WASHINGTON (Aug. 13, 2010) — The United Steelworkers (USW) union is protesting a U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) judge's ruling that remands the Commerce Department's decision in 2007 to levy stiff antidumping and countervailing duties against certain pneumatic OTR tires from China.
“Our government will need to file results that comply with the CIT instructions,” the union said in a prepared statement. “We then expect our government to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”
The USW — whose petition in 2007 led to Commerce's investigation of OTR tire imports and ultimately to its decision to levy higher tariffs — said it did not expect any changes in the countervailing duties applied to Chinese OTR tires until a final decision in the appeals is reached. Titan Tire Corp., one of a handful of U.S. tire makers to produce tires in the segment being examined, joined the USW in its petition. Bridgestone Americas later joined Titan and the USW on this issue.
The CIT originally remanded the case to Commerce in September 2009 for revision, and Judge Jane Restani ruled Aug. 4 the agency failed to comply with instructions to review its methods of calculating countervailing duties — duties designed to offset government subsidies to manufacturers of goods exported to the U.S. — on non-market-economy (NME) products.
In her September 2009 decision, Judge Restani ruled that Commerce's calculation of both countervailing and antidumping duties on Chinese OTR tires constituted “double counting” and were thus unfair.
Because of this, Commerce must forgo imposing countervailing duties on the NME products before the CIT, she said.
Commerce ordered the duties of up to 210 percent on certain Chinese OTR tires in February 2008, based on the petitions for relief brought in 2007 by the United Steelworkers (USW) union and Titan Tire Corp.
Maurice “Morry” Taylor Jr., chairman and CEO of Titan International Inc., said the new CIT decision essentially was nothing new.
“The judge made her ruling a year ago, and now she's saying that she agrees with it,” he told Tire Business. “The Commerce Department now has 30 days to come up with an argument that she shouldn't have ruled that way, which I don't think is possible to do.”
A statement issued by Bridgestone Americas said the tire maker “believes that it is important that international trade is conducted on a level playing field that fosters healthy competition, leading to innovation, better quality and lower costs for consumers. In this case, our position remains consistent. We believe the U.S. Department of Commerce correctly determined that duties should offset the subsidies unfairly benefitting Chinese-produced OTR tires imported into the U.S. market.”
Maine Industrial Tire L.L.C., a successor to GPX International Tire Corp. — a company foreced into bankruptcy in large part because of the tariffs — has not yet responded Tire Business queries for comment.
GPX and its OTR tire-manufacturing subsidiary in China, Hebei Starbright Tire Co. Ltd., filed suit against Commerce in December 2008. The duties against GPX and Starbright's OTR tires, which amounted to 43.9 percent, were causing the companies great material injury, they said.