Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. And Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiffs/cross-Appellants v. The United States, and the Timken Company, Nsk Ltd. And Nsk Corporation v. The United States, and the Timken Company
Docket: 93-1310
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; March 27, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. Inc. (collectively "Koyo") and NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation (collectively "NSK") as plaintiffs/cross-appellants against the United States and The Timken Company, the defendant-appellant. It stems from a request by Timken for an antidumping investigation into tapered roller bearings (TRBs) imported from Japan, initiated by the U.S. Department of Treasury in 1973. The investigation, which addressed TRBs with an outside diameter of four inches or less, resulted in the calculation of dumping margins for entries made by Koyo and NSK between 1974 and 1979.
In 1980, the Department of Commerce took over the administration of antidumping laws and began conducting administrative reviews of the TRB entries, leading to the recalculation of dumping margins. A 1992 decision by the Court of International Trade directed the International Trade Administration (ITA) to disregard certain investigation data and liquidate specific TRB entries based on earlier dumping margins set by Treasury. The trial court upheld this decision in March 1993, prompting appeals from both parties.
The Court of Appeals, reviewing the case, references the relevant facts provided by the Court of International Trade in previous opinions. The original investigation found dumping of TRBs by Koyo and NSK, but these entries were never liquidated. Throughout this period, discrepancies in the master lists prepared by Treasury, which were used to assess antidumping duties, led to disputes regarding their accuracy, particularly concerning entries from 1974 to 1976, and Treasury suspended some lists due to possible errors. The appellate court ultimately reverses some aspects of the lower court's decision while affirming others.
On January 1, 1980, Congress enacted the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, which repealed the 1921 Act and amended the Tariff Act of 1930, specifically instituting annual reviews for dumping findings. The Department of Commerce took over the administration of antidumping laws on January 2, 1980. In March 1980, the International Trade Administration (ITA) began an administrative review of a 1976 dumping finding and suspended liquidation of related entries while verifying Koyo's submitted information. Preliminary results from a 1982 review indicated dumping margins of 1.95% or less for Koyo's tapered roller bearings (TRB) entries, but these were not published, and Customs did not liquidate any entries based on these margins.
In September 1983, Timken alleged that Koyo sold TRBs below production costs, prompting ITA to initiate a cost-of-production investigation for certain entries from 1978 to 1979. In 1984, the annual review requirement was amended to require requests from interested parties, which Timken made. ITA discovered inaccuracies in Koyo's submissions and noted that Koyo had destroyed all documents for entries before 1980. By 1986, ITA deemed Koyo's submissions unacceptable and used "best information available" for margin calculations.
On June 1, 1990, ITA issued its final determination based on its investigation and best available information, resulting in dumping margins of 18.81% to 35.89% for specified entries. Koyo challenged these results in the Court of International Trade, which on May 15, 1992, ordered the liquidation of certain entries according to the pre-existing Treasury master lists and instructed ITA to recalculate margins for the 1978-1979 entries without using the cost-of-production analysis.
On August 21, 1992, the Court of International Trade denied Timken's rehearing motion regarding the Cost of Production (COP) analysis but allowed supplementation of its below-cost allegation with additional information. Upon remand, the International Trade Administration (ITA) utilized a corrected Treasury master list from 1980 for 1977 entries and liquidated these entries accordingly, while other entries from 1974-1976 were liquidated based on a different Treasury master list. Timken's supplemental information indicated a likelihood that Koyo sold tapered roller bearings (TRBs) below cost in the home market, prompting ITA to conduct a new COP investigation and calculate updated dumping margins of 17.96% and 24.64% for entries from 1978-1979, excluding sales below cost. Timken challenged the use of the corrected Treasury 1977 master list in court.
NSK's TRB entries fell under a Treasury dumping finding from August 18, 1976. Treasury had issued three master lists for NSK's entries from 1974 to 1978 but suspended the list for 1977-1978 due to accuracy concerns. The 1980 transfer of the antidumping law administration to ITA included NSK's application for order revocation, with subsequent reports showing minimal dumping margins. Despite NSK's calculations leading to a preliminary determination, ITA sought additional raw data for independent recalculation, which NSK did not fully provide. In 1986, ITA initiated another review of NSK's entries, ultimately publishing final results on June 1, 1990, based on its investigation rather than the earlier master lists, which NSK contested.
On May 21, 1992, the trial court ordered liquidation of entries from 1974 to 1978 based on earlier Treasury master lists, and ITA later corrected clerical errors for liquidation. On March 4, 1993, the court upheld the use of Treasury master lists for Koyo's and NSK's respective entries, as well as ITA's corrections and COP analysis for Koyo's 1978-1979 entries. Timken appealed the decision to liquidate Koyo's and NSK's entries based on the master lists, while Koyo cross-appealed regarding the approval of ITA's COP analysis for calculating dumping margins.
Title 19 grants the Court of International Trade authority to review final results from the International Trade Administration (ITA) administrative reviews, as specified in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii). The court must invalidate any ITA determination that lacks substantial evidence or is not legally compliant, per 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B). In the case discussed, the trial court directed the ITA to liquidate Koyo’s entries from 1974-1977 and NSK’s entries from 1974-1978 according to Treasury master lists. Citing Timken Co. v. Regan, the court concluded that section 751(a) does not allow annual reviews for entries governed by pre-Trade Agreements Act master lists.
Section 751(a) mandates annual administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders, requiring the ITA to evaluate net subsidies and antidumping duty amounts, and to publish findings in the Federal Register. This section applies not only to orders from the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 but also to findings under the Antidumping Act of 1921. Furthermore, section 106(a) of the Trade Agreements Act ensures that findings in effect on the act's effective date are also subject to section 751 review.
The statute does not exclude findings under assessment from section 751(a) reviews, as it provides the Commerce authority to assess antidumping duty amounts. Historical legislative intent indicates that section 751(a) reviews encompass not only the determination phase but also the assessment phase of antidumping investigations, fulfilling the administration of these proceedings. Thus, section 751(a) includes the review of unliquidated entries covered by master lists.
Section 751(a) allows the International Trade Administration (ITA) to resume investigations following an administrative review, enabling it to recalculate dumping duties based on new information. ITA can utilize either Treasury master lists or data gathered from the renewed investigation, as the scope is limited by the original Treasury dumping finding but is still subject to review under section 751(a). ITA initiated annual reviews under the Antidumping Act of 1921, correctly including the August 18, 1976 dumping finding for review. Despite the case being in the assessment phase, section 751(a) permits a renewal of the administrative review process. ITA found inaccuracies in the master lists related to NSK and Koyo, prompting it to recalculate dumping margins using the best available data. The trial court's decision to require liquidation based on flawed master lists was incorrect.
Furthermore, section 1002(b)(3) outlines transitional rules for certain antidumping duty assessments, indicating that any assessments made after the effective date of the bill apply to reviews, while those not assessed before the effective date will be reviewed under the law prior to the bill’s enactment. This section pertains solely to judicial review, not to ongoing administrative reviews, and does not mandate that entries be liquidated according to prior master lists. Legislative history clarifies that section 1002's transitional rules are intended for judicial review of pending cases, allowing them to proceed as if the bill had not been enacted.
The trial court incorrectly interpreted section 1002 as restricting administrative review under section 751(a). Section 1002(b)(3) pertains solely to preserving judicial review for cases initiated under the Antidumping Act of 1921 and does not affect section 751(a) review for entries on master lists. Similarly, section 102 of the Trade Agreements Act does not limit section 751(a) review and only clarifies the application of time limits for pending cases under the 1921 Act. The lengthy investigation period, where Treasury published a dumping finding in 1976 but ITA did not issue a Final Determination until 1990, raised concerns for the Court of International Trade and highlighted the Act's goal to expedite antidumping duty assessments. Despite these delays, ITA was not compelled to use inaccurate master lists, as the Trade Agreements Act aimed to ensure fair assessments while protecting domestic industries. The Act emphasizes the need for effective relief from dumped imports without sacrificing fairness. Consequently, the court reverses part of the trial court's decision and remands cases to determine dumping margins for specified entries.
Koyo cross-appealed regarding the trial court's decision that allowed ITA to conduct a cost of production (COP) investigation, arguing that Timken's below-cost allegation was filed late and that the court failed to address this issue. Under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, the administering authority must investigate if there are reasonable grounds to believe that sales were made below production costs. Timken submitted its allegation in 1983, at which point there were no set deadlines for such submissions, leaving ITA to evaluate timeliness based on case-specific circumstances, primarily focusing on the timing of submission relative to the preliminary results and the information availability prior to the preliminary determination.
Allegations submitted 70 days before the final determination deadline were ruled untimely by the International Trade Administration (ITA) due to the necessity of at least 86 days for investigation and the petitioner's prior access to sufficient information for a timely filing. Similar rulings were made in cases involving Color Television Receivers and Certain Steel Valves, where insufficient time remained before deadlines led to the rejection of late allegations. However, in the case of Bicycle Speedometers, an allegation was deemed timely because the petitioner was unaware of below-cost sales until after preliminary results were published. The ITA accepted Timken's 1983 allegation as timely, despite the preliminary results for Koyo's 1978-1979 entries being published in 1989. Consequently, the court reversed the Court of International Trade's affirmation of ITA's liquidation of Koyo's and NSK's entries from 1974-1978, remanding the cases for redetermination of final dumping margins, while affirming ITA's incorporation of its cost of production investigation for Koyo's 1978-1979 entries. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, with the decision being affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The scope of reviews included all entries from the last published master list or the last 12 months, and ITA subsequently decided to review all unliquidated entries from the 1976 dumping finding. Timken's later petition was deemed untimely as it was filed after preliminary results without prior notice of below-cost sales.
