Importer Undone by Own Comments in Scope Ruling on Roller Bearing Parts, CIT Says
The Court of International Trade upheld on Feb. 25 the Commerce Department's inclusion of Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce was entirely in line when it considered a prior scope ruling asked for by Precision and concluded that the products at issue in the prior scope ruling were identical to the products considered in the subsequent scope case.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In 2020, Precision had asked for a scope ruling on "cups, cones and rollers that are silver metallic in color and green-machined, but not heat-treated, at the time of importation." Commerce found the products to be in-scope merchandise.
The agency said that, despite the importer's characterization of heat treatment as a "transformative process," the 2020 merchandise already had the physical characteristics of unfinished tapered roller bearings. Commerce added that Precision "failed to articulate any scenario in which the 2020 merchandise would be imported and subsequently processed for an end-use other than the manufacture of" tapered roller bearings.
In 2023, Precision filed another scope ruling request, identifying the products at issue as "low-carbon steel blanks." The importer said the goods are made from "nonstandard steel" and sold to U.S. buyers who add "substantial value to the blanks by significant further processing." Crucially, Precision referred to the 2020 scope ruling as "putting these parts inside the scope" of the AD order.
Commerce opened the scope ruling, first finding that the merchandise is characterized as "unfinished TRB parts." The scope covers both finished and unfinished tapered roller bearings and parts thereof. The agency came to this conclusion based on the importer's statements on how the blanks are "destined to become finished TRBs" and "sold to US bearing manufacturers."
The agency then looked to the 2020 scope ruling and found the products at issue in the 2023 proceeding to be virtually identical to the products covered in the prior proceeding. Commerce reviewed photos of the 2020 and 2023 products and found them to be "indistinguishable."
Laroski said the agency's conclusions were reasonable.
The judge first upheld Commerce's finding that the parts were "unfinished TRB parts." Based on Precision's comments in the scope application in which it said its products are sold to U.S. bearing makers and failed to identify other end uses or applications, "it was reasonable for Commerce to conclude" that the products are unfinished bearing parts, the court said.
Laroski then sustained Commerce's reliance on the 2020 scope ruling, and, in particular, Precision's own comment in its 2023 scope ruling request that its products were put in the scope of the AD order by the 2020 request. The judge said it was "more than reasonable for Commerce to rely upon Precision’s own statements and photographs in concluding that the merchandise was the same as the 2020 merchandise and, in turn, that the merchandise was within the scope of the Order."
The court added that the case isn't one in which the agency faced "two inconsistent yet reasonable conclusions," but one in which the importer's "own statements and photographs led inexorably to the conclusion reached by Commerce." Without a timely challenge to the 2020 scope ruling, "it was reasonable for Commerce to root its 2023 determination in the analysis it performed for the same merchandise in 2020," the decision said.
(Precision Components v. United States, Slip Op. 25-20, CIT # 23-00218, dated 02/25/25; Judge: Joseph Laroski; Attorneys: David Craven of Craven Trade Law for plaintiff Precision Components; Geoffrey Long for defendant U.S. government)