CIT Dismisses Domestic Bearing Manufacturers' Bid for Byrd Duties
Domestic producer of antifriction bearings (AFBs) Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. brought legal actions seeking a share of duties collected under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act of 2000 (Byrd Amendment, or CDSOA). In the 1988 investigation by the International Trade Commission that led to the AD duty order on AFBs from Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Romania, Thailand, Singapore, and the U.K., Shaeffler responded to the ITC’s questionnaire, but declined to indicate to the ITC that it supported the AD petition.
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.
Citing precedents at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of International Trade dismissed Schaeffler’s claims that in denying it the status of an “affected domestic producer” the government violated the firm’s First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. The CIT also ruled, as it had in a similar preceding decision, that it was not a violation of due process rights for the Byrd Amendment to include a retroactive requirement, requiring firms to have supported an AD petition in order to later qualify as ADPs, even when the petition was filed before the Byrd Amendment was enacted.
(See ITT's Online Archives 12010512 for summary of that recent, similar CIT ruling, which concerned a domestic producer seeking a Byrd amendment award, who also did not support the AD petition.)
(Slip Op. 12-8, dated 01/17/12)