Opinion ID: 219947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bearing Type

Text: As an alternative basis for reversal, NTN argues that Commerce erred by refusing to further break down one of the characteristics in the modelbearing design type. NTN argues that insert bearing design types should be broken down further because customers view different models of insert bearing distinctly. We have held that in order to overturn Commerce's determination of design types, the appellant must show that Commerce's choice of design types ... was unreasonable. Koyo III, 551 F.3d at 1292. In fact, we addressed this issue in Koyo III and held that Commerce's determination of a single design type for insert bearings was reasonable. In this case, Commerce found that in light of the similarities in price, costs, and design, it was appropriate to group insert bearings into a single category. Specifically, Commerce noted that appellant has not shown, however, why bearings with these specific physical differences and commercial distinctions cannot be reasonably compared. J.A. 194. As we stated in Koyo III, Commerce did not act unreasonably and its determination is supported by substantial evidence.