CIT Denies Byrd Funds to Domestic as Did not Indicate AD Petition Support
Domestic ball bearings producer New Hampshire Ball Bearing, Inc. sought to be awarded a share of AD duties as an “affected domestic party” for ball bearings imported from Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the U.K, under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, (CDSOA or Byrd Amendment). However, the Court of International Trade dismissed its complaint as the company, 12 years prior to CDSOA’s enactment, had declined to indicate its support for the AD petition in its response to ITC questionnaires.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
According to the CIT, mere participation in the International Trade Commission investigation does not satisfy the CDSOA’s petition support requirement.
In its ruling, the court also noted that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the CDSOA against constitutional challenges brought on First Amendment and equal protection grounds, and further reasoned that the company was not denied constitutional due process merely because CDSOA benefits are based on actions taken before its enactment. The CIT noted in this regard that AD duties under the Byrd Amendment “bear less resemblance to a fine payable to the government, and look more like compensation to victims of anticompetitive behavior.”
(Slip Op. 12-2, dated 01/03/12)