SKF USA, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
May 25, 2001, Decided
[*1025] DYK, Circuit Judge.
This case concerns the obligation of a court to remand a case to an administrative agency upon the agency's change in policy or statutory interpretation. We hold that the Court of International Trade erred in declining to remand the [**2] case to the Department of Commerce, and accordingly we reverse that court's decision in SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999).
Appellants *** Kugelfishcher Georg Schafer AG and *** Bearings Corporation (collectively, "***") are, respectively, a manufacturer and importer of antifriction bearings from Germany. This case concerns an antidumping duty order on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. Before the Court of International Trade, this case involved issues that are no longer in dispute and other parties who are no longer involved in the remaining issue. We limit our discussion to the issue that remains before us.
In 1994, following the submission of review requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce ("Commerce") initiated an antidumping administrative review covering the period from May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom; Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Notice of Request [**3] for Revocation of an Order, 59 Fed. Reg. 32,180 (June 22, 1994).
During the course of this review, *** submitted information concerning the cost of production of the subject merchandise. This appeal involves the proper disposition of one component of ***'s costs: a loss incurred by *** on the sale of its Korean subsidiary, and whether that loss should be included in ***'s general and administrative ("G&A") expense calculation.
To place the G&A expense calculation in context, we outline briefly its place in the antidumping statutory scheme. Under the law that applied to this proceeding, Commerce was required to impose an antidumping duty on imported merchandise that was being sold, or was likely to be sold, in the United States at less than its fair value to the detriment of a domestic industry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1)-(2) (1988). The amount of the duty equaled "the amount by which the foreign market value exceeds the United States price for [*1026] the merchandise." 19 U.S.C. § 1673. Foreign market value was the price of the merchandise in the producer's home market or its export price to countries other than the United [**4] States. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1); IPSCO, Inc. v. United States, 965 F.2d 1056, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1992). However, under specified circumstances when Commerce had reasonable grounds to believe that home or export market sales prices were less than the cost of production, the statute mandated calculation of "constructed value" in lieu of foreign market value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b); IPSCO, 965 F.2d at 1059. G&A expenses were one component of constructed value and were based upon "an amount for general expenses . . . equal to that usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general class or kind as the merchandise under consideration which are made by producers in the country of exportation." 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(1)(B). The result of this statutory scheme was that when the loss incurred by *** on its Korean sale was included in G&A expenses, constructed value was increased, thereby increasing the "minimum price level at which imported goods may be sold without incurring antidumping duties." Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. United States, 187 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999), [**5] cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1097 (2000).Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
254 F.3d 1022 *; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 10845 **; 23 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1097
SKF USA INC. and SKF GmbH, Plaintiffs, and *** KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHAFER AG and *** BEARINGS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA and NTN KUGELLAGERFABRIK (DEUTSCHLAND) GmbH, Defendants, and SNR ROULEMENTS, Defendant.
Prior History: [**1] Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade. Senior Judge Nicholas Tsoucalas.
Disposition: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
expenses, antidumping, calculation, Bearings, merchandise, reconsider, administrative review, articulated, intervening, agency's action, determinations, deference, grounds
Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Administrative Record, General Overview, International Trade Law, Exports & Imports, Antidumping, Business & Corporate Compliance, International Commerce & Trade, Tariff Act, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence, Trade Agreements Act, Investigations & Proceedings, Countervailing Duties, Trade Agreements Act, Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation, US Department of Commerce, Dumping Margin, Reviewability, Remand & Remittitur, Environmental Law, Administrative Proceedings & Litigation, Judicial Review, Agency Rulemaking, Rule Application & Interpretation, Rule Interpretation