Fag Italia S.P.A., and Fag Bearings Corporation, and Skf USA Inc. And Skf Industrie S.P.A. v. United States, and the Torrington Company (Now Known as Timken U.S. Corporation), Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schafer Ag and Fag Bearings Corporation, and Skf USA Inc. And Skf Gmbh, and Ntn Bearing Corporation of America and Ntn Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) Gmbh, and Ina Walzlager Schaeffler Kg (Now Known as Ina Walzlager Schaeffler Ohg) and Ina Bearings Company, Inc. (Now Known as Ina USA Corporation) v. United States, and the Torrington Company (Now Known as Timken U.S. Corporation), Ntn Bearing Corporation of America and Ntn Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) Gmbh, and Skf USA Inc. And Skf Gmbh, and Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schafer Ag and Fag Bearings Corporation, and Ina Walzlager Schaeffler Kg (Now Known as Ina Walzlager Schaeffler Ohg) and Ina Bearings Company, Inc. (Now Known as Ina USA Corporation) v. United States, and the Torrington Company (Now Known as Timken U.S. Corporation)

Citations: 402 F.3d 1356; 27 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1009; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5427Docket: 02-1093

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; April 6, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion AnalysisCombined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a consolidated appeal, the United States and The Torrington Company contested a decision by the United States Court of International Trade concerning the Department of Commerce's method for calculating constructed export price profit. The primary legal question centered on whether the Department was mandated to include imputed credit and inventory carrying expenses in the 'total expenses' when computing 'total United States expenses' under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. The appellate court noted that similar facts were addressed in SNR Roulements v. United States, where it was determined that the Court of International Trade had misinterpreted the statute. The ruling clarified that actual expenses could not replace imputed expenses in the context of credit and inventory carrying costs. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case, granting the plaintiffs an opportunity to show that the omission of these expenses led to incorrect dumping margin calculations. The court's decision did not award costs to either party.

Legal Issues Addressed

Constructed Export Price Profit Calculationsubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The court determined that the Department of Commerce must include imputed credit and inventory carrying expenses in 'total expenses' for calculating 'total United States expenses.'

Reasoning: The central issue is whether the Department is required to incorporate imputed credit and inventory carrying expenses into 'total expenses' when calculating 'total United States expenses.'

Interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677asubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The appellate court concluded that the Court of International Trade misinterpreted the statute by allowing substitution of actual expenses for imputed expenses in the calculation of credit and inventory carrying costs.

Reasoning: Specifically, it was ruled that the Commerce Department cannot substitute actual expenses for imputed expenses when accounting for credit and inventory carrying costs in determining total expenses.

Remand for Recalculation of Dumping Marginssubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The case was remanded to allow plaintiffs to demonstrate that their dumping margins were inaccurately calculated due to the exclusion of U.S. credit and inventory carrying costs.

Reasoning: Consequently, the appeal court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case, instructing that the plaintiffs be given a chance to demonstrate that their dumping margins were inaccurately calculated due to the omission of U.S. credit and inventory carrying costs in the expense calculations.