Chinese OTR tire makers appeal import duties

NEW YORK — Four Chinese OTR tire manufacturers have followed through on their promise to appeal the U.S. Department of Commerce's revamped antidumping and countervailing duties against them for the 2014-15 review period.

Aeolus Tyre Co. Ltd., Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd., Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co. Ltd. and Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co. Ltd. all filed separate complaints before the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York May 4 and 5, requesting reversal and remand of the Commerce rulings.

All of the appeals were filed well within the 30-day deadline after the publication of the Commerce decisions in the Federal Register. The agency released the results of its countervailing duty review for calendar year 2014 on April 18, and the results of its antidumping duty review for Sept. 1, 2014, through Aug. 31, 2015, on April 21.

In those determinations, Commerce revised countervailing duties during the period to between 34.46 and 46.01 percent, and antidumping duties to between 33.08 and 105.31 percent.

In their court briefs, the tire makers had similar but varying complaints. In its brief, for example, Aeolus Tyre said Commerce erred in finding that the Chinese government controls Aeolus' export activities.

Xuzhou Xugong complained that Commerce had erred in deducting from its U.S. prices the difference between the standard value-added tax of 17 percent and the rebate rate for OTR tires of 9 percent. Qingdao FTZ also noted this in its brief, because the dumping rate calculated for Qingdao FTZ was based on the dumping margin for Xuzhou Xugong.

Guizhou Tyre filed the longest complaint. In its brief, Guizhou alleged that Commerce's inclusion of VAT and import duties in its deliberations was unsupported by evidence and contrary to law. The company also claimed the agency erred in assuming Guizhou's U.S. importer (GTC North America) benefited from the loan program administered by China Export Import Bank.

The next action in the cases is up to the court, and there is no timetable, according to Richard P. Ferrin, an attorney representing Xuzhou Xugong.

Brandon M. Petelin, an attorney representing Guizhou, Aeolus and Qingdao, said it is typical for plaintiffs to consolidate their cases in matters before the CIT.

“Whether that happens is up to the judge,” Mr. Petelin said.

Titan International Inc., which joined with the United Steelworkers in 2007 to file petitions for relief from Chinese OTR imports with the International Trade Commission, earlier praised the Commerce Department for raising duties.

In a comment about the appeal, Titan Chairman Maurice Taylor Jr. said it was the Chinese tire makers that requested the Commerce review in the first place.

“I think they asked for it,” Mr. Taylor said. “I think the Commerce Department got a little tired of their shenanigans.”