US Says 2020 Scope Ruling on Roller Bearings Settles Challenge to 2023 Ruling
The government told the Court of International Trade that importer Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Filing a reply brief on July 12, the U.S. said Precision conceded that its blanks described in the 2023 scope ruling request are plainly covered by a 2020 ruling similarly finding the blanks to fall under the scope of the order (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The government argued that Precision can't challenge the 2020 ruling, "which is a primary interpretive source within" Commerce's regulations. Instead of acknowledging that its goods are covered by the 2020 ruling which can't be impugned, Precision "mounts a de novo challenge" to the 2023 ruling, claiming that "additional processing is necessary for the low-carbon steel blanks to become finished" tapered roller bearings.
However, in the 2020 ruling, Commerce already said that the low-carbon steel blanks are unfinished tapered roller bearing parts. None of the importer's claims "can overcome the language of the order and the 2020 Final Scope Ruling," the brief said.
In its brief, Precision said that two Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings, "which would cover blanks made of bearing steel," don't describe its goods as parts but as suitable for use in the manufacture of roller bearings (see 2404050051). The U.S. said this claim is "unpersuasive," since the order says that HTS subheadings are only provided for "convenience and customs purposes" and that the "written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently said HTS subheadings can't be used to contradict a scope's written description, the government noted (see 2405150027).
The government also addressed Precision's claims that CBP has historically classified these blanks as materials and not bearings. The U.S. said past CBP decisions are only relevant as "secondary interpretive" sources, whereas the 2020 ruling is a primary interpretive source.
Precision also said its steel blanks go through "significant processing" to become a bearing part. In response, the government said the "physical changes and value occasioned by further processing of a product in the United States are not factors that Commerce considers" as a (k)(1) primary interpretive source.