US Says Indian Government Conducted Proper Audit of Exporter's Imported Input Consumption
The U.S. Jan. 6 supported the Commerce Department’s final results in an Indian off-road tires countervailing duty review against attacks from petitioner Titan Tire. A mandatory respondent didn’t receive the benefit of import duty exemptions from the Indian government, it said (Titan Tire Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00233).
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.
“[A] benefit exists where a foreign government exempts import charges upon export ‘to the extent that the exemption extends to inputs that are not consumed in the production of the exported product,’” the government said.
In determining whether such a benefit exists, Commerce will rely on the certification of an exporter’s home country so long as that country “maintains controls adequate to ensure that any remission or exemption of import duties does not extend to duties on inputs not consumed in production for export,” it said. Alternatively, if the foreign country doesn’t generally have a "reasonable and effective system or procedure in place” but has “carried out an examination of the actual inputs involved,” Commerce will still accept that government’s finding.
Regarding an import charges exemption granted to Indian exporter Balkrishna Industries, the government said, Commerce rightly relied on the Indian government’s verification report that determined the exporter’s imported inputs had all been consumed during production.
This was a reversal from the original countervailing duty investigation, the U.S. acknowledged. But it said that, unlike during the investigation, Commerce during the review was provided “substantial information documenting audited and detailed calculations of the amounts consumed of each imported input.”
Titan argued that Commerce couldn’t rely on any documentation not provided by the Indian government, but it hadn’t raised that claim at any point during the administrative proceeding and therefore hasn’t yet exhausted it, the government said.
It also said Commerce has “considerable discretion” to find that the information it has received from a party isn’t deficient.
And though Titan Tires was claiming that “the plain language of the regulation requires that the GOI must itself have conducted the examination, and that it must be ‘substantively meaningful and must cover the actual inputs and consumption during the POR,’” the petitioner hasn’t actually shown “why its asserted requirements have not been satisfied.” The record shows that the Indian government did conduct the investigation, and the investigation was thorough and accurate to the actual inputs in question, it said.
“Titan Tire’s arguments to the contrary misconstrue the record,” it said.