NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States

8 Citing cases

  1. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. U.S.

    Court No. 02-00502 Slip-Op. 03-89 (Ct. Int'l Trade Jul. 24, 2003)

    ( Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs rely on NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993) to support the proposition that the burden of production in an antidumping proceeding rests upon the respondent, who presumably has control of information relevant to the proceedings. ( Id. at 12.

  2. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. U.S.

    276 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003)   Cited 2 times

    ( Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs rely on NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993) to support the proposition that the burden of production in an antidumping proceeding rests upon the respondent, who presumably has control of information relevant to the proceedings. ( Id. at 12.

  3. Canadian Solar, Inc. v. United States, Solarworld Americas, Inc.

    918 F.3d 909 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    This is because it is reasonable to use the country where the merchandise was assembled to define the class or kind of merchandise within the scope of the orders—especially where, as here, the very imports found to cause injury due to unfair pricing and/or subsidies were panels assembled in China containing cells produced in other countries. Indeed, "[i]t would make little sense for Commerce to expend significant resources investigating certain imports, and for the [Commission] to determine that those imports were causing injury to a domestic industry, if Commerce were precluded from including those imports within the scope of the ... order[s] arising out of the ... investigation[s]." NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States , 997 F.2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Commerce has the discretion to alter the country of origin test it uses when the harm suffered by the domestic industry justifies such alteration.

  4. Qvd Food Co. v. United States

    658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

    Moreover, QVD is in an awkward position to argue that Commerce abused its discretion by not relying on evidence that QVD itself failed to introduce into the record. The FAO report is dated 2007. There is no suggestion that the report was not publicly available in late 2008, when Commerce invited QVD and other interested parties to submit relevant factual information for valuing factors of production. Although Commerce has authority to place documents in the administrative record that it deems relevant, “the burden of creating an adequate record lies with [interested parties] and not with Commerce.” Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 806 F.Supp. 1008, 1015 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992); see NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458–59 (Fed.Cir.1993). QVD clearly would not be in a position to contest Commerce's refusal to consider the FAO report had QVD itself attempted to introduce it into the record a week before the deadline for final results.

  5. QVD Food Co. v. United States

    658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

    The FAO report is dated 2007. There is no suggestion that the report was not publicly available in late 2008, when Commerce invited QVD and other interested parties to submit relevant factual information for valuing factors of production. Although Commerce has authority to place documents in the administrative record that it deems relevant, "the burden of creating an adequate record lies with [interested parties] and not with Commerce." Tianjin Mach. Imp. Exp. Corp. v. United States, 806 F.Supp. 1008, 1015 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992); see NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458-59 (Fed. Cir. 1993). QVD clearly would not be in a position to contest Commerce's refusal to consider the FAO report had QVD itself attempted to introduce it into the record a week before the deadline for final results.

  6. Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States

    800 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011)   Cited 1 times

    The Government argues that the Chinese Producers bear the burden of providing “record evidence establishing that the price quotes satisfy Commerce's selection criteria for surrogate values.” See Def. Response at 28–29; see also id. at 17–18 ( citing NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed.Cir.1993)). It is true that, as a general principle, “[t]he burden of creating an adequate record lies with respondents and not with Commerce.” See, e.g., Longkou Haimeng Mach. Co. v. United States, 33 CIT ––––, ––––, 617 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1372 (2009). However, what Commerce and the Government do not acknowledge is that the general principle that the respondent bears the burden of proof is somewhat in tension with (and must be interpreted so as to be consistent with) the obligations imposed on Commerce by the antidumping statute.

  7. Taian Ziyang Food Co. v. United States

    783 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that “product specificity” takes precedence over contemporaneity

    The Government argues that the GDLSK Plaintiffs bear the burden of “provid[ing] record evidence establishing that the price quotes met Commerce's selection criteria for surrogate values.” See Def. Response at 6 ( citing NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed.Cir.1993)). It is true that, as a general principle, “[t]he burden of creating an adequate record lies with respondents and not with Commerce.”

  8. Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi S.A. v. United States

    994 F. Supp. 395 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)   Cited 1 times

    In Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 914, 918, 890 F. Supp. 1106, 1109 (1995), the court reaffirmed that, while the agency had discretion to resort to sampling under the conditions specified in 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l(a), such sampling could "not be utilized in a manner which produces unrepresentative results." In determining whether the ITA has abused its discretion in its sampling methodology, a court must take into account the precise circumstances of each case. NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Those at bar do not reflect direct agency resort to "generally recognized sampling techniques" within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(a) (1993).