Slip Op. 25-20
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
PRECISION COMPONENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff, Before: Joseph A. Laroski, Jr., Judge v. Court No. 23-00218 UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
OPINION
[Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record and sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s determination interpreting the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China.]
Dated: February 25, 2025
David J. Craven, Craven Trade Law LLC, of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff Precision Components, Inc.
Geoffrey M. Long, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant United States. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Jesus N. Saenz, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Laroski, Judge: This action is a challenge to the final scope ruling of the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) regarding certain low-carbon steel blanks
(the “merchandise”) imported from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) by
Precision Components, Inc. (“Precision”). Commerce’s final scope ruling found that
the merchandise is covered by the antidumping duty order on tapered roller Court No. 23-00218 Page 2
bearings, including finished and unfinished parts thereof, from China. Final Scope
Ruling on Precision Components, Inc.’s Low-Carbon Steel Blanks, P.R. 22 (Sept. 19,
2023) (“2023 Scope Ruling”); see also Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of
China, 52 Fed. Reg. 22,667 (June 15, 1987), as amended, Tapered Roller Bearings
from the People’s Republic of China; Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance with Decision
Upon Remand, 55 Fed. Reg. 6,669 (Feb. 26, 1990) (the “Order”). Commerce
concluded that the merchandise falls within the scope of the Order based on its
consideration of interpretive sources specified by 19 C.F.R. 351.225(k)(1), including
a 2020 scope ruling regarding steel blanks imported by Precision. Final Scope
Ruling on Precision Components, Inc.’s Green Machined but Not Heat-Treated
Components, P.R. 10 (“2020 Scope Ruling”). Precision brought this action against
the United States (the “Government”) to challenge Commerce’s final scope ruling.
Based on Commerce’s alleged failure to reach a decision regarding the merchandise
that is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law,
Precision moves for judgment on the agency record and asks the court to remand
proceedings to Commerce. The Government opposes Precision’s motion and asks
the court to sustain Commerce’s final scope ruling. For the reasons detailed below,
the court agrees with the Government. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the
Agency Record is denied, and Commerce’s determination is sustained. Court No. 23-00218 Page 3
BACKGROUND
I. The Order
On June 15, 1987, Commerce issued the Order. See Antidumping Duty
Order; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China, 52 Fed. Reg. 22,667 (June 15, 1987); 2023 Scope
Ruling; 2020 Scope Ruling at 1. In the Order and later scope inquiries involving
products imported by Precision, Commerce has described the scope, in part, as
“tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from China.”
2023 Scope Ruling at 6; 2020 Scope Ruling at 2.
II. Scope Inquiry Proceedings
A. 2020 Scope Ruling: Green-Machined but Not Heat-Treated
In 2020, Precision requested that Commerce issue a scope ruling on cups,
cones, and rollers that are silver metallic in color and green-machined, but not heat-
treated, at the time of importation into the United States (the “2020 merchandise”).
See Scope Ruling Application, P.R. 10 at 1 (Feb. 6, 2020) (“2020 Application”); 2020
Scope Ruling at 1–2. After considering comments from interested parties,
Commerce performed an extensive analysis of the interpretive sources specified by
section 351.225(k)(1) and the factors specified by subsection (k)(2). 2020 Scope
Ruling at 3–12. Commerce concluded that the 2020 merchandise was within the
scope of the Order. Id. at 11. Court No. 23-00218 Page 4
In reaching its conclusion, Commerce first reasoned there was sufficient
ambiguity between the plain language of the Order, a related final determination of
the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), and related scope rulings to require
consideration of the factors set forth in section 351.225(k)(2). Id. at 7–11. Noting its
obligations under that provision, Commerce then evaluated (a) the physical
characteristics of the 2020 merchandise, (b) its ultimate uses, (c) the expectations of
the ultimate purchasers, (d) the channels of trade, and (e) the manner of advertising
and display, concluding that each of these factors supported a finding that the
products were within the scope. Id. at 8–11.
Concerning physical characteristics, Commerce noted that, notwithstanding
Precision’s characterization of heat treatment as a transformative process, the 2020
merchandise already had the physical characteristics of unfinished tapered roller
bearings (“TRBs”) or parts thereof. Id. at 8. In Commerce’s words, even prior to
heat treatment, the 2020 merchandise was “very close to [its] final form.” Id.
With respect to the remaining factors, Commerce observed that Precision had
failed to articulate any scenario in which the 2020 merchandise would be imported
and subsequently processed for an end-use other than the manufacture of TRBs. Id.
at 8–10. Consequently, Commerce concluded none of the factors suggested the 2020
merchandise was anything other than an “unfinished TRB[].” Id. at 11.
Finally, Commerce bolstered its conclusion by highlighting two scope
inquiries concerning unfinished bearing parts subject to the antidumping order on Court No. 23-00218 Page 5
TRBs from Japan, which had been initiated based on the same petitions that gave
rise to the Order. Id. at 10 (referring to Memorandum, “TRBs from Japan -
American NTN Bearing Manufacturing corporation (ANBM) Scope Request on
Green Turned Rings,” (Green Rings Memorandum) (May 16, 1989) and
Memorandum, “Final Affirmative Determination in Scope Inquiry on Antidumping
Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan,” (Rough
Forgings Memorandum) (Jan. 26, 1995)). The products at issue in these prior scope
rulings, in Commerce’s view, were analogous to the 2020 merchandise because they
were “destined to become fully finished TRBs” and “sold through the same channels
of trade [with] the same end-use expectations.” Id.
Commerce issued its final scope ruling on June 12, 2020. Id. at 1. Precision
did not challenge the ruling.
B. 2023 Scope Ruling: Low-Carbon Steel Blanks
In 2023, Precision requested another scope inquiry under the Order, this time
identifying the products in question as “low-carbon steel blanks” (the “2023
merchandise”). Scope Ruling Application, P.R. 8 at 4 (Apr. 24, 2023) (“2023
Application”). As Precision explained, the 2023 merchandise is made from “non-
standard steel” and “sold to US manufacturers who add substantial value to the
blanks by significant further processing,” a post-importation process that results in
“finished tapered roller bearings.” Id. Throughout the 2023 Application, Precision
underscored in considerable detail how the 2023 merchandise is not bearing-grade Court No. 23-00218 Page 6
steel. E.g. id. at 5–6. Precision maintained that the non-bearing-grade nature of
the 2023 merchandise compelled the conclusion, based on the plain language of the
Order and section 351.225(k)(1) sources, that it is outside the scope of the Order.
Id. at 14–15. Yet in summarizing the importation history of the merchandise,
Precision referred to a “2020 Scope ruling putting these parts inside the scope,”
suggesting to Commerce that Precision believed the merchandise described in the
2023 Application is covered by the 2020 Scope Ruling and the Order. Id. at 21. In
its rebuttal comments addressing input from the petitioner, Precision also wrote
that “[i]t was the same material in the same parts for both the 2020 and 2023 scope
requests . . . .” Tapered Roller Bearings from China: Rebuttal Comments on
Timken’s Comments on Scope Inquiry Low Carbon Blanks, P.R. 19 at 8 (July 10,
2023) (“2023 Rebuttal Comments”). Notwithstanding the apparent duplicative
nature of Precision’s reframed request, Commerce initiated a new scope inquiry on
May 25, 2023. See Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Deemed
Initiation of Scope Inquiry, P.R. 10 (May 25, 2023); 2023 Scope Ruling.
In its 2023 Scope Ruling, Commerce first reviewed the plain language of the
Order: “tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from
China.” 2023 Scope Ruling at 6. Commerce acknowledged that this language does
not address “parts made of low-carbon steel or bearing steel,” but concluded that the
2023 merchandise is best characterized as “unfinished TRB parts.” Id. Commerce Court No. 23-00218 Page 7
appeared to reach this conclusion based on Precision’s statements in the 2023
Application about how the blanks are “destined to become finished TRBs” and “sold
to US bearing manufacturers.” Id. At this stage of its analysis, Commerce also
observed that the plain language of the Order does not refer to “steel grade or
composition,” the criterion most emphasized by Precision, and determined that
arguments on this point were “moot.” Id. at 6, n.40. Similarly, Commerce
emphasized in its plain language analysis that Precision had not articulated “an
alternative commercial use” for the merchandise, or anything suggesting it is not an
unfinished TRB part. Id. at 6. Cf. 2020 Scope Ruling at 8–10.
Commerce then proceeded with its analysis of section 351.225(k)(1) sources.
2023 Scope Ruling at 6. Here, Commerce determined the 2020 Scope Ruling was a
prior scope ruling in the proceeding and that the 2023 merchandise equivalent to
the 2020 merchandise. Id. In so concluding, Commerce agreed with the petitioner’s
comment, which observed that Precision had provided identical photos of the
product in the 2020 Application and in the 2023 Application, suggesting the 2020
merchandise and the 2023 merchandise are indistinguishable. Id. at 3. Compare
2023 Application, P.R. 8, Ex. 2, with 2020 Application, P.R. 10 at 3.
Commerce concluded the 2023 Scope Ruling by finding that “the products
subject to this inquiry are the same as the products subject to the 2020 Final Scope
Ruling, and that the 2020 Final Scope Ruling is dispositive of whether [Precision’s] Court No. 23-00218 Page 8
low-carbon steel blanks are covered by the scope of the Order.” 2023 Scope Ruling
at 6–7. On November 9, 2023, Precision filed this action.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2020) and 19
U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) (2020). Section 1581(c) provides for exclusive jurisdiction
over any civil action commenced under section 1516a. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Section
1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi), provides for judicial review of a determination of “whether a
particular type of merchandise is within the class or kind of merchandise described
in an . . . antidumping or countervailing duty order.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi).
In conducting its review, the court must set aside any determination, finding, or
conclusion found “to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
DISCUSSION
I. The Parties’ Contentions
A. Precision’s Arguments
In support of its motion for judgment on the agency record, Precision
contends that Commerce erred when it found that the merchandise is within the
scope of the Order and, in doing so, expanded the scope of the Order impermissibly.
Pl. Precision Br. in Supp. of Mot. for J. on Agency R., ECF No. 17.1 (Apr. 3, 2024)
(“Precision Br.”) at 1. Court No. 23-00218 Page 9
Precision offers four reasons why Commerce’s conclusion concerning the 2023
merchandise was unlawful. Id. at 12–16. According to Precision, each of these
points suggests that, under the plain language of the Order, the merchandise is a
raw material “from which parts (Rings) are produced,” rather than a finished or
unfinished TRB part. Id. at 12. Precision’s arguments proceed as follows:
First, Precision cites Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) subheadings it
believes suggest the merchandise is not a part. As Precision notes, these
subheadings do not expressly use the term part, and instead refer to the relevant
merchandise as “[s]uitable for use in the manufacture of ball or roller bearings.” Id.
Precision further observes that a different HTS subheading refers to parts of
bearings. Id. The content of these subheadings, according to Precision, “is strong
evidence of the non-scope” nature of the merchandise. Id.
Second, Precision states that historical U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(“CBP”) classification of its merchandise supports its view of the plain language of
the Order. Id. at 12–13. Precision refers to numerous “intensive reviews” by CBP
that resulted in the conclusion that Precision’s merchandise was outside the scope
of the Order. Id. at 13. Yet on this point, Precision also writes: “[i]n 2020 these
products were provisionally moved into the order, but such decision was based on an
inadequate analysis and the fact that these blanks were made of materials that do
not meet the definitions of bearing steel was not considered.” Id. (citing 2020
Application and 2020 Scope Ruling). This argument appears to acknowledge Court No. 23-00218 Page 10
explicitly that its 2020 Application and its 2023 Application concerned the same
merchandise, suggestion this litigation is merely an attempt at a do-over.1
Third, Precision elaborates on the key consideration it believes rendered
Commerce’s analysis in 2020 “inadequate,” i.e., the non-bearing-steel nature of the
2023 merchandise. Id. at 13. Precision explains that the 2023 merchandise is not
made of bearing grade steel, but rather low-carbon alloy steel, which “has different
mechanical properties.” Id. at 13–14. “If a part does not have the appropriate
mechanical properties, even if it ‘looks’ like a bearing part to the naked eye, it does
not function as a bearing.” Id. at 14. In addition, Precision highlights how low
carbon alloy steel “cannot be readily heat-treated,” referring to the processing step
that was the focus of the 2020 Application and the 2020 Scope Ruling. Id. Precision
summarizes this point by clarifying that low carbon blanks “cannot be heat-treated
in their condition as imported” and “heat-treatment is required prior to their final
conversion to a bearing part.” Id. at 15. As with its prior points, Precision neither
addresses how this information relates specifically to a plain language analysis of
the written scope description nor attempts to locate its argument within the
framework of the analysis Commerce must perform under section 351.225(k). Id.
1 As addressed, and acknowledged by Precision’s counsel during oral argument,
there are several statements from Precision in the administrative record, not just its briefing, that confirm the merchandise from 2020 and 2023 are the same. See id.; 2023 Application at 13, 21; 2023 Rebuttal Comments at 8. Court No. 23-00218 Page 11
Fourth and finally, Precision underscores the “significant processing” the
2023 merchandise must undergo “in order to be converted into a bearing part.” Id.
Precision also notes that such processing “adds substantial value” to the
merchandise and “alters the chemistry of the steel.” Id. Here, too, Precision does
not attempt to root its argument in the written scope description or in the
framework of analysis specified by section 351.225(k). Id. at 15–16. Indeed, despite
its emphasis of steel grade and the need for additional processing, Precision
acknowledges that after such processing, the merchandise becomes a “bearing part.”
Id. at 16. Precision concludes by asking the court to “find that the steel blanks are
materials used in the production of bearings, but are not parts of bearings.” Id.
Beyond discussing the “significant processing” required to fashion the merchandise
into a TRB part, Precision does not explain why this is different from finishing an
unfinished TRB part or at what later point in the manufacturing process the
merchandise would be considered an unfinished TRB part.
B. The Government’s Arguments
The Government correctly frames this dispute as turning on whether the
2023 Scope Ruling, in which Commerce found that the merchandise was within the
scope of the Order, is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in
accordance with law. Def. United States Br. in Supp. of Resp. to Pl. Mot. for J. on
Agency R., ECF No. 21 (July 12, 2024) (“Gov. Br.”) at 5. The Government’s position
is that Commerce was reasonable in concluding that the merchandise is within the Court No. 23-00218 Page 12
scope of the Order based on consideration of the plain language of the Order and
interpretive sources under section 351.225(k)(1). Id. at 12. Regarding the plain
language analysis undertaken by Commerce, the Government highlights how
Commerce concluded that “unfinished TRB parts are explicitly covered” by the
written description of the scope and the merchandise is “destined to become” a
finished TRB. Id. at 14 (citing 2023 Scope Ruling at 6.
The Government then addresses Commerce’s consideration of the 2020 Scope
Ruling as a primary interpretive source under section 351.225(k)(1) — specifically,
as a prior scope ruling in the proceeding. Id. at 11–12, 14–15. The Government
contends Commerce was reasonable in reviewing the 2020 Scope Ruling as a (k)(1)
source because it relied on an “admission” in the 2023 Application, photographs in
the 2020 Application and the 2023 Application, and Precision’s failure to assert that
the merchandise is not covered by the 2020 Scope Ruling. Id. at 15; see 2020
Application at 45, 2023 Application at 23, 28; see also Precision Br. at 13.
For similar reasons, the Government argues that Precision’s challenge of the
2023 Scope Ruling is in fact “an impermissible collateral attack” on the 2020 Scope
Ruling. Gov. Br. at 16. The Government refers to the statements from Precision
that suggest Precision itself views the merchandise from 2020 and 2023 as one in
the same and, separately, to the portion of Precision’s briefing that appears to focus
on alleged deficiencies in the 2020 Scope Ruling, rather than the decision from
Commerce that is the focus of this litigation. Id. (citing Precision Br. at 13). In Court No. 23-00218 Page 13
addition, the Government observes that Precision “identifies no subsequent
Commerce ruling or court decision that calls the 2020 Scope Ruling into question.”
Id. According to the Government, Precision “provides no basis” for challenging
either the 2020 Scope Ruling itself or its decisive interpretive role as a section
225.351(k)(1) source in Commerce’s issuance of the 2023 Scope Ruling. Id.
The Government also responds to Precision’s contentions. Regarding
Precision’s first point, the Government argues that the written description of the
scope of the Order is dispositive and, consequently, HTS subheadings cannot be
read to contradict the Order’s plain language. Id. at 17 (citing Saha Thai Steel Pipe
Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 101 F.4th 1310, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2024). As the
Government summarizes, the language of certain HTS provisions that Precision
prefers “cannot supersede the written description” in the Order. Id. at 17–18.
On Precision’s second point, the Government’s position is that the CBP
documents cited by Precision are secondary interpretive sources under section
351.225(k)(1)(ii), sources which Commerce did not need to afford weight due to the
interpretive clarity provided by its (k)(1)(i) review of the 2020 Scope Ruling. Id. at
18. The Government notes that, insofar as Precision intended to suggest Commerce
should have privileged CBP’s view under subsection (k)(1)(ii), that provision
expressly provides that (k)(1)(i) sources control “in the event of a conflict.” Id.; see
§ 351.225(k)(1). Thus, the Government posits, CBP’s view is inapposite. Court No. 23-00218 Page 14
In response to the third and fourth points raised by Precision, the
Government suggests that steel grade and additional processing are irrelevant
considerations based on the plain language of the Order, which makes no reference
to material composition or processing steps. Gov. Br. at 18–20. The Government
also highlights Commerce’s discussion of how, in 2020, it had concluded that the
green-machining and heat-treatment processing steps did not prevent the 2020
merchandise from falling within the scope of the Order. Id. at 19. In the same vein,
the Government notes that Precision’s focus on steel grade and value added from
processing appear to be arguments aimed at undermining the analysis in the 2020
Scope Ruling, rather than the 2023 Scope Ruling. Id. The Government bolsters
this observation by highlighting sources cited by Precision — namely, publications
from the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) — that Commerce had
acknowledged in the 2020 Scope Ruling. Id. at 19–20; see 2020 Scope Ruling at 11.
Finally, like its response regarding the reference to CBP’s historical treatment of
Precision’s products under the Order, the Government objects to Precision’s
discussion of “significant processing” as an attempt to shoehorn an analysis of the
factors specified by section 351.225(k)(2) into a review that Commerce reasonably
limited to consideration of (k)(1) sources.2 Id. at 20–21.
2 Given Commerce’s reliance upon the 2020 Scope Ruling in reaching its determination in the 2023 Scope Ruling, it is worth noting that in the 2020 Scope Ruling, Commerce performed an extensive analysis under section 351.225(k)(2) in which it considered additional information, such as the additional processing of the Court No. 23-00218 Page 15
Thus, according to the Government, Commerce correctly relied upon the plain
language of the Order and a dispositive (k)(1) source — the 2020 Scope Ruling — to
find the merchandise within the scope. Precision’s attempts to undermine that
determination, in turn, reflect a combination of untimely attacks on the 2020 Scope
Ruling, rather than the 2023 Scope Ruling, and references to information that
Commerce was not required to include in its analysis. Id. at 17–21.
A few points raised in Precision’s reply brief merit mention. First, Precision
acknowledges that the scope of the Order does “not differentiate between bearing
and non-bearing steel.” Pl. Precision Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. for J. on Agency R.,
ECF No. 24 (Aug. 30, 2024) (“Precision Reply Br.”) at 2. Second, Precision
reiterates its arguments regarding the importance of steel grade and the significant
processing required to fashion the merchandise into a finished TRB part. Id. at 5–6.
In doing so, however, Precision again declines to offer any actual or potential
examples of non-TRB end-uses for the merchandise. Instead, it reiterates its own
characterization of the merchandise as a “raw material,” a term that does not
appear in plain language of the scope of the Order. Id. at 6. Precision uses the term
“raw material” without reference to a definition or citation that might clarify its
relationship to the scope description set forth in the Order. Id.
part in the United States by bearing manufacturers, and concluded that the 2020 merchandise was within the scope of the Order. 2020 Scope Ruling at 7–11. Court No. 23-00218 Page 16
Precision’s reply brief also addresses the Government’s contention that the
2023 Application and this litigation represent an untimely effort to challenge the
2020 Scope Ruling rather than a novel scope ruling request for distinct
merchandise. Id. at 4–5. After rejecting this view (and without addressing the
Government’s citations to Precision’s own statements linking the 2020 Scope Ruling
and the merchandise), Precision suggests “there is nothing more than conjecture
that the two sets of products covered are identical.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
II. Legal Standard
When questions arise as to whether merchandise is covered by the scope of an
antidumping order, Commerce will conduct a scope inquiry and issue a scope ruling.
19 C.F.R. § 351.225(a) (2024). Commerce has broad authority in interpreting its
own antidumping orders. Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In determining whether a product falls within the scope of
such an order, Commerce considers “the language of the scope and may make its
determination on this basis alone if the language of the scope, including
descriptions of merchandise expressly excluded from the scope, is dispositive.”
§ 351.225(k)(1). “If the scope is unambiguous, it governs.” Meridian Prods., LLC v.
United States, 851 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“In reviewing the plain language of a duty order,” Commerce must consider
the (k)(1) sources. § 351.225(k); see Meridian, 851 F.3d at 1382. The (k)(1) sources
include the description of the merchandise considered by Commerce and the Court No. 23-00218 Page 17
Commission when crafting the scope, as well as previous determinations made by
Commerce and the Commission. § 351.225(k)(1)(i); see Meridian, 851 F.3d at 1382.
If Commerce “determines that the sources under paragraph (k)(1) of this
section are not dispositive,” Commerce will then consider the (k)(2) factors.
§ 351.225(k)(2)(i); see, e.g., 2020 Scope Ruling. Thus, the (k)(1) sources assist
Commerce in interpreting the scope language, while the (k)(2) factors assist
Commerce in determining if the language describes the product at issue. All of
Commerce’s analysis, however, must be done in such a way that the scope is not
changed, and that the order is not interpreted in a manner contrary to its terms.
E.g. Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The plain meaning of an antidumping order is a question of law, while the
question of whether certain merchandise falls within the scope of such an order is a
question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. See Worldwide Door
Components, Inc. v. United States, 119 F.4th 959, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing
Meridian, 851 F.3d at 1382). Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence that one
might reasonably accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Worldwide Door
Components, 119 F.4th at 968. In the context of a scope ruling issued by
Commerce, substantial evidence review is limited to the administrative record in
the proceeding before Commerce, including any relevant evidence therein. See id.
Commerce’s conclusion may be supported by substantial evidence even if it is
possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the record evidence. See id. Court No. 23-00218 Page 18
III. Analysis
As discussed above, this dispute boils down to whether Commerce’s
determination in the 2023 Scope Ruling is supported by substantial evidence and
otherwise in accordance with law. Thus, the court considers whether Commerce
reasonably concluded that the merchandise, described by Precision as “low-carbon
steel blanks,” falls within the pertinent part of the written description of the scope
as set forth in the Order: “tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and
unfinished.” 2023 Scope Ruling at 2. Here, the court concludes Commerce’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance
with law. Id. at 7.
Commerce’s approach to the first part of its analysis, a review of the
language of the Order, was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
Commerce correctly acknowledged — and both parties agree — that the written
description does not explicitly address “parts made of low-carbon steel or bearing
steel.” Id. at 6; see Precision Reply Br. at 2. Because steel composition is absent
from the written description of the Order, Commerce declined to consider
Precision’s comments relating to steel grade when evaluating the language of the
Order. 2023 Scope Ruling at 6, n.40. Commerce then reasoned that the decisive
interpretive question was whether “low-carbon steel blanks” were “unfinished TRB
parts.” Id. at 6. Commerce also cited to Precision’s 2023 Scope Application, in
which Precision stated that the 2023 merchandise is sold to “US bearing Court No. 23-00218 Page 19
manufacturers” that employ “significant further processing” in order “to make a
finished bearing,” and identified no alternative end uses or applications. Id. (citing
2023 Scope Application at 15. Based on this information, and absent language
suggesting otherwise, it was reasonable for Commerce to conclude initially that low-
carbon steel blanks were best understood as unfinished TRB parts. Id.
To test its first instinct regarding the plain language of the Order, Commerce
turned to primary interpretive sources under section 351.225(k)(1), “including prior
scope rulings in this proceeding.” 2023 Scope Ruling at 6. Commerce noted that the
2020 Scope Ruling, which involved Precision, the Order, and merchandise that was
“green machined, but not heat-treated,” appeared on point. Commerce also
observed that Precision suggested the same when it stated in its 2023 Application:
“These blanks were moved within the scope in 2020.” Id. at 6 (citing 2023
Application at 13.3 Commerce then referred to comments from the petitioner and
photographs in the 2020 Application and the 2023 Application, concluding that the
2023 Application and the 2020 Scope Ruling concerned “the same products.” Id.
Finally, Commerce highlighted that as of the 2023 inquiry, Precision had made “no
assertions that the products here are different” from those examined in 2020. Id.
Thus, based on scrutiny of the 2020 Application, the 2020 Scope Ruling, the 2023
3 Commerce also had before it at least one additional citation expressly suggesting
its 2023 inquiry concerned the same merchandise as the 2020 Scope Ruling. See 2023 Rebuttal Comments at 8 (“It was the same material in the same parts for both the 2020 and 2023 scope requests . . . .”). Court No. 23-00218 Page 20
Application, interested party comments, and the absence of contradictory
statements from Precision, Commerce concluded the merchandise was the same as
the 2020 merchandise. Id. at 6. Accordingly, as in 2020, Commerce found the 2023
merchandise fell within the scope of the Order. Id. at 7.
In short, Commerce acted reasonably in issuing the 2023 Scope Ruling. In its
initial review of the written scope description, Commerce identified the most
intuitively applicable language in the Order — i.e., “parts thereof, finished or
unfinished” — and moved forward with its analysis from there. Recognizing
implicitly that it could not fairly characterize the merchandise as a “finished” TRB
part, Commerce considered whether and to what extent it might be “unfinished.” In
doing so, Commerce observed that Precision had identified bearing manufacturers
as the only consumers of the merchandise, described a process by which the
merchandise would be used “to make a finished bearing,” and omitted any mention
of even hypothetical or potential alternative uses. From a fair reading of the Order
and Precision’s own statements, then, Commerce reached the initial interpretation
that the merchandise was an unfinished TRB part.
Next, and pivotally, Commerce explained that it had conducted a scope
inquiry involving the same importer, the same Order, and (seemingly) the same
merchandise only three years prior. That the 2020 scope inquiry involved the same
importer (Precision), the same antidumping order (the Order), and a similar
category of merchandise is not disputed. Nor, until recently, did any party cast Court No. 23-00218 Page 21
doubt on whether the 2023 merchandise was the same as the 2020 merchandise.4
In the 2023 Application, Precision stated: “These blanks were moved within the
scope in 2020.” 2023 Application at 13. Commerce reasonably relied on this
statement in the 2023 Scope Ruling. 2023 Scope Ruling at 6. Notwithstanding
Precision’s unclear briefing on this point, it was more than reasonable for
Commerce to rely upon Precision’s own statements and photographs in concluding
that the merchandise was the same as the 2020 merchandise and, in turn, that the
merchandise was within the scope of the Order. This is not a case in which
Commerce faced “two inconsistent yet reasonable conclusions,” Saha Thai Steel
Pipe, 101 F.4th at 1331, but rather one in which Precision’s own statements and
photographs led inexorably to the conclusion reached by Commerce.
As discussed above, Commerce made the express factual finding that the
merchandise was the same as the 2020 merchandise. 2023 Scope Ruling at 6. It
did so based on an administrative record replete with evidence that supported that
conclusion and devoid of indications to the contrary. See, e.g., 2023 Application at
13, Ex. 2; 2020 Application at 3. Based on that finding, Commerce resolved to rely
upon the 2020 Scope Ruling, which contained extensive analysis of the subject
merchandise under both subsection (k)(1) and (k)(2). 2023 Scope Ruling at 6–7; see
4 After stating in its first brief, that “[i]n 2020 these products were provisionally
moved into the order,” Precision Br. at 13, in its reply brief, Precision equivocated: “while there is some commonality, there is nothing more than conjecture that the two sets of products covered are identical.” Precision Reply Br. at 5. Court No. 23-00218 Page 22
2020 Scope Ruling. In the absence of a timely, successful challenge of the 2020
Scope Ruling by Precision, it was reasonable for Commerce to root its 2023
determination in the analysis it performed for the same merchandise in 2020.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency
Record is DENIED and Commerce’s determination is SUSTAINED. Judgment will
enter accordingly. SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph A. Laroski, Jr. Judge
Dated: February 25, 2025 New York, New York