Japan and UK Ball Bearings: Commerce Again Revokes AD Orders
The Commerce Department is again revoking the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and the United Kingdom (A-588-804, A-421-801), after domestic ball bearing companies declined to participate in five-year sunset reviews of the orders. Effective for entries on or after Sept. 15, 2011, Commerce will direct CBP to end suspension of liquidation and AD duty cash deposit requirements.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In sunset reviews of antidumping and countervailing duty orders, which are required every five years, domestic companies must notify Commerce of their intent to participate. Otherwise, Commerce takes the lack of notification as a lack of interest in continuing the orders, and automatically revokes. In this case, no domestic company filed a notice of participation by Jan. 17, the applicable deadline in this case. Consequently, Commerce is revoking the orders.
The U.K. and Japan ball bearings orders had originally been revoked in 2011 because the International Trade Commission changed its injury determination in a 2006 sunset review from affirmative to negative after years of litigation (see 11071517). But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in May 2013 overturned the chain of Court of International Trade decisions that led to the reversal from ITC, effectively reinstating the orders on ball bearings from Japan and the U.K. (see 13051716). The reinstatement is still in effect for entries before Sept. 15, 2011.
The CAFC decision that reinstated the AD duty orders is the subject of controversy over the level of deference the Appeals Court owes CIT in AD/CVD cases. Judges of both courts have argued it is too easy for CAFC to overturn complex CIT decisions in AD/CVD cases. Lawyers for NSK and JTEKT in February asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the CAFC decision and decide the deference issue. According to a lawyer familiar with the case, this revocation does not affect the Supreme Court case.
(Federal Register 03/26/14)