US Says No Evidence on Record Temporary Tires Covered by AD Order
In response Feb. 10 to a steel labor union’s December motion for judgment (see 2412110059), the U.S. defended a Commerce Department scope ruling that temporary-use tires weren’t subject to antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, saying the union hadn’t exhausted its administrative remedies (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
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.
The government also said Commerce acted reasonably in reaching its ruling and hadn’t been required to issue a preliminary scope ruling.
First, it said that United Steelworkers had been given the chance to raise its arguments in comments on exporter Cheng Shin’s scope ruling request, but failed to do so.
It also disagreed with the union that record evidence showed Cheng Shin’s tires fit the orders’ size specifications, and, “[b]ecause no other party submitted comments or factual information (despite the opportunity to do so), the evidence submitted by Cheng Shin was the only evidence on the record.”
Plus, the orders only cover “all tires with a ‘P’ or ‘LT’ prefix,” whereas Cheng Shin’s tires have a “T” prefix, the government said.
Addressing the redacted evidence raised by the union, it said that the “description of the tires” in the evidence “does not contradict Cheng Shin’s description that the tires are mini-sized and only for temporary use as a spare.”
“Cheng Shin never claimed that its tires are not sold for any car use; rather, it explained that the tires are used as ‘temporary’ and ‘mini’ spare tires that do not meet the requirements for ‘regular service’ passenger cars and light truck tires,” it said.
And it said the union was wrong that Commerce went against the orders’ language by only relying on the TRA Year Book, an industry publication, even though the orders covered “[s]izes that fit passenger cars and light trucks," including, "but are not limited to, the numerical size designations listed in” the publication.
But this was a misinterpretation of Commerce’s ruling, it said. Instead, Commerce determined that it might consider T-type tires to be covered by the orders if they fell within the TRA Year Book. Further, if the department hadn’t intended the publication to be considered, it wouldn’t have mentioned it in the language of the scope, the government said.