Slip Op. 12- 77
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
NSK BEARINGS EUROPE LTD., NSK EUROPE LTD., and NSK CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v. Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge
UNITED STATES, Court No. 10-00289
Defendant,
and
THE TIMKEN COMPANY,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Granting motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal in Union Steel v. United States, CAFC Court No. 2012-1248]
Dated: June 4, 2012
Alexander H. Schaefer and Robert A. Lipstein, Crowell & Moring, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.
L. Misha Preheim, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the briefs were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the briefs was Shana Hofstetter, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of Commerce.
Geert M. De Prest, Terence P. Stewart, Lane S. Hurewitz and William A. Fennell, Stewart and Stewart, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor.
Stanceu, Judge: Plaintiffs NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd., NSK Europe LTD., and NSK
Corporation (collectively, “NSK” or “plaintiffs”) contest an antidumping determination of the
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the Court No. 10-00289 Page 2
“Department”) that the Department issued to conclude the twentieth administrative review of
antidumping duty orders covering ball bearings and parts thereof (the “subject merchandise”)
from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Admin. Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an
Order in Part, 75 Fed. Reg. 53,661 (Sept. 1, 2010). Plaintiffs’ complaint contains a single claim
challenging Commerce’s use of “zeroing” in the review of the order, whereby U.S. sales of
subject merchandise from the United Kingdom above normal value are assigned a dumping
margin of zero, instead of a negative margin, in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping
margins. Compl. ¶ 10 (Sept. 23, 2010), ECF No. 6. NSK argues that zeroing in an
administrative review violates the U.S. antidumping laws and is inconsistent with international
obligations of the United States. Id. ¶¶ 11-13.
Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to stay this case pending the final disposition of
Union Steel v. United States, 36 CIT __, Slip Op. 12-24 (Feb. 27, 2012) (“Union Steel”).
Pls.’ Mot. for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal in Union Steel v. United States (May 2, 2012),
ECF No. 45 (“Pls.’ Mot.”). Union Steel involves the question of the legality of the Department’s
zeroing methodology as applied to an administrative review of an antidumping duty order.
Union Steel, 36 CIT __, __, Slip Op. 12-24, at 2. The judgment entered by the Court of
International Trade in that case is now on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”).1 Defendant United States and defendant-intervenor the
Timken Company (“Timken”) oppose the proposed stay. Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Stay
1 The United States filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment in Union Steel on March 6, 2011. ECF No. 79 (Consol Ct. No. 11-00083). The appeal has been docketed as Union Steel v. United States, CAFC Court No. 2012-1248. Court No. 10-00289 Page 3
(May 21, 2012), ECF No. 46 (“Def.’s Opp’n”); The Timken Co.’s Resp. in Opp’n to NSK’s Mot.
to Stay Proceedings (May 21, 2012), ECF No. 47 (“Def-Intervenor’s Opp’n”).
For the reasons discussed herein, the court will grant the motion for a stay. In summary,
the pending litigation in the Court of Appeals is likely to affect the disposition of plaintiffs’ claim
challenging the Department’s zeroing practice. While the case at bar concerns a different
antidumping duty order and administrative review than are involved in Union Steel, both cases
raise the same general issue of whether the Department’s application of the zeroing methodology
in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order is lawful. A stay, therefore, will serve
the interest of judicial economy and conserve the resources of the parties. Moreover, defendant
and defendant-intervenor have failed to show, or even allege, that the proposed stay would cause
them harm.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The
decision when and how to stay a proceeding rests “within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations
omitted). In making this decision, the court must “weigh competing interests and maintain an
even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 257.
In opposing the motion for a stay, defendant and defendant-intervenor argue that the issue
before the court is whether NSK exhausted its administrative remedies before the agency, not
whether Commerce reasonably interpreted the antidumping law to permit zeroing in the
twentieth administrative review. Def.’s Opp’n 3-4; Def-Intervenor’s Opp’n 4. The record
reveals that NSK raised an issue pertaining to zeroing in its case brief before the Department. Court No. 10-00289 Page 4
Case Brief of NSK, A-100-001, at 1-5 (Jun. 3, 2010) (Admin R. Doc. No. 28). As to NSK’s
obligation to exhaust administrative remedies, defendant and defendant-intervenor argue that
NSK, in challenging zeroing before the agency, did not raise the statutory interpretation issue
now before the Court of Appeals which they characterize as an inconsistent interpretation of
19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) in investigations and in administrative reviews. Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot.
for J. upon the Agency R. 8 (Nov. 1, 2011), ECF No. 38; Resp. Br. of the Timken Co. Opposing
the R. 56.2 Mot. of NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd., et. al. 6-7 (Nov. 7, 2011), ECF No. 39.
The Court of International Trade “shall, where appropriate, require the exhaustion of
administrative remedies.” 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d) (2006). In trade cases, the court has discretion
with respect to whether to require exhaustion. See Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d
1370, 1381 (Fed. Cir.2007) (stating that “applying exhaustion principles in trade cases is subject
to the discretion of the judge of the Court of International Trade”). The exhaustion requirement
has several recognized exceptions. See Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 33 CIT ___,
___, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1377 (2009) (indicating situations where waiver of the exhaustion
requirement has been recognized as appropriate). Because it is possible that the outcome of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Slip Op. 12- 77
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
NSK BEARINGS EUROPE LTD., NSK EUROPE LTD., and NSK CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v. Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge
UNITED STATES, Court No. 10-00289
Defendant,
and
THE TIMKEN COMPANY,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Granting motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal in Union Steel v. United States, CAFC Court No. 2012-1248]
Dated: June 4, 2012
Alexander H. Schaefer and Robert A. Lipstein, Crowell & Moring, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.
L. Misha Preheim, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the briefs were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the briefs was Shana Hofstetter, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of Commerce.
Geert M. De Prest, Terence P. Stewart, Lane S. Hurewitz and William A. Fennell, Stewart and Stewart, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor.
Stanceu, Judge: Plaintiffs NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd., NSK Europe LTD., and NSK
Corporation (collectively, “NSK” or “plaintiffs”) contest an antidumping determination of the
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the Court No. 10-00289 Page 2
“Department”) that the Department issued to conclude the twentieth administrative review of
antidumping duty orders covering ball bearings and parts thereof (the “subject merchandise”)
from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Admin. Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an
Order in Part, 75 Fed. Reg. 53,661 (Sept. 1, 2010). Plaintiffs’ complaint contains a single claim
challenging Commerce’s use of “zeroing” in the review of the order, whereby U.S. sales of
subject merchandise from the United Kingdom above normal value are assigned a dumping
margin of zero, instead of a negative margin, in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping
margins. Compl. ¶ 10 (Sept. 23, 2010), ECF No. 6. NSK argues that zeroing in an
administrative review violates the U.S. antidumping laws and is inconsistent with international
obligations of the United States. Id. ¶¶ 11-13.
Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to stay this case pending the final disposition of
Union Steel v. United States, 36 CIT __, Slip Op. 12-24 (Feb. 27, 2012) (“Union Steel”).
Pls.’ Mot. for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal in Union Steel v. United States (May 2, 2012),
ECF No. 45 (“Pls.’ Mot.”). Union Steel involves the question of the legality of the Department’s
zeroing methodology as applied to an administrative review of an antidumping duty order.
Union Steel, 36 CIT __, __, Slip Op. 12-24, at 2. The judgment entered by the Court of
International Trade in that case is now on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”).1 Defendant United States and defendant-intervenor the
Timken Company (“Timken”) oppose the proposed stay. Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Stay
1 The United States filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment in Union Steel on March 6, 2011. ECF No. 79 (Consol Ct. No. 11-00083). The appeal has been docketed as Union Steel v. United States, CAFC Court No. 2012-1248. Court No. 10-00289 Page 3
(May 21, 2012), ECF No. 46 (“Def.’s Opp’n”); The Timken Co.’s Resp. in Opp’n to NSK’s Mot.
to Stay Proceedings (May 21, 2012), ECF No. 47 (“Def-Intervenor’s Opp’n”).
For the reasons discussed herein, the court will grant the motion for a stay. In summary,
the pending litigation in the Court of Appeals is likely to affect the disposition of plaintiffs’ claim
challenging the Department’s zeroing practice. While the case at bar concerns a different
antidumping duty order and administrative review than are involved in Union Steel, both cases
raise the same general issue of whether the Department’s application of the zeroing methodology
in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order is lawful. A stay, therefore, will serve
the interest of judicial economy and conserve the resources of the parties. Moreover, defendant
and defendant-intervenor have failed to show, or even allege, that the proposed stay would cause
them harm.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The
decision when and how to stay a proceeding rests “within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations
omitted). In making this decision, the court must “weigh competing interests and maintain an
even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 257.
In opposing the motion for a stay, defendant and defendant-intervenor argue that the issue
before the court is whether NSK exhausted its administrative remedies before the agency, not
whether Commerce reasonably interpreted the antidumping law to permit zeroing in the
twentieth administrative review. Def.’s Opp’n 3-4; Def-Intervenor’s Opp’n 4. The record
reveals that NSK raised an issue pertaining to zeroing in its case brief before the Department. Court No. 10-00289 Page 4
Case Brief of NSK, A-100-001, at 1-5 (Jun. 3, 2010) (Admin R. Doc. No. 28). As to NSK’s
obligation to exhaust administrative remedies, defendant and defendant-intervenor argue that
NSK, in challenging zeroing before the agency, did not raise the statutory interpretation issue
now before the Court of Appeals which they characterize as an inconsistent interpretation of
19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) in investigations and in administrative reviews. Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot.
for J. upon the Agency R. 8 (Nov. 1, 2011), ECF No. 38; Resp. Br. of the Timken Co. Opposing
the R. 56.2 Mot. of NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd., et. al. 6-7 (Nov. 7, 2011), ECF No. 39.
The Court of International Trade “shall, where appropriate, require the exhaustion of
administrative remedies.” 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d) (2006). In trade cases, the court has discretion
with respect to whether to require exhaustion. See Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d
1370, 1381 (Fed. Cir.2007) (stating that “applying exhaustion principles in trade cases is subject
to the discretion of the judge of the Court of International Trade”). The exhaustion requirement
has several recognized exceptions. See Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 33 CIT ___,
___, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1377 (2009) (indicating situations where waiver of the exhaustion
requirement has been recognized as appropriate). Because it is possible that the outcome of the
Union Steel litigation will make reaching the exhaustion issues raised by defendant and
defendant-intervenor unnecessary, the court does not consider it a prudent use of the parties’
resources and its own resources to decide the exhaustion issues at this time. These issues,
therefore, are an insufficient basis upon which to deny the pending motion for a stay.
Defendant argues that “NSK is not entitled to a stay because it has not satisfied its burden
to show that it will suffer clear hardship by proceeding with the litigation.” Def.’s Opp’n 1. The
Government submits that “NSK shifts the legal standard by suggesting that a stay would not
harm the defendant or defendant intervenor” when it is the movant who must show that “it will Court No. 10-00289 Page 5
suffer hardship--economic harm, legal prejudice or inequity--by proceeding with litigation.”
Id. at 3. Defendant misconstrues the standard. A party moving for a stay “must make out a clear
case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that
the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one else,” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
However, the court fails to see what harm would accrue to defendant should the stay be ordered,
and defendant, in opposing the motion, does not identify any such harm, see Def.’s Opp’n 3-4.
Defendant-intervenor makes the argument that unlike other cases stayed by this court
pending the resolution of Union Steel, this case is under submission and awaiting the court’s
judgment. The advanced stage of this litigation does not preclude a stay, and
defendant-intervenor has failed to identify any harm that a stay would cause.
In conclusion, the stay sought by plaintiffs serves the interests of judicial economy and
conservation of the parties’ resources. No showing of harm resulting from the proposed stay has
been made by defendant or defendant-intervenor. The court, therefore, will grant the pending
motion. ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal in Union Steel v. United States (“Motion for Stay”), as filed on May 2, 2012 by NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd., NSK Europe Ltd., and NSK Corporation (collectively, “NSK”), the motions in opposition filed by the United States and defendant-intervenor the Timken Company, and all other papers and proceedings herein, and upon due deliberation, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Stay be, and hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that this case be, and hereby is, stayed until 30 days after the final resolution of all appellate review proceedings in Union Steel v. United States, CAFC Court No. 2012-1248.
/s/ Timothy C. Stanceu Timothy C. Stanceu Judge
Dated: June 4, 2012 New York, New York