In an increasingly contentious series of Sunset Reviews of antidumping duties on ball bearings from Japan and the UK, the Court of International Trade has repeatedly taken the U.S. International Trade Commission to task. In its latest instructions, the Court said the ITC's review was, "not supported by substantial evidence or in accordance with law."

The current Sunset Review, which began back in 2006, initially covered all of the antidumping duties on ball bearings -- from Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and the UK.

article: ITC adjusts antidumping duties on ball bearings
NSK, FAG and others appealed the decision, and as a result, the ITC began reviewing dumping duties on ball bearings from Japan and the UK.

In June 2006, the U.S. ITC unanimously determined that antidumping duties on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK should stay in place, and that removing the duties would result in damage to the U.S. bearing industry 5251R9N7.

That determination, however, was appealed to the Court of International Trade by NSK for bearings from Japan and the UK. In September 2008, the Court instructed the ITC to review its decision via a Bratsk analysis of non-subject imports; reassess supply conditions within the United States, and in particular restructuring efforts by U.S. bearing manufacturers; and reexamine its findings in regard to UK bearing imports as a result of the other analyses.

The ITC began work in October 2008, asking for information from bearing manufacturers in order to complete its Bratsk analysis; the ITC also sought comments from interested parties.

Shortly after starting work on it, ITC asked the Court to revisit that decision and stop the review, based on new decisions in the Mittal steel case. Timken also filed a motion to halt the review and keep the duties as they are. In late October, the court agreed, and halted the review until it could make a more in-depth decision.

In late December 2008, the Court then denied the ITC and Timken, reinstating the dumping duty review. In February 2009, the ITC once again resumed assessing its review and decision, and once again asked for comment from the industry. By late March 2009, Timken, JTEKT, Koyo, NSK and FAG all responded.

In May 2009, the ITC issued the results of that second review of antidumping duties on ball bearings from Japan and the UK, reaffirming its first decision that removing duties would harm the U.S. industry.

NSK, FAG and others appealed again to the Court of International Trade. In August 2009, the Court responded favorably to the companies, and once again instructed the ITC to review its methods and findings in regard to ball bearings from Japan and the UK. CIT Slip Op. 09-91
In that decision, the Court ominously said: "The court finds that the ITC’s remand determination is neither supported by substantial evidence or in accordance with law for the reasons explained herein, and therefore remands the case to the agency for a second time to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion." The court chastised the ITC further, saying, "In examining the Remand Determination under the applicable standard of review, the court finds that the agency’s determinations here do not pass muster because the ITC failed to (1) fully comport with the court’s remand instructions and (2) meaningfully demonstrate a rational connection between the facts in the record and the conclusions reached."

The CIT went on to deeply rebuke the ITC for its methods, determinations, ignoring contrary evidence, acting contrary to law and the court's direction, sloppy reasoning, hasty conclusions, and a number of other issues which it outlined in considerable detail.

In its conclusion, the Court said, "For the foregoing reasons, the court holds that the Remand Determination is not supported by substantial evidence or in accordance with law. The ITC acted contrary to law when it failed to determine whether the subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of likely injury to the domestic industry given the significant presence of non-subject imports in the domestic market. The ITC also failed to support its (1) decision to cumulate ball bearings from the United Kingdom with other subject imports and (2) analysis of the likely impact of subject imports on the domestic industry with substantial evidence."

The CIT issued five Orders to the ITC, with the new review to be completed by January 2010 and published by February 2010.