Torrington Co. v. United States
14 C.I.T. 648, 747 F. Supp. 744, 14 Ct. Int'l Trade 648 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The International Trade Commission (ITC) has the statutory authority to define 'like products' and corresponding 'domestic industries' in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, even if its definition differs from the petitioner's or the International Trade Administration's (ITA) 'class or kind' finding, provided its determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Facts:
- Torrington Company, a domestic manufacturer, produced antifriction bearings in the United States.
- Torrington Company believed that certain foreign-made antifriction bearings were being imported into the United States and sold at unfairly low prices or with unfair subsidies.
- Torrington Company considered all antifriction bearings (excluding tapered roller bearings) to be a single, unified 'like product' and wished for the domestic industry producing these bearings to be treated as one.
- Antifriction bearings themselves are manufactured in various types, such as ball bearings, spherical roller bearings, cylindrical roller bearings, needle roller bearings, plain bearings, and slewing rings, which differ in their internal rolling elements and functional capabilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Torrington Company filed an antidumping and countervailing duty petition with the International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding imports of antifriction bearings.
- In May 1988, the ITC issued a preliminary determination, stating there was reason to believe six domestic industries were materially injured, thus differentiating among bearings based on the type of rolling element and finding six different like products.
- In May 1989, the ITC issued its final determinations, confirming six like products (ball bearings, spherical roller bearings, cylindrical roller bearings, needle roller bearings, plain bearings, and slewing rings), leading to negative injury determinations for some and affirmative for others.
- Torrington Company subsequently filed an action in the Court of International Trade, challenging the ITC's finding of six separate 'like products' and 'domestic industries' (specifically Counts 1 and 2 of its Complaint) by moving for partial summary judgment on the agency record.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the International Trade Commission (ITC) have the authority to determine multiple 'like products' and 'domestic industries' in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, deviating from the petitioner's proposed single 'like product' and 'domestic industry' definition, when such a determination is supported by substantial evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Tsoucalas, Judge
Yes, the International Trade Commission (ITC) has the authority to define multiple 'like products' and 'domestic industries' in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, even when deviating from the petitioner's definition, provided such determinations are supported by substantial evidence. The Court affirmed the ITC's finding of six separate 'like products' because the ITC is statutorily authorized to determine whether a domestic industry is materially injured by imports, and this authority includes defining 'like products' based on the evidence before it. The ITC's 'like product' determination is separate and distinct from the International Trade Administration's (ITA) 'class or kind' finding, and inconsistencies between the agencies are permissible and 'built into the law.' The legislative history's warning against narrowly interpreting 'like product' refers to allowing minor differences between domestic and imported products to prevent comparison, not to distinctions made among domestic products themselves. The ITC's determination that the various antifriction bearings constitute separate like products was supported by substantial evidence when considering factors like physical appearance, interchangeability, customer perception, and manufacturing facilities, despite some similarities in distribution channels and initial processing steps. Specifically, the type of rolling element is the key physical characteristic determining the functional capability and use of the bearing, making different types of bearings functionally distinct and generally not interchangeable without product redesign. Customer perceptions also reflect these differences. While initial manufacturing steps might be similar, finishing and assembly often require specialized equipment, and many facilities are dedicated to specific bearing types. The existence of some similarities among products does not negate a determination supported by substantial evidence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the broad discretionary authority of the International Trade Commission (ITC) in defining 'like products' during trade investigations. It establishes that the ITC is not bound by a petitioner's initial scope or even another agency's (ITA) classifications, allowing it to segment broader product categories into multiple 'like products' based on factual distinctions. The ruling reinforces the deferential 'substantial evidence' standard of review for ITC determinations, making it challenging for aggrieved parties to overturn such findings. This precedent provides a framework for how the ITC can narrowly define 'like products,' leading to more targeted injury determinations and a more precise application of antidumping and countervailing duties based on the specific characteristics and uses of goods.
