Federal-Mogul Corp., plaintiff, and Torrington Co., plaintiff-intervenor v. United States, defendant, and SKF USA Inc., SKF GmbH, GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG, INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG, INA Bearing Co., Inc., NTN Bearing Corp. of America, NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH, Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, GmbH, and MBB Helicopter Corp., defendant-intervenors; Torrington Co., plaintiff, and Federal-Mogul Corp., plaintiff-intervenor v. United States, defendant, and SKF USA Inc., SKF GmbH, GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG, NTN Bearing Corp. of America, NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH, Caterpillar Inc., Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Co., Inc., Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, and GmbH, and MBB Helicopter Corp., defendant-intervenors; NTN Bearing Corp. of America and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH, plaintiff v. United States and Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary Of Commerce, defendant, and Torrington Co. and Federal-Mogul Corp., defendant-intervenors; GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG, plaintiff v. United States, Defendant, and Torrington Co. and Federal-Mogul Corp., defendant-intervenors; Neuweg Fertigung GmbH, plaintiff v. United States, defendant, and Torrington Co. and Federal-Mogul Corp., defendant-intervenors

Federal-Mogul Corp., plaintiff, and Torrington Co., plaintiff-intervenor v. United States, defendant, and SKF USA Inc., SKF GmbH, GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG, INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG, INA Bearing Co., Inc., NTN Bearing Corp. of America, NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH, Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, GmbH, and MBB Helicopter Corp., defendant-intervenors Torrington Co., plaintiff, and Federal-Mogul Corp., plaintiff-intervenor v. United States, defendant, and SKF USA Inc., SKF GmbH, GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG, NTN Bearing Corp. of America, NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH, Caterpillar Inc., Fag Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA, INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Co., Inc., Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, and GmbH, and MBB Helicopter Corp., defendant-intervenors NTN Bearing Corp. of America and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH, plaintiff v. United States and Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary Of Commerce, defendant, and Torrington Co. and Federal-Mogul Corp., defendant-intervenors GMN Georg Muller Nurnberg AG, plaintiff v. United States, Defendant, and Torrington Co. and Federal-Mogul Corp., defendant-intervenors Neuweg Fertigung GmbH, plaintiff v. United States, defendant, and Torrington Co. and Federal-Mogul Corp., defendant-intervenors Court No. 91-07-00533 Court No. 91-08-00567 Court No. 91-08-00576 Court No. 91-08-00583 Court No. 91-08-00587 (Dated March 31, 1992) Frederick L. Ikenson, P. C. (Frederick L. Ikenson, J. Eric Nissley, Joseph A. Perna, Vand Larry Hampel) for plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenor and defendant-intervenor Federal-Mogul Corporation. Stewart and Stewart (Eugene L. Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, James R. Cannon, Jr., Wesley K. Caine, Christopher J. Callahan, Myron A. Brilliant, Geert De Prest, Margaret E.O. Edozien, Robert A. Weaver, David Scott Nanee and Amy S. Dwyer) for plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenor and defendant-intervenor The Torrington Company. Covington & Burling (Harvey M. Applebaum, David R. Grace and Thomas O. Barnett) for plaintiff Neuweg Fertigung GmbH. Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Robert E. Burke, Donald J. Unger, Kazumune V. Kano and Diane A. MacDonald) for plaintiff and defendant-intervenor NTN Bearing Corporation of America and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH. Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman (BruceM. Mitchell and Philip S. Gallos) for plaintiff and defendant-intervenor GMN Georg Muller Nürnberg AG. Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General; DavidM. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (VeltaA. Melnbrencis and Jane E. Meehan)-, of counsel: Dean A. Pinkert and Douglas S. Cohen, Attorney-Advisors, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for defendant. Howrey & Simon (Herbert C. Shelley, Scott A. Scheele, Alice A. Kipel and Thomas TrendT) for defendant-intervenors SKF USA Inc. and SKF GmbH. ArentFox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn (Stephen L. Gibson) for defendant-intervenor INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. Rogers & Wells (William Silverman and Ryan Trainer) for defendant-intervenor Mes-serschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, GmbH and MBB Helicopter Corporation. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy (Richard M. Belanger and Neil R. Ellis) for defendant-intervenor Caterpillar Inc. Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman (Max F. Schutzman, David L. Simon and Andrew B. Schroth) for defendant-intervenor FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KGaA. [MAJORITY — Tsoucalas, Judge:] Opinion and Order Tsoucalas, Judge: Defendant has moved to consolidate Court Nos. 91-07-00533, 91-08-00567, 91-08-00576, 91-08-00583 and 91-08-00587 under the name of Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 91-07-00533. The Torrington Company (“Torrington”) opposes the motion insofar as it would consolidate Court No. 91-08-00567, where Torrington is plaintiff, with the other cases at issue here. NTN Bearing Corporation of America and NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH (“NTN”) responded but takes no position on defendant’s motion. No other parties have responded to defendant’s motion. Defendant’s motion is filed under Rule 42(a) of this Court which states; When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated under a consolidated complaint; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. The rule gives the court broad discretion to grant or deny consolidation. Manuli, USA, Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 272, 277, 659 F. Supp. 244, 247 (1987). The five cases which defendant seeks to consolidate challenge the final determination of the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce” or “ITA”) calculation of dumping margins in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from the Federal Republic of Germany. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From The Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 Fed. Reg. 31,692 (1991). Defendant argues that since the same administrative record and final determination are at issue in these cases, consolidation would promote judicial efficiency. Also, defendant argues that consolidation will allow timely and final resolution of all issues in each of these cases in order to determine the final dumping margins to be applied and provide ultimate relief to all parties. Torrington opposes consolidation of Court No. 91-08-00567 because it believes that there has been no showing by defendant of common issues of law or fact in these cases, no showing that defendant would be injured by denial of consolidation, and because consolidation would inconvenience Torrington because its interests conflict with plaintiffs NTN, GMN Georg Muller Nürnberg AG (“GMN”) and Neuweg Fer-tigung GmbH in Court Nos. 91-08-00576, 91-08-00583 and 91-08-00587. Although the cases are clearly related, they are distinct. Of the twelve issues raised by plaintiff Federal-Mogul and the twelve issues raised by plaintiff Torrington, two can be considered identical. Plaintiffs Tor-rington and GMN raise one issue in common. The large number of issues which are not common to all the cases weigh against consolidation of these cases. Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 15 CIT 539, 540, Slip Op. 91-98 (Nov. 14,1991) at 5. In addition, there has been no showing that denying consolidation would injure defendant. However, consolidation could prejudice plaintiffs Federal-Mogul, Torrington, GMN and NTN’s cases by making them both a plaintiff and a defendant in the consolidated case. This is a situation generally to be avoided. Atkinson v. Roth, 297 F.2d 570, 575 (3rd Cir. 1961). Therefore, defendant’s motion to consolidate these cases is denied.