|
SKF USA INC. v. UNITED STATES FINAL RESULTS OF REDETERMINATION PURSUANT TO COURT REMAND SUMMARY The Department of Commerce has prepared these final results of redetermination pursuant to the remand order of the U.S. Court of International Trade in SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 00-28 (CIT March 22, 2000). In accordance with the Court's instructions, we have annulled all findings and conclusions made pursuant to our duty-absorption inquiry conducted for the subject reviews with respect to SKF USA Inc. and SKF GmbH (collectively SKF). On May 23, 2000, the Department released draft results of redetermination pursuant to court remand to all parties for comment. On May 25, 2000, we received comments from The Torrington Company which we have addressed in the "Discussion" section that follows. We did not receive comments from any other party. BACKGROUND On March 22, 2000, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court) issued its ruling in SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 00-28 (CIT March 22, 2000) (SKF), remanding to the Department of Commerce (the Department) the final results in Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999) (AFBs 9). The issue primarily presented in SKF was whether section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, authorizes the Department to conduct a duty-absorption inquiry for the antidumping duty orders in question since the orders predate the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Court found that the Department lacked statutory authority to conduct such an inquiry and, therefore, declined to address the Department's methodology for determining duty absorption. It remanded the case to the Department to annul all findings and conclusions made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry conducted for AFBs 9. DISCUSSION Comment 1: The Torrington Company (Torrington) urges the Department to state in the final remand results that the Department disagrees with the decision of the Court. Torrington also urges the Department to state that the Court exceeded its power on judicial review. Department's Position: On April 14, 2000, the Department presented a motion to the Court to modify Slip Opinion 00-28 on the ground that the Court had erred as a matter of law. See Defendant's Motion for Rehearing and Modification of the Court's Decision, Slip Op. 00-28, and Accompanying Order of March 22, 2000, filed in Court No. 99-08-00473 (CIT April 14, 2000). That motion set forth the Department's position on the matter. As such, there is no need to repeat it here. (1) FINAL RESULTS OF REDETERMINATION The Department hereby complies with the remand order as directed by the Court with respect to SKF and annuls all findings and conclusions made pursuant to its duty-absorption inquiry conducted for the subject reviews with respect to SKF. Should the court affirm our remand determination, we will publish an amended final results of review to that effect. This change has no effect on SKF's weighted-average margins or duty-assessment rates.
Troy H. Cribb
|