Trade Law Daily is a Warren News publication.

CIT Remands ITA Country of Origin Finding in 2008-09 China Tapered Bearings AD Review

The Court of International Trade remanded aspects of the 2008-09 antidumping administrative review of tapered roller bearings from China (A-570-601), including the International Trade Administration’s determination that respondent Peer Bearing Company-Changshan’s (CPZ) bearings processed in Thailand are of Chinese origin, and are therefore subject merchandise. The ITA relied on irrelevant criteria in finding the bearings to be of Chinese origin, such as whether the Thai bearings were of the same “class or kind” of merchandise as the Chinese parts, CIT said. The agency also failed to back up its claim that the Thai processing did not add significant value, it said. CIT ordered the ITA to rely only on “criteria relevant to whether the parts exported to Thailand were substantially transformed” in its redetermination.

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.

CIT also remanded CPZ’s surrogate value for bearing-quality steel bar, as well as the ITA’s decision to rely solely on AB SKF’s data on factors of production for CPZ, despite AB SKF only owning CPZ for a part of the period review. CIT sustained the ITA’s calculation of assessment rates and CPZ’s surrogate value for roller-quality steel wire rod.

(Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. U.S., Slip Op. 12-159, dated 12/21/12, Judge Stanceu)

(Attorneys: John Gurley of Arent Fox for plaintiff and defendant-intervenor CPZ; Misha Preheim for defendant U.S. government; Herbert Shelley of Steptoe & Johnson for defendant-intervenors Changshan Peer Bearing and Peer Bearing Company; William Fennell for plaintiff and defendant-intervenor The Timken Company)