Opinion ID: 209670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commerce's Zeroing Methodology

Text: SKF also challenges Commerce's ongoing zeroing practice as a distortive misapplication of the anti-dumping laws. We have addressed the practice of zeroing numerous times, however, and have unequivocally upheld this practice. For example, in one recent opinion we explained: Occasionally, the price charged for the subject merchandise in the United States is greater than the price charged for the same merchandise in the home market. This results in a negative dumping margin for that merchandise. In these situations, Commerce sets the negative dumping margins to zero when calculating the weighted average dumping margin. By doing so, the sum of the dumping margins calculated on the individual transactions is not reduced by the negative amount of the dumping margins. This practice is referred to as zeroing and has been repeatedly upheld by this court. NSK, 510 F.3d at 1379 (emphasis added). We have reviewed SKF's arguments regarding zeroing and find them unpersuasive. SKF fails to raise any argument not fully resolved by our established precedent. See Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2007) (holding that Commerce's policy has not changed with respect to the retrospective application of the zeroing methodology and that a remand to Commerce ... would therefore serve no useful purpose); Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2005) (We will not attempt to perform duties that fall within the exclusive province of the political branches, and we therefore refuse to overturn Commerce's zeroing practice based on any ruling by the WTO or other international body unless and until such ruling has been adopted pursuant to the specified statutory scheme.); Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2004) (finding that the statute does not directly speak to the issue of negative-value dumping margins, and holding that Commerce based its zeroing practice on a reasonable interpretation of the statute). Accordingly, we need not revisit this issue today.