Ball Bearings Exporter Asks CIT to Reject Partial AFA or Grant Separate Rate
Another ball bearings exporter threw its complaint into the ring March 5 to contest a recent antidumping duty administrative review. It alleged that the Commerce Department unnecessarily applied partial adverse facts available and needlessly conducted a pricing differential analysis for the mandatory respondent (Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00038).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Exporter Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology filed the complaint related to an administrative review on tapered rolling bearings from China. Jingli, a separate rate respondent, received the same 24.78% antidumping duty rate as Shanghai Tanai Bearing, the sole mandatory respondent in the review.
That rate was based on partial adverse facts available and was reached by Commerce after a differential pricing analysis for the mandatory respondent, Jingli said.
Jingli said Commerce was wrong to apply adverse facts available to the costs of certain of Tanai’s inputs. It said Tanai had not failed to provide any information to the department regarding those inputs because Commerce was already using surrogate values to value those inputs, so “the factors of production that go into these inputs is not relevant.”
Other information Tanai failed to give Commerce was actually in the possession of third parties, meaning Tanai had no access to it, Jingli said.
Jingli also took issue with the differential pricing analysis undertaken by the department. A “large majority” of products sold by Tanai during the period of review were sold at only two prices, the exporter said. “When there is no more than one price change during the period of review,” differential pricing cannot be used, it said.
The exporter also alleged that Commerce shouldn't have deducted Section 301 duties payments from Tanai’s export price. It said the department likewise failed to include all of the payments Tanai received from its customers as part of that export price calculation, as the department wrongly excluded customer payments for Section 301 duties that exceeded the amounts of Section 301 duties actually paid.
All of Jingli’s counts except one match those in another recent complaint filed by Tanai, it said. It said its complaint differed only by asking for a separate rate from Tanai if all other charges were dismissed.