufa cturingCorp., NTN B ear ing Corpor ation of Amer ica, NTN B ower Corporation, NTN Corpor ation, NTN Drivesha ft, Inc., and N TN-B CA Corporation (c ollectively , “NTN ”), N achi Te chnolog y , Inc., Nac hi-Fujikoshi Corporation and N achi Ame rica , Inc. (c ollectively , “Na chi”) , and The Timken Company (“Timken” ), which is both a plaintiff a nd the def

endant- intervenor , contest an antidumping de termination (“F inal Results”) of the I nternational Trade Administration, U.S. Depa rtment of Commerce (“Commerc e” or the “De partment” ). Specific ally , they challeng e

cer tain aspec ts of the final de termination that Commerce issued to conclude the six teenth administrative re views of a ntidumping duty

order s covering ba ll bearing s and par ts thereof from Fr ance , Ger

many , I taly , J apan, a

nd the United King dom made duringthe per iod of May 1, 2004 throug h April 30, 2005. Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, & the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iews , 71 Fe d. Reg . 40,064 (Jul y 14, 2006) (“

Final Results ”). F our plaintiffs–JTEKT, NPB, NTN, a nd Nac hi–asserte d claims cha lleng ing the application of Commerc e’s “ zeroing ” methodolog y to calculate the

J TEKT Corpora

tion is t he succ essor-in- interest to Koyo Seiko Company , L td.. Notice 1 of Final Results of Ant idumping Duty Changed-Circumstance s Revie w: Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from Japan , 71 Fe d. Reg . 26,452, 26,452-53 (Ma y 5, 2006).Consol Court No. 06-00250 P age 3

dumping mar g in in the review of the orde r per

taining to Japan. The plaintiffs c halleng ing 2 zeroing claim the De partment’s use of the zeroing methodology

for non- dumped sales violates the U.S. antidumping law s and is inconsistent with international obligations of the United States. The c ourt’s pre vious opinion i n this action, issued on J uly 29, 2011, addre ssed the Depa rtment’s first re mand re deter mination. I n light of two inter veningdecisions of the Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit (“Court of A ppeals” ), the cour

t ordere d Commerce to r econside r 3 the dec ision to apply

the zeroingmethodology in determiningthe marg ins for the plaintiffs challeng ing zer oing, a

nd to either a lter that dec ision or provide an e x planation of how the languag e of 19 U .S.C. § 1677(35) 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. JTEKT C orp. v. U.S. , 35 CI T __, __, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1371 (2011)

. Both the G overnme nt and Timken see k 4

rec onsideration of or

relief from this remand or der w ith respec t to z eroingand ask the court to

The U.S. De partment of Commerc e (“ Commerce” or the “ Depa rtment”) a

pplied its 2 “zeroing ” methodolog y

in the six teenth administrative r eviews, unde r which it 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 calc ulating w eig hted-avera g e dumpingmarg ins. Issues &Dec ision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Re views of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, & the United Kingdom for the Period of Rev iew May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005 , at 11-12 (Jul y 14, 2006). In JTEKT Corp. v. United States , 642 F.3d 1378, 1383- 85 (F ed. Cir. 2011) a nd Dongbu 3 Steel Co. v. United States , 635 F.3d 1363, 1371- 73 (F ed. Cir. 2011), the Court of A ppeals for the Fe dera l Circuit (“Court of Appe als”) he ld that the final re sults of an administrative re view in which zeroingwas 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. The c ourt’s sec ond rema nd order also instructed the D epar tment to reconsider

the 4 proposal of A merica

n NTN B ear ing Ma

nufac turing Corp., NTN B ear ing Corpor ation of Americ a, NTNBow er Corpor ation, NTN Corpora tion, NTN Drivesha ft, Inc., and N TN-B CA Corporation (c ollectively , “NTN ”) to incor porate additional desig n-ty pe ca teg ories in the Depa rtment’s model match me thodology

. JTEKT Corp. v. U.S. , 35 CI T __, __, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1371-72 (2011)

.Consol Court No. 06-00250 P age 4

uphold Comm erc e’s use of zeroingin the six teenth administrative r eview of the antidumping duty order on ball bear ings f

rom J apan. T he Timken Co.’s Mot. for Rec onsideration or Relief from J. 5 (Aug. 10, 2011) , ECF No. 171; De f.’s Mot. for E x pedited Rec onsideration or Relief from J. 7 (Aug. 12, 2011) , ECF No. 173. F urther, the Gover nment reque sts an extension of tim e to file the sec ond rema

nd deter mination until 60 day s after the cour t decides the motions for

rec onsideration or r elief. D ef.’ s Mot. for Enlarg ement of Time to F ile Remand Redete rmination (Sept. 21, 2011), ECF N o. 177. Also befor e the c ourt is a joint moti on of plaintiffs JTEKT, NTN, NPB, a nd NSK to stay this case pe nding the final disposition of Union Steel v. U nited States , 36 CI T __, Slip Op. 12-24 (F eb. 27, 2012) ( “ Union Steel ”). Joint M ot. for Stay of Proce eding s Pending A ppeal in Union Steel v. U nited States (May

4, 2012), ECF N o. 182 (“Joint M ot. for Stay”). Union Steel involves the question of the leg ality of the De partment’s zeroingmethodology 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 aff irming the use of zeroing in the subject administrative re view is now on appe al bef ore the Court of Appea ls. J oint 5 Mot. for Stay

3. Nac hi consented to the joint motion. Id . at 6. Def endant a nd defe ndant-interve nor oppose the pr oposed stay . Def .’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to St ay (May 23, 2012), ECF N o. 183 (“D ef.’ s Opp’n”) ; The Timken Co.’s Resp. in Opp’n to JTEKT, NTN, NPB , and NSK’s Joint Mot. to S tay Procee dings ( May

23, 2012), ECF N o. 184 (“D ef.- intervenor ’s Opp’n” ).

The United States f

iled a Notice of Appe al of the judg ment in Union Steel on 5 Marc h 6, 2011. ECF No. 79 ( Consol C t. No. 11-00083). The appea l has bee n dockete d as Union Steel v. U nited States , CAFC Court No. 2012-1248.Consol Court No. 06-00250 P age 5

For the re asons discussed he rein, the c ourt will gr ant the motion for a sta y and will hold in abeyance any

ruling on the motions for rec onsideration or r elief. The pendinglitigation in the Court of Appea ls is li kely to affe ct the cour

t’s dispositi on of the c laim of the plaintiffs challeng ing the Depa

rtment’s zeroingprac tice in the subjec t review . Although 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, i.e. , the per missibi lity

under c urre nt law of the Depa rtment’s application of the zeroing methodology in an administrative re view. A stay at this juncture, there fore , will serve the inter est of judicial ec onomy and conse rve the resour ces of the par ties. Moreove r, def

endant a nd defe ndant-interve nor have failed to show, or even a lleg e, that the proposed sta

y would cause 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 making this 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 zeroing issue beingexamined in Union Steel is differe nt than the claim in this case. T hey asser t that at the time of the a dminist rative r eview unde rlying this ca se, Commerce did not y et have differ ent interpre tations of 19 U.S.C. 1677(35) in investiga tions using ave rag e-to-a

vera g e compar isons and administrative re views using aver ag e-to-tr ansac tion comparisons. Def .’s 6

After a World Trade Org anization (“WTO”) de cision holding that zeroingin 6 (continued...)Consol Court No. 06-00250 P age 6

Opp’n 1-2; De f.-inter

venor’ s Opp’n 3-4. A s such, at the time of the final re sults, defe ndant-interve nor ar g ues, Commerce could not have pr ovided an e x planation for dif fer ing interpre tations of the statutory provision. Def- intervenor ’s Opp’n 4. The court is not persua ded by this argument. I t is undisput ed that Commerce used its zeroing me thodology in the subject revie w. Issues &Dec ision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Re views of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, &the United Kingdom for the Period of Rev iew May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005 , at 11-12 (July 14, 2006). B eca

use the zeroing issue raised by

this case involves the statutory interpre tation of the U.S. antidumping la ws, Union Steel is likely to be per tinent to the court’s disposition of the zeroing issue in this case and, in turn, to the court’ s ruling on de fenda nt and def

endant- intervenor ’s motions for rec onsideration or relief

. Although a cknowledg ing that orderinga stay is a matter f

or the c ourt’s exercise of discretion, De f.’s Opp’ n 2, defe ndant also ar g ues that the “ plaintiffs are not entitled to a stay beca use they have not sa

tisfied their burde n” nor w ill a stay “bene fit the public interest.” Id . The Gover nment submits t hat the movants “ha ve neither established–nor, in fa ct, eve n alleg ed–a ‘cle ar c ase of

hardship or ine quity

in beingrequire d to go f

orwa rd’ with the litigation.” Id . at 4 (citing Landis , 299 U.S. at 255). De fenda nt misconstrues the applica ble 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 forwa rd, if ther e is eve n a fa ir possibili ty that the stay

for whic h he pra

y s will work damage to (...continued) 6 antidumping investig ations was contr ary to U.S. international obligations, Com merc e aba ndoned zeroing in such proce eding s, eff ective F ebrua

ry 22, 2007. Antidumping Procee dings: Calculation of

the W eighted-Av erage D umping Margin During an Antidumping Investigation; Final Modification , 71 Fe d. Reg . 77,722 (De c. 27, 2006); Antidumping Procee dings: Calculation of the W eighted-Av erage D umping Margins in Antidumping Investigations; Change in Effective Date of Final Modification , 72 Fe d. Reg . 3783 (Jan. 26, 2007). The fina l results of the appe aled annual r eview in this consolidated a ction wer e issued on Jul y 14, 2006.Consol Court No. 06-00250 P age 7

some oneelse ,” Landis , 299 U.S. at 255 (empha sis added). H oweve r, the c ourt fails to see what harm would a ccr

ue to def endant should the stay

be orde red, a

nd defe ndant, in opposing the motion, does not identify any such har m, seeDef

.’s Opp’n 3- 4. Def

endant- intervenor

does not argue that a sta

y will cause it har

m, and the cour

t perc eives no ha

rm that would ac crue to defe ndant-interve nor should the stay be orde red. Def endant a rgues, fur ther, that a

stay is inappropriate beca

use this case involves another issue, NTN’s pr oposal for Commerc e to incorpor ate a dditional design- ty pe categ ories into its model-match me thodology , that has no conne ction to the Depa rtment’s use of

the zeroing methodology

. Id . at 5. Def endant c ontrasts the cur

rent a ction with that of SKF v. United States , Court No. 11-0343, which w as stay ed pendingappea l in Union Steel , but whose “othe r issue besides zeroing. . . a cha lleng e to Commerce ’s policy of issuing liquidatinginstructions 15 day s afte r publication of a

final re sults of review . . . c annot re sult in relief other tha n an advisory opinion.” Id . Def

endant, howe ver, f

ails to identify

any harm that will result to it from a de lay in the adjudication of the model-match issue. In conclusion, Union Steel is likely to affe ct the cour

t’s dispositi on of the c halleng e to the Depa rtment’s zeroingmethodology and the pe nding motions for r econside ration or r elief. The stay soug ht by

the plaintiffs cha lleng ing zer oing is wa rra nted, as it will serve the dual intere sts of judicial economy

and conse rvation of the pa rties’ re source s. No showing of har m resulting f

rom the proposed sta

y has bee n made. The court, ther efor e, will g rant the joint motion for stay while holding in abe yance the other motions curr ently befor e the c ourt. ORDER Upon consider ation of the Joint Motion for Stay of Proce eding s Pending A ppeal in Union Steel v. U nited States (“Joint M otion for Stay ”), a s filed on May 4, 2012 by

plaintiffs J TEKT Corporation and K oy o Corporation of U.S.A. ( collectively , “JTEKT”), NTNCorporation, NTN Be aringCorporation of Ame rica , Americ an NTNBe aring Manufa cturingCorporation,Consol Court No. 06-00250 P age 8

NTN-B CA Corporation, NTN- Bow er Corpor ation, and NTNDrivesha ft, Inc. (c ollectively , “NTN ”), F YH B ear ing Units USA, I nc. and N ippon Pil low Bloc k Company L td. (collec tively , “NPB ”), a

nd NSK Corporation, NSK L td., and NSK Prec ision America, I nc. (c ollectively , “NSK”) , the motions in opposi tion filed by the United States and de fenda nt-intervenor

The Timken Company

(“Timken” ), and a ll other pape rs and pr ocee dings he rein, a nd upon due deliberation, it i s here by ORDERED that the J oint Moti on 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