GDLSK

ITC FINDS THAT THE U.S. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY IS MATERIALLY INJURED BY TRUCK AND BUS TIRES IMPORTED FROM CHINA – ADD/CVD MAY BE REINSTATED

In a decision dated January 30, 2019, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) found that a domestic industry was materially injured by truck and bus tires (“TBT”) imported from China. This ITC determination followed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) November 1, 2018 decision that required the ITC to reconsider its original negative determination that the domestic TBT industry had not been materially injured by imports of TBT. The petitioners had challenged the ITC’s negative determination, and the court ordered the ITC to reconsider.

The parties that appeared in the CIT case now have an opportunity to file comments with the court explaining why the new ITC determination is incorrect. The court’s final decision can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”).

The January 30, 2019 decision may result in publication of antidumping duty (“ADD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) Orders on TBTs from China with a requirement to deposit AD/CV duties on future entries. Information regarding potential deposit rates is set forth below. These cash deposits will be in addition to regular customs duty and Section 301 duty currently payable on TBT imports.

The cash deposits will be effective upon publication of ADD/CVD Orders by the Department of Commerce (“DOC”).   Deposit or assessment of ADD/CVD will not be retroactive. Publication of the Orders could occur in the immediate future, even prior to a final judgment of the CIT.  Alternatively, the ADD/CVD Orders might not be published until after the CIT affirms the ITC’s recent decision (which will not be for several months, assuming the decision is affirmed). In either case, an affirmative ITC decision, affirmed by the CIT, can be appealed to the CAFC. Deposit obligations (if an Order is issued) will continue during an appeal. Please keep in mind that current cash deposits rates may be reduced or increased based on the results of a future annual administrative review conducted by the DOC.

The revival of this case has raised uncertainty as to the ADD/CVD cash deposit rates that will apply if ADD/CVD Orders are issued. When this case was terminated in 2017, the DOC had not yet issued the cash deposit rates following its final determinations. Based upon information in the final determination of the investigation, we anticipate that the below cash deposit rates will be put into place upon the publication of ADD/CVD orders:

COMPANY AD FINAL RATE W/OUT CVD OFFSET TOTAL CVD OFFSET AD CASH DEPOSIT RATE CVD CASH DEPOSIT RATE COMBINED AD/CVD DEPOSIT RATE
Prinx Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd. 9% 19.75% 0.00% 42.16% 42.16%
All Other Separate Rate Companies 9% 19.75% 0.00% 42.16% 42.16%
Double Coin 22.57% 20.01% 2.56% 20.98% 23.54%
Guizhou Tyre 22.57% 19.48% 3.09% 63.34% 66.43%
PRC-COUNTRY WIDE 22.57% 19.75% 2.82% 42.16% 44.98%

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact one of our attorneys.

mailgoogle_plustwitterFacebookredditlinkedin