Slip Op. 02-88 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

______________________________________ : NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, : AMERICAN NTN BEARING MANUFACTURING : CORPORATION and NTN CORPORATION; : NSK LTD. and NSK CORPORATION; : KOYO SEIKO CO., LTD. and KOYO : CORPORATION OF U.S.A., : : Plaintiffs and : Defendant-Intervenors, : : v. : Consol. Court No. : 98-01-00146 UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : THE TIMKEN COMPANY, : : Defendant-Intervenor : and Plaintiff. : _______________________________________ :
ORDER On the above-captioned matter, the Court received the following: (a) Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand(“ Draft Results ”) in NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States , 26 CIT ___, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (2002), and Final Re sults of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand(“ Remand Results ”) in NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States , 26 CIT ___, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (2002), issued by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (“Commerce”); (b) CommentsConsol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 2

1 Timken’s response addresses the arguments raised by NTN i n Preliminary Comments as if these comments were submitted by NTN in response to Commerce’s Remand Results . The Court assumes that Timken’s actions are caused by NTN’s failure to sub mit NTN’s response to Commerce’s Remand Results . In the fashion analogous to that of Timken, the Court assumes that NTN’s failure to submit comments to Commerce’s RemandResults : (a) constitutes a waiver of NTN’s right to submit c omment s to Commerce’s Remand Results ; and (b) indicates NTN’s desire to stand by the arguments raisedby NTN in NTN’s Preliminary Comments . Regarding the RemandDetermination (“ Preliminary Comments ”) by NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation and NTN Corporation (“NTN”) dated July 15, 2 002, a nd addressing Commerce’s Draft Results ; and (c) a letter by The Timken Company (“Timken”) of July 24, 2002, advising the Court of Timken’s intent to file comments in response to those comments that might be filedby NTN in response to Commerce’s Remand Results , and Timken’s response t o NTN ’s comments regarding Commerce’s Remand Results dated August 5, 2002. 1
In its Preliminary Comments , NTN asserts that Commerce erred in refusing to exclude those sales where the gross unit price plus billing adjustment equaled zero from NTN’ s d umping margin. NTN maintains that the Court’s order that mandated Commerce to exclude NTN’s zero-priced sales from NTN’s dumping margin should have encompassed NTN’s zero-priced sales as well as those NTN’s sales
w here t he gross unit price plus billing adjustment equaled zero. Pointing to the fact that NTN’s margin was raised, rather thanConsol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 3

2 Commerce initially relied on incorrect cost of production data providedby NTN. Commerce corrected this oversight and , consequently, recalculated NTN’s margin for Commerce’s Remand Results . Had NTN been unhappy with Commerce’s recalculation, NTN shouldhave asse rted its grievances accordingly. The Court, however, fails to fancy a viable legal theory which prohibits an agency from correcting its calculative error as long as the agency applies the correct legal principle. lower ed, after Commerce has made Commerce’s recalculation, NTN concludes that the abnormality of such effect is a per se indication of Commerce’s misinterpretation of the Court’ s or der. Commerce contends that Commerce’s actions were in accordance with the Court’s order remanding the underlying case, and Timken supports Commerce’s position.
The Court agrees with Commerce and Timken. Indeed, a zeropricedsale (that is, a tra nsacti on made inherently for no consideration) is a f orm of business dealing that is entirely di fferent in nature from a sale where the gross unit p rice plu s billing adjustment equaled zero (that is, a transaction made for a consideration that was eventually offset by an adjustment given for certain business reasons). Furthermore, the fact that NTN’s margin
rose as a result of Commerce’s recalculation has absolutely no relevance to the issue of interpretation of the C ourt’s mandate, since the change in margin was caused by Commerce’s correction of
a ministerial error. 2 Therefore, this Court, having receivedand reviewedthe aforesaid documents holds that Commerce duly compliedConsol. Court No. 98-01-00146 Page 4

with the Court’s remand order, and it is hereby
ORDERED that the Remand Resul ts a re affirmed in their entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that s ince all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

______________________________ NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE Dated: August 12, 2002

New York, New York