The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration has ruled that SNR Roulements (France) can continue to stand in its treatment as a bearing manufacturer, for the purposes of tariffs, duties and other import issues 5251R9N7.

At stake are the dumping duties applied to ball bearings from France, cash deposit rates, and the treatment of SNR in future reviews of antidumping duties on ball bearings from France.

The changed circumstances review was requested by SNR in order for the U.S. to determine if SNR under NTN could continue to be treated the same as SNR Roulements.

In November 2009, the ITC issued its preliminary finding that SNR under NTN is the direct successor to SNR. The ITC said it took under consideration no changes to corporate structure or product mix, minor changes to management, production facilities, supplier base and customer base. In addition, NTN told the ITA it does not plan to make any significant changes to SNR facilities, management, suppliers, or customer base, and that it plans to maintain, market and promote NTN and SNR separately in all markets and for all applications.

Timken filed objections to the ITA's findings, asking the ITA to find SNR is not the same under NTN. In that request, it also asked that SNR be assigned the all-other duty rate for ball bearings from France until a new margin could be determined.

In its argument, Timken cited several articles from eBearing, including NTN press releases that it is absorbing and integrating all of SNR's U.S. aftermarket operations with NTN. Timken also cited NTN's own financial results, in which NTN laid out its progress timeline in integrating with SNR, specifically "one face to the customer," standardizing price lists, and other factors. Timken also noted that NTN has noted progress on joint procurement of materials for SNR. And an NTN press release claimed SNR's U.S. aftermarket and industrial operations have integrated into the NBCA organization, offering customers a single point of access.

In its response, NTN/SNR said SNR's European board and management have undergone few changes, and that its European operations for NTN and SNR remain separate, and that SNR has no plans to change the product mix or production facilities in Europe other than at its Argonay, France plant. And that the ITC was aware of the changes being made at Argonay when it made its original decision. NTN/SNR also argued much of the information had already been disclosed.

Finally, NTN/SNR argued that the point of review should be the "totality of circumstances" and not one specific point or factor. Taken as a whole, NTN/SNR argues the ITA should not change its view that SNR essentially remains a separate entity ... that the decision point should essentially be that post-acquisition SNR includes all the operations of pre-acquisition SNR.

In its decision, the ITC ultimately sided with NTN/SNR, finding that post-acquisition SNR is the successor to pre-acquisition SNR, "because its operations are not materially dissimilar from those of its predecessor." And that, "the record evidence demonstrates that there have only been minor changes in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base."

The ITA did find that SNR has so far made operating changes in one of its production facilities, but that did not add up to be "so substantial as to lead to a conclusion that it is now effectively a different plant..."

The ITA rejected the shared supplier relationships argument, noting that NTN's statement it will promote joint procurement did not necessarily prove SNR would actually use a different supplier base.

While the ITA did agree SNR would be selling U.S. customers through a different affiliate (NBCA), it found that did not necessarily mean the company's selling practices or customers base had changed.

Finally, the ITA said it must ignore all of Timken's arguments relating to changes NTN and SNR have promoted and said they have in store for the future -- consolidated warehousing, product mix changes, operational integration and others -- because they have not happened yet. The ITC said its ruling can only include information about what has happened so far, not what NTN and SNR may have planned for the future.