AD Petitioner Says Exporters Read Scope of Steel Tires Out of Context
A pair of exporters shouldn't be allowed to pluck "a few words out of context without examining the full language of that scope" in their challenge to a Commerce Department ruling that steel truck wheels made in Thailand with either Chinese-origin rims or discs are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wheels from China (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00143).
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 their motions for judgment in the case, Asia Wheel and ZC Rubber had said the plain language of the orders' scope limits the duties to steel wheels made from both Chinese-origin rims and discs (see 2402140027).
In a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on May 14, AD/CVD petitioner Accuride responded that Asia Wheel and ZC Rubber "attempt to elevate three words that appear in the scope, 'and' and 'from China,' to a status that controls the meaning of the rest of words of the scope." The petitioner said these claims "ignore the actual context of those three words," adding that the scope clearly limits their meaning to describe "a single, non-exclusive example of a covered product."
From the outset, the orders were set to cover "wheel parts, both an outer wheel rim or an inner wheel disc, as well as the assembled wheel," the brief said. Commerce later clarified the scope language by saying it includes rims and discs that have been further processed in a third country, "including, but not limited to, the welding and painting of rims and discs from China to form a steel wheel."
In so saying, the agency "cannot be understood as stating in any way that other types of third-country finishing of Chinese rims and/or discs were not covered," the petitioner said. Asia Wheel and ZC Rubber "ignore that the terms they spotlight come only after the unambiguous statement that the coverage of third-country processing is 'including, but not limited to' that merchandise given as an example," the brief said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that scope interpretations must consider all the language in the scope, the petitioner noted.
Accuride said that the "statement that 'rims and discs' are covered is not the same as stating that 'only rims and discs together' are covered," the brief said. "The plain language of the scope includes only the first statement, not the second." In this case, the word “and” means "both items are equally covered under the scope, not that one is not covered without the other."
The petitioner added that Comerce's application of its substantial transformation analysis is backed by substantial evidence. Asia Wheel and ZC Rubber's "attacks on the evidence supporting Commerce’s determination are based mainly on their attempts to apply irrelevant standards to Commerce’s analysis," the brief said. "Their reliance on passing statements by the courts or the agency fail to engage with the context of those statements or the fact that in each case the five-factor analysis that Commerce applied here was stated to be the proper analysis to apply."