descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

The Torrington Co., and Federal-Mogul Corporation v. The United States, and Skf Usa, Inc., Skf France, S.A., Skf Gmbh, Skf Industrie, S.P.A., Skf (u.k.) Limited, Skf Sverige Ab, and Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., and Nsk Ltd., Nsk Corporation, and Ntn Bearing Corporation of America, American Ntn Bearing Manufacturing Corporation, Ntn Corporation, Ntn Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) Gmbh, and Nmb Thai Ltd, Pelmec Industries Ltd., Nmb Corporation, Nmb Singapore Ltd., and Fag (u.k.) Limited, Barden Corporation (u.k.) Limited,fag Bearings Corporation, the Barden Corporation, Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer Kgaa, Fag Cuscinetti S.P.A., and Ina Walzlager Schaeffler Kg, Ina Bearing Company, Inc., and Gmn Georg Muller Nurnberg Ag, and Rhp Bearings Inc., Rhp Bearings of U.S.A., Peer Bearing Company

Citation: 127 F.3d 1077Docket: 97-1181

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; October 15, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Court of International Trade, which supported the United States Department of Commerce's antidumping determination regarding ball bearings from several countries. The primary legal issues revolved around the calculation of the United States price and foreign market value, defined under 19 U.S.C. 1677a and 1677b, and whether below-cost sales should be included in these calculations. The Department of Commerce decided not to apply 19 C.F.R. 353.26(a), which would have reduced the United States price by any reimbursed antidumping duties, as there was no evidence supporting such reimbursements. The court emphasized deference to Commerce's interpretation of its regulations, noting that the exclusion of below-cost sales pertained only to actual sales and not to constructed value calculations. Torrington, the appellant, could not demonstrate that the below-cost sales fell outside the ordinary course of trade, leading to the court's affirmation of Commerce's determinations. The outcome left each party responsible for its own costs, with the court not addressing additional potential duty assessments due to lack of presentation by the parties involved.

Legal Issues Addressed

Antidumping Determination under 19 U.S.C. 1677a and 19 U.S.C. 1677b

Application: The court affirmed Commerce's methodology of comparing the United States price with the foreign market value, noting that the agency appropriately did not apply 19 C.F.R. 353.26(a) to reduce the United States price.

Reasoning: The court noted that Commerce had appropriately declined to use 19 C.F.R. 353.26(a) in its calculation of the 'United States price' and did not exclude below-cost sales when determining the 'foreign market value.'

Deference to Agency Interpretation of Regulations

Application: The court emphasized the significant deference granted to Commerce's interpretation of its own regulations, affirming their actions unless lacking substantial evidence or contrary to law.

Reasoning: The reviewing court affirms an antidumping determination unless it lacks substantial evidence or is not in accordance with the law, granting significant deference to an agency's interpretation of its regulations.

Exclusion of Below-Cost Sales in Antidumping Calculations

Application: Commerce's decision to include below-cost sales in constructed value calculations was upheld, as Torrington failed to prove these sales were outside the ordinary course of trade.

Reasoning: Without evidence indicating that below-cost sales were outside this ordinary course, Commerce appropriately included them in its FMV calculation.

Reimbursement Regulation under 19 C.F.R. 353.26

Application: The court held that Commerce was correct in not applying the reimbursement regulation, as there was no evidence provided that any antidumping duties were reimbursed.

Reasoning: Torrington failed to establish such a link, and the court upheld Commerce's decision not to apply section 353.26(a).