CIT Lets Importer Add 3 Rejected Documents to Record in AD Investigation on Thai Tires

In the decision, Katzmann also declined to consolidate Bridgestone's lawsuit with another case challenging the same AD proceeding brought by the petitioner, United Steelworkers. The judge said the cases concern different questions of fact and law.

In the investigation, Bridgestone's imports were hit with an adverse facts available rate AD of 48.39% on the basis that the company's "submitted data could not be verified." In particular, the agency said it found "numerous discrepancies, including significant, unresolved errors with respect to Bridgestone’s reporting of U.S. market rebate expenses, U.S. market destination, and certain missing or unverifiable sales expenses.”

At CIT, Bridgestone sought to add three documents to the record that Commerce refused to accept during a verification proceeding that took place in Nashville in June 2024. The three documents are an accounts receivable report, a rebate report and a rebate pivot table.

The accounts receivable report lists account balances Bridgestone reported it maintained with certain locations of an affiliated tire reseller. Commerce rejected the document, finding, among other things, that the "reconciliation did not include sales to all" the affiliated company's customers. The importer challenged the agency's findings as "inaccurate."

The rebate report contains information related to rebates Bridgestone gave to U.S. customers that Commerce rejected on the grounds that it "required organization and sorting by customer and rebate type to provide the information requested." Bridgestone asked the court to accept the full rebate report, claiming that the company presented the document to Commerce "in its entirety" during verification.

Lastly, the rebate pivot table is a "pivot table" summary that sorts the information in the full rebate report by customer and rebate type that Bridgestone says was submitted to Commerce during verification and is the missing chain in the record.

Katzmann held that Bridgestone, through its "briefing and affidavits," has shown that it "presented each of Rejected Documents for Commerce’s review at the June 2024 verification in Nashville." The judge said that while the U.S. claims Commerce properly rejected the documents, it doesn't contest that the documents were presented to the agency during verification, save for the pivot table.

Regarding the pivot table, Commerce said its verifiers didn't see the same table that Bridgestone now tries to add to the record, though affidavits submitted by the U.S. don't address whether the verifiers viewed the same document. Katzmann said this "affidavit closes off any argument by the Government that the Rebate Pivot Table differs from the document that Bridgestone 'presented' to Commerce at verification." Even after the court gave the government a chance to submit a response affidavit, the response affidavit "essentially agrees with Bridgestone on whether Bridgestone presented Commerce with the Rebate Pivot Table," the court noted.

The court then held that the rejected documents belong on the record for the court's review. While the U.S. said Commerce has wide latitude to accept or reject documents at verification, and that the agency's rejection of the documents means they should be shielded from judicial review, the court said the governing statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i), doesn't distinguish between accepted and rejected material. Instead, the law only refers to "information presented to or obtained by the Secretary."

Katzmann said that in his role, which requires the review of Commerce's decisions, he "must sometimes review administratively excluded material to determine the lawfulness of its exclusion." Such a reality "necessarily entails a limited departure from Commerce’s own definition of the 'administrative record,'" the judge said. If Commerce could alter the "scope of judicial review through its own decisions about what to include in the record, those decisions themselves would escape review" and would "undercut" 19 U.S.C. Section 1516a(b)(1)'s "mandate of broad reviewability," the court held.

While the court must consider whether it can decide the issue without access to certain documents, the court can't engage in such a process if it doesn't have Commerce's basis for making the decision. And here, at least part of the basis for Commerce's rejection of the documents "was the nature of the Rejected Documents themselves," the court said. While the U.S. "assumes that the court’s completion of the record for review is tantamount to a legal conclusion that Commerce erred in rejecting the Rejected Documents," Katzmann said this "assumption conflates the availability of review with the outcome of review."

The judge then declined to consolidate Bridgestone's case with United Steelworkers' challenge to the AD order, which contests Commerce's calculation of exporter Prinx's financial expense ratio and warranty expenses. “These claims invite independent analyses; as things now stand, at least, the court does not see how resolving a factual or legal issue in this case would influence the resolution of a corresponding issue in United Steel Workers," the court said.

(Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, Slip Op. 25-82, CIT # 24-00263, dated 07/03/25; Judge: Gary Katzmann; Attorneys: Daniel Cannistra of Crowell & Moring for plaintiff Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations; Sosun Bae for defendant U.S. government; Saad Chalchal of Schagrin Associates for defendant-intervenor United Steelworkers International Union)